4 ms·

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tragedy_of_the_commons https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tragedy_of_the_commons It's a finite resource that's being provided for free

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tragedy_of_the_commons https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tragedy_of_the_commons It's a finite resource that's being provided for free. The photographers making money have every interest in monopolizing that space. Leaving this situation unchecked produces consequences that are so predictable they have their own specific label.

kmeisthax 2y ago
I... don't think this is about the physical space that the cameras take up. I think someone at ULA management thinks they can make $$$ selling stock photos of launches, but someone else still wants press organizations to have pictures, so the compromise was "media organizations only, must show evidence of publication, no sublicensing".
stavros 2y ago
This isn't a tragedy of the commons, as this isn't even in the commons: it's a private space. The ULA should just charge for access.
- akira2501 2y ago
  > it's a private space. That is being provided for free on a first come first serve basis. I'm not sure why it's difficult to apprehend the challenges that naturally come with this type of arrangement. > The ULA should just charge for access. This would increase the operational load from serving this group. It seems to me this is the opposite of what they want.
  - stavros 2y ago
    From Wikipedia: > The tragedy of the commons is the concept which states that if many people enjoy unfettered access to a finite, valuable resource such as a pasture, they will tend to overuse it and may end up destroying its value altogether. The photographers don't destroy the value of the space, as it's there after they leave, as whole as before they came. The tragedy of the commons more commonly refers to resources that can be consumed/destroyed. Otherwise using any resource at all is a tragedy of the commons.
    - akira2501 2y ago
      > The tragedy of the commons more commonly refers to resources that can be consumed/destroyed. Physical space and access are both resources. Two objects can't occupy the same physical space. Access is provided on a first come, first served basis. > Otherwise using any resource at all is a tragedy of the commons. When one person using the resource, even temporarily, deprives another of using it, then we are in similar, but obviously not identical, territory. Critically, since we CANNOT increase the amount of space for photographers on the site, we face the same _immediate consequences_ as the given example. If we didn't then this article would not exist and we would not be having this discussion.
      - stavros 2y ago
        Again, that's not what a tragedy of the commons is. Temporarily using a finite resource isn't a tragedy of the commons. It's just usage.
        akira2501 2y ago
        That's precisely what it is. The definition has an origin which you are rather parochially clinging to. The term has definitely been broadened to include an entire class of similar social dilemmas, examples of which abound, including my original comparison.
      - michaelmrose 2y ago
        You are just using the term incorrectly the same way people try to wield logical fallacies as if they are a spell in Harry Potter as if naming the argument obviates the need to make the argument now you scramble to hold the position. Not having enough of something isn't a tragedy. It would be a tragedy if people with a pop up T-shirt site prevented actual journalism for lack of resources but we have no reason to believe that is so and that is prevented by giving priority to those affiliated with actual publications ahead of bloggers and capping total cameras. The solution doesn't make sense even if the tragedy were real
        2y ago
madaxe_again 2y ago
Uh. Unless you are into some heavy animist stuff, taking photos does not “use up” the object being photographed. You’re capturing photons which are emitted or reflected by the object being photographed - or are you concerned that we will run out of photons? I can assure you, we will not.
michaelmrose 2y ago
How does stopping people from selling photos deal with this? Logically you simply figure out priority and if that is insufficient you could use a lottery. Also you propose the problem but offer no evidence that it exists.

kmeisthax 2y ago

I... don't think this is about the physical space that the cameras take up. I think someone at ULA management thinks they can make $$$ selling stock photos of launches, but someone else still wants press organizations to have pictures, so the compromise was "media organizations only, must show evidence of publication, no sublicensing".

stavros 2y ago

This isn't a tragedy of the commons, as this isn't even in the commons: it's a private space. The ULA should just charge for access.

akira2501 2y ago
> it's a private space. That is being provided for free on a first come first serve basis. I'm not sure why it's difficult to apprehend the challenges that naturally come with this type of arrangement. > The ULA should just charge for access. This would increase the operational load from serving this group. It seems to me this is the opposite of what they want.
- stavros 2y ago
  From Wikipedia: > The tragedy of the commons is the concept which states that if many people enjoy unfettered access to a finite, valuable resource such as a pasture, they will tend to overuse it and may end up destroying its value altogether. The photographers don't destroy the value of the space, as it's there after they leave, as whole as before they came. The tragedy of the commons more commonly refers to resources that can be consumed/destroyed. Otherwise using any resource at all is a tragedy of the commons.
  - akira2501 2y ago
    > The tragedy of the commons more commonly refers to resources that can be consumed/destroyed. Physical space and access are both resources. Two objects can't occupy the same physical space. Access is provided on a first come, first served basis. > Otherwise using any resource at all is a tragedy of the commons. When one person using the resource, even temporarily, deprives another of using it, then we are in similar, but obviously not identical, territory. Critically, since we CANNOT increase the amount of space for photographers on the site, we face the same _immediate consequences_ as the given example. If we didn't then this article would not exist and we would not be having this discussion.
    - stavros 2y ago
      Again, that's not what a tragedy of the commons is. Temporarily using a finite resource isn't a tragedy of the commons. It's just usage.
      - akira2501 2y ago
        That's precisely what it is. The definition has an origin which you are rather parochially clinging to. The term has definitely been broadened to include an entire class of similar social dilemmas, examples of which abound, including my original comparison.
    - michaelmrose 2y ago
      You are just using the term incorrectly the same way people try to wield logical fallacies as if they are a spell in Harry Potter as if naming the argument obviates the need to make the argument now you scramble to hold the position. Not having enough of something isn't a tragedy. It would be a tragedy if people with a pop up T-shirt site prevented actual journalism for lack of resources but we have no reason to believe that is so and that is prevented by giving priority to those affiliated with actual publications ahead of bloggers and capping total cameras. The solution doesn't make sense even if the tragedy were real
      - 2y ago

madaxe_again 2y ago

Uh. Unless you are into some heavy animist stuff, taking photos does not “use up” the object being photographed. You’re capturing photons which are emitted or reflected by the object being photographed - or are you concerned that we will run out of photons? I can assure you, we will not.

michaelmrose 2y ago

How does stopping people from selling photos deal with this? Logically you simply figure out priority and if that is insufficient you could use a lottery. Also you propose the problem but offer no evidence that it exists.