HEY.
-
@nacly @dalius_berger @PsyChuan
I don't know where to get a good long read that provides an overview, it was a big part of Irish news for a while.
Here's an article about the over-estimate and other details, like how leaks were the biggest issue by a mile:
"It had been estimated homes could be using up to 190 litres per person per day,"
"But it has emerged that 93% of households are only using about 250 litres per day, or just over 80 litres per person."
@davey_cakes @dalius_berger @PsyChuan Thank you!
-
@matildalove @0x4d6165 @PsyChuan This is exactly my takeaway from the lesson.
Don't let assholes ruin the commons. Whether that's by stealing from it, enclosing pieces of it or just general asshattery.
Douchebags are inevitable, knock them down as needed.
@gooba42 yooooo Doctor Steel!
-
HEY.
whenever someone comes at you, a leftie, about the "tragedy of the commons," just remember:
- Elinor Ostrom won a goddamn Nobel Prize in Economics for pointing out that it was a bullshit idea.
- the commons worked as a concept for hundreds of years until the land was Inclosed.
- the dude that named the concept, Garrett Hardin, was literally a eugenicist and believed that letting people starve to death was a good form of population control.
@PsyChuan The "tragedy of the commons" depends on a flawed definition of rationality. (I've tried to trace that notion back—someone told me Hume?) Under "superrationality" (something which parents teach their 6-year-old children, so not *that* super), there would be no tragedy of the commons. And indeed that's why commons worked and continue to work in many times and places, as you point out.
The very idea that they can't work undermines their working.
-
@gooba42 yooooo Doctor Steel!
@PsyChuan I've heard questionable things about the man, but the idea is way more important and timeless.
-
@PsyChuan I've heard questionable things about the man, but the idea is way more important and timeless.
@gooba42 wait what questionable things?
-
@gooba42 wait what questionable things?
@PsyChuan Sounds like he was a nightmare of a philanderer.
The utopian playland needs to be remembered.
-
@witchescauldron @PsyChuan You CAN have some forms of capitalism whilst still regulating the commons for everyone's benefit, I believe. But it does need restraint and legal restriction to do so. Personally, I would probably prefer Capitalism as we have it now to be dismantled, but there doesn't appear to be enough people to agree with me, so we might have to work on the legal and practical regulation.
No. Capitalism is evil to the core, there is no baby in the bathwater. Imagine saying back in the day: "Personally, I would probably prefer chattel slavery as we have it now to be dismantled, but there doesn't appear to be enough people to agree with me, so we might have to work on the legal and practical regulation."
It's the same with capitalism. Don't even consider compromising with it!
Besides, state is also evil to the core. You can't use it against capitalism, and the rule of law is bullshit.
-
@PsyChuan Common ownership can work, just like you can get an agreed optimal Prisoners Dilemma. However, even without enclosure by some external actor (such as occurred in the Scottish highlands), it can end in a tragegic outcome. A clear example is in our repeated failures in different fisheries to agree to manage fish stocks sustainably.
-
@PsyChuan The atmosphere is a commons. We all use it to breathe and generally rely on it not to change too much.
Many people dump CO2 into the atmosphere, changing its properties and behaviour, leading to harm.
Everyone experiences the harm, including those who don't change the atmosphere.
Some people dump much, much more than others but face no additional costs.
If this isn't a tragedy of a commons I don't know what it is.
-
@whathappened @marjolica @PsyChuan
Also see the Maine lobster fishery for an example of how local control prevents so-called tragedies of the commons. As How did we get here says fisheries are abused because capitalists impose hierarchical controls for their own nefarious purposes.
-
HEY.
whenever someone comes at you, a leftie, about the "tragedy of the commons," just remember:
- Elinor Ostrom won a goddamn Nobel Prize in Economics for pointing out that it was a bullshit idea.
- the commons worked as a concept for hundreds of years until the land was Inclosed.
- the dude that named the concept, Garrett Hardin, was literally a eugenicist and believed that letting people starve to death was a good form of population control.
@PsyChuan The Nobel Prize in Economics is fake. https://www.chibus.com/perspectives/2024/2/13/the-nobel-prize-in-economics-is-fake
-
@PsyChuan The tragedy of the commons is absolutely real and a real problem. There are milions of exsmples.
It is the capitalist solution to it that is bulshit.You're right about "the capitalist solution", but I think you misunderstand what the "tragedy of the commons" actually was. As put forward by Hardin, it was the claim that commons *inevitably* failed. Not just that shit happens.
That's bullshit, and I back that up with this:
https://c.im/@whathappened/113431315039344882and this:
https://www.thelandmagazine.org.uk/articles/short-history-enclosure-britainand this:
https://c.im/@whathappened/113431238520344807 -
You're right about "the capitalist solution", but I think you misunderstand what the "tragedy of the commons" actually was. As put forward by Hardin, it was the claim that commons *inevitably* failed. Not just that shit happens.
That's bullshit, and I back that up with this:
https://c.im/@whathappened/113431315039344882and this:
https://www.thelandmagazine.org.uk/articles/short-history-enclosure-britainand this:
https://c.im/@whathappened/113431238520344807@whathappened @PsyChuan I know what the tragedy of the commons is, and it is definitely real, there are many examples! For example, the farmers that have unrestricted access to a shared aquifer by making their one wells has destroyed and is destroying their water resources in a ratrace where nobody has incentives to be the one that uses less water. The solution for that is governmental regulation and control. Another example is the climate, global warming. Rising temperatures is fucking the whole world, but individual countries don't have real incentives to be the only ones sacrificing some growth while the rest don't care.
There are plenty of examples, and the solutions are varied.
The fact that we hate the proposed solution and the man who proposed them does not negate the problem. -
@whathappened @PsyChuan I know what the tragedy of the commons is, and it is definitely real, there are many examples! For example, the farmers that have unrestricted access to a shared aquifer by making their one wells has destroyed and is destroying their water resources in a ratrace where nobody has incentives to be the one that uses less water. The solution for that is governmental regulation and control. Another example is the climate, global warming. Rising temperatures is fucking the whole world, but individual countries don't have real incentives to be the only ones sacrificing some growth while the rest don't care.
There are plenty of examples, and the solutions are varied.
The fact that we hate the proposed solution and the man who proposed them does not negate the problem."I know what the tragedy of the commons is..."
No, you clearly don't.
"The solution for that is governmental regulation and control."
No, that's a fantasy. You'll never see that come to pass. State is a big part of the problem and that cannot be changed.
You should explore this thread:
https://c.im/@whathappened/113427830249968598 -
"I know what the tragedy of the commons is..."
No, you clearly don't.
"The solution for that is governmental regulation and control."
No, that's a fantasy. You'll never see that come to pass. State is a big part of the problem and that cannot be changed.
You should explore this thread:
https://c.im/@whathappened/113427830249968598@whathappened @PsyChuan
1- y es I do
2- "The" solution is not more governmental control. Governmental control is "A" possible solution that can work in some cases. Self organisation of the community can be a solution in other circumstances (such as the "tribunal de las aguas" that has been assigning water resources depending on availability and needs for more than 800 years). Solutions are varied and context dependent. -
@whathappened @PsyChuan
1- y es I do
2- "The" solution is not more governmental control. Governmental control is "A" possible solution that can work in some cases. Self organisation of the community can be a solution in other circumstances (such as the "tribunal de las aguas" that has been assigning water resources depending on availability and needs for more than 800 years). Solutions are varied and context dependent.When you say "the tragedy of the commons" is real, you're saying that commons ALWAYS, WITHOUT EXCEPTION, result in tragedy. I already posted a large collection of examples that prove this is false.
(Unless you're redefining the phrase, in which case you can pretend it means whatever you want
️)When you say "the tragedy of the commons" is real, you're also saying that the only solution to the tragedy is privatization and state control, which Hardin insidiously referred to as "mutual coercion"
but which is actually what has caused the disastrous mess we're in now.As long as states exist and capital rules the planet we will not see a way out of this mess actually happen.
-
When you say "the tragedy of the commons" is real, you're saying that commons ALWAYS, WITHOUT EXCEPTION, result in tragedy. I already posted a large collection of examples that prove this is false.
(Unless you're redefining the phrase, in which case you can pretend it means whatever you want
️)When you say "the tragedy of the commons" is real, you're also saying that the only solution to the tragedy is privatization and state control, which Hardin insidiously referred to as "mutual coercion"
but which is actually what has caused the disastrous mess we're in now.As long as states exist and capital rules the planet we will not see a way out of this mess actually happen.
@whathappened @PsyChuan I obviously don't agree with this. I think this is a narrowed down definition of the tragedy of the commons made so to make it impossible to disagree with the conclussion.
-
@whathappened @PsyChuan I obviously don't agree with this. I think this is a narrowed down definition of the tragedy of the commons made so to make it impossible to disagree with the conclussion.
"Therein is the tragedy. Each man is locked into a system that compels him to increase his herd without limit – in a world that is limited. Ruin is the destination toward which all men rush, each pursuing his own best interest in a society that believes in the freedom of the commons. Freedom in a commons brings ruin to all."
— Garrett Hardin, The Tragedy of the Commons
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tragedy_of_the_commons
Hardin himself backed-off his original definition because Elinor Ostrom proved it was wrong with her book Governing the Commons.
He did not use your argument that she "narrowed down" his definition, rather he "eventually revised his argument, in light of Ostrom's work, explaining that what he should have called it was the tragedy of *unmanaged* commons..."
https://kolektiva.social/@HeavenlyPossum/109449321659418326
see also:
https://www.thelandmagazine.org.uk/articles/short-history-enclosure-britainExamples proving Hardin wrong:
Rundale System of Common Property
https://kolektiva.social/@HeavenlyPossum/110219111305684330humans all over the globe have been actively managing our environment successfully and sustainably for many millennia
https://c.im/@whathappened/113431238520344807 -
"Therein is the tragedy. Each man is locked into a system that compels him to increase his herd without limit – in a world that is limited. Ruin is the destination toward which all men rush, each pursuing his own best interest in a society that believes in the freedom of the commons. Freedom in a commons brings ruin to all."
— Garrett Hardin, The Tragedy of the Commons
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tragedy_of_the_commons
Hardin himself backed-off his original definition because Elinor Ostrom proved it was wrong with her book Governing the Commons.
He did not use your argument that she "narrowed down" his definition, rather he "eventually revised his argument, in light of Ostrom's work, explaining that what he should have called it was the tragedy of *unmanaged* commons..."
https://kolektiva.social/@HeavenlyPossum/109449321659418326
see also:
https://www.thelandmagazine.org.uk/articles/short-history-enclosure-britainExamples proving Hardin wrong:
Rundale System of Common Property
https://kolektiva.social/@HeavenlyPossum/110219111305684330humans all over the globe have been actively managing our environment successfully and sustainably for many millennia
https://c.im/@whathappened/113431238520344807"Ostrom illustrated what anthropologists and people in stateless societies have known for generations: people are perfectly capable of working out rules to sustainably manage shared resources. In her book, Ostrom detailed one common pasture in Switzerland that has been in continuous use since the 1500s. She also described shared fishing rights in Turkey, shared agricultural and forest land in Japan, and shared irrigation systems in Spain. There is no tragedy.
This is not to say that establishing and maintaining systems of shared property is trivially easy or inevitably successful. There will be times when these systems fail. There are probably some scales at which coordination becomes impossible, such as at the level of the atmosphere or the world's oceans at a global scale. Commons management takes constant work and is often very hard. But over-exploitation is not logically and inexorably inevitable. There is no tragedy."
-
HEY.
whenever someone comes at you, a leftie, about the "tragedy of the commons," just remember:
- Elinor Ostrom won a goddamn Nobel Prize in Economics for pointing out that it was a bullshit idea.
- the commons worked as a concept for hundreds of years until the land was Inclosed.
- the dude that named the concept, Garrett Hardin, was literally a eugenicist and believed that letting people starve to death was a good form of population control.
@PsyChuan what is commons?
-
S suneauken@mastodon.world shared this topic
