4 ms·

No, that isn’t a “commons”. And a commons in terms of the “tragedy of commons” isn’t well defined either. And the “tragedy of the commons” isn’t well supported

No, that isn’t a “commons”. And a commons in terms of the “tragedy of commons” isn’t well defined either. And the “tragedy of the commons” isn’t well supported either. For example, sunlight. Sunlight delivers huge value to society but profit to no one. According to your claims that is a “commons”. And according to your theory unless a government manages sunlight it will always result in a “tragedy of commons”. But we can even extend this to human created stuff. Especially scientific and mathematical knowledge. Lots of knowledge has been created that benefits everyone but does not deliver profit to anyone. For example calculating the area of a rectangle or a triangle. These things still fit your definition of a “commons” being things that “deliver huge value to society but no profit to anyone”.

chii 2y ago
> Sunlight delivers huge value to society but profit to no one. According to your claims that is a “commons”. And according to your theory unless a government manages sunlight it will always result in a “tragedy of commons”. or perhaps the tragedy hasn't happened yet. And in any case, humans barely harvest the sunlight at the moment. So it might yet happen in the future. What if by building a dyson swarm, the sunlight becomes owned? Would that not be a tragedy then? > These things still fit your definition of a “commons” being things that “deliver huge value to society but no profit to anyone”. And we get increasingly fewer and fewer of these knowledge today imho, thanks to a tragedy called IP law. So i do claim that my definition of commons is inline with the idea of commons, and that tragedy of the commons can (and probably will) still happen.
curtisblaine 2y ago
Well, access to sunlight is already a problem in high density residential areas. When you're surrounded by tall buildings in every direction, it's hard to get sunlight in your house.
- fweimer 2y ago
  And this is covered by building codes (and labor codes in case of commercial use).
deleted 2y ago
[deleted]

chii 2y ago

> Sunlight delivers huge value to society but profit to no one. According to your claims that is a “commons”. And according to your theory unless a government manages sunlight it will always result in a “tragedy of commons”. or perhaps the tragedy hasn't happened yet. And in any case, humans barely harvest the sunlight at the moment. So it might yet happen in the future. What if by building a dyson swarm, the sunlight becomes owned? Would that not be a tragedy then? > These things still fit your definition of a “commons” being things that “deliver huge value to society but no profit to anyone”. And we get increasingly fewer and fewer of these knowledge today imho, thanks to a tragedy called IP law. So i do claim that my definition of commons is inline with the idea of commons, and that tragedy of the commons can (and probably will) still happen.

curtisblaine 2y ago

Well, access to sunlight is already a problem in high density residential areas. When you're surrounded by tall buildings in every direction, it's hard to get sunlight in your house.

fweimer 2y ago
And this is covered by building codes (and labor codes in case of commercial use).

deleted 2y ago

[deleted]