Skip to content
  • Hjem
  • Seneste
  • Etiketter
  • Populære
  • Verden
  • Bruger
  • Grupper
Temaer
  • Light
  • Brite
  • Cerulean
  • Cosmo
  • Flatly
  • Journal
  • Litera
  • Lumen
  • Lux
  • Materia
  • Minty
  • Morph
  • Pulse
  • Sandstone
  • Simplex
  • Sketchy
  • Spacelab
  • United
  • Yeti
  • Zephyr
  • Dark
  • Cyborg
  • Darkly
  • Quartz
  • Slate
  • Solar
  • Superhero
  • Vapor

  • Default (No Skin)
  • No Skin
Kollaps
FARVEL BIG TECH
  1. Forside
  2. Ikke-kategoriseret
  3. HEY.

HEY.

Planlagt Fastgjort Låst Flyttet Ikke-kategoriseret
59 Indlæg 37 Posters 0 Visninger
  • Ældste til nyeste
  • Nyeste til ældste
  • Most Votes
Svar
  • Svar som emne
Login for at svare
Denne tråd er blevet slettet. Kun brugere med emne behandlings privilegier kan se den.
  • edwiebe@scribili.masto.hostE edwiebe@scribili.masto.host

    @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@c.imW This user is from outside of this forum
    whathappened@c.imW This user is from outside of this forum
    whathappened@c.im
    wrote sidst redigeret af
    #48

    @edwiebe

    It's capitalism, colonialism, state, hierarchy.

    @PsyChuan

    1 Reply Last reply
    0
    • whathappened@c.imW whathappened@c.im

      @marjolica

      How can that be a "clear example" in a world ruled by capital? 🤔

      @PsyChuan

      adrianriskin@kolektiva.socialA This user is from outside of this forum
      adrianriskin@kolektiva.socialA This user is from outside of this forum
      adrianriskin@kolektiva.social
      wrote sidst redigeret af
      #49

      @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.

      1 Reply Last reply
      0
      • psychuan@plush.cityP psychuan@plush.city

        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.

        fiend_unpleasant@mastodon.socialF This user is from outside of this forum
        fiend_unpleasant@mastodon.socialF This user is from outside of this forum
        fiend_unpleasant@mastodon.social
        wrote sidst redigeret af
        #50

        @PsyChuan The Nobel Prize in Economics is fake. https://www.chibus.com/perspectives/2024/2/13/the-nobel-prize-in-economics-is-fake

        1 Reply Last reply
        0
        • aurochs@todon.euA aurochs@todon.eu

          @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.

          whathappened@c.imW This user is from outside of this forum
          whathappened@c.imW This user is from outside of this forum
          whathappened@c.im
          wrote sidst redigeret af
          #51

          @aurochs

          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/113431315039344882

          and this:
          https://www.thelandmagazine.org.uk/articles/short-history-enclosure-britain

          and this:
          https://c.im/@whathappened/113431238520344807

          and this:
          https://c.im/@whathappened/113432448395719328

          @PsyChuan

          aurochs@todon.euA 1 Reply Last reply
          0
          • whathappened@c.imW whathappened@c.im

            @aurochs

            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/113431315039344882

            and this:
            https://www.thelandmagazine.org.uk/articles/short-history-enclosure-britain

            and this:
            https://c.im/@whathappened/113431238520344807

            and this:
            https://c.im/@whathappened/113432448395719328

            @PsyChuan

            aurochs@todon.euA This user is from outside of this forum
            aurochs@todon.euA This user is from outside of this forum
            aurochs@todon.eu
            wrote sidst redigeret af
            #52

            @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@c.imW 1 Reply Last reply
            0
            • aurochs@todon.euA aurochs@todon.eu

              @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@c.imW This user is from outside of this forum
              whathappened@c.imW This user is from outside of this forum
              whathappened@c.im
              wrote sidst redigeret af
              #53

              @aurochs

              "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

              @PsyChuan

              aurochs@todon.euA 1 Reply Last reply
              0
              • whathappened@c.imW whathappened@c.im

                @aurochs

                "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

                @PsyChuan

                aurochs@todon.euA This user is from outside of this forum
                aurochs@todon.euA This user is from outside of this forum
                aurochs@todon.eu
                wrote sidst redigeret af
                #54

                @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@c.imW 1 Reply Last reply
                0
                • aurochs@todon.euA aurochs@todon.eu

                  @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@c.imW This user is from outside of this forum
                  whathappened@c.imW This user is from outside of this forum
                  whathappened@c.im
                  wrote sidst redigeret af
                  #55

                  @aurochs

                  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.

                  @PsyChuan

                  aurochs@todon.euA 1 Reply Last reply
                  0
                  • whathappened@c.imW whathappened@c.im

                    @aurochs

                    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.

                    @PsyChuan

                    aurochs@todon.euA This user is from outside of this forum
                    aurochs@todon.euA This user is from outside of this forum
                    aurochs@todon.eu
                    wrote sidst redigeret af
                    #56

                    @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@c.imW 1 Reply Last reply
                    0
                    • aurochs@todon.euA aurochs@todon.eu

                      @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@c.imW This user is from outside of this forum
                      whathappened@c.imW This user is from outside of this forum
                      whathappened@c.im
                      wrote sidst redigeret af
                      #57

                      @aurochs

                      "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-britain

                      Examples proving Hardin wrong:

                      Rundale System of Common Property
                      https://kolektiva.social/@HeavenlyPossum/110219111305684330

                      humans all over the globe have been actively managing our environment successfully and sustainably for many millennia
                      https://c.im/@whathappened/113431238520344807

                      (continued)
                      https://c.im/@whathappened/113431255161180652

                      @PsyChuan

                      whathappened@c.imW 1 Reply Last reply
                      0
                      • whathappened@c.imW whathappened@c.im

                        @aurochs

                        "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-britain

                        Examples proving Hardin wrong:

                        Rundale System of Common Property
                        https://kolektiva.social/@HeavenlyPossum/110219111305684330

                        humans all over the globe have been actively managing our environment successfully and sustainably for many millennia
                        https://c.im/@whathappened/113431238520344807

                        (continued)
                        https://c.im/@whathappened/113431255161180652

                        @PsyChuan

                        whathappened@c.imW This user is from outside of this forum
                        whathappened@c.imW This user is from outside of this forum
                        whathappened@c.im
                        wrote sidst redigeret af
                        #58

                        @aurochs

                        "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."

                        https://kolektiva.social/@HeavenlyPossum/109449321659418326

                        @PsyChuan

                        1 Reply Last reply
                        0
                        • psychuan@plush.cityP psychuan@plush.city

                          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.

                          thatfeministwoman@mastodon.socialT This user is from outside of this forum
                          thatfeministwoman@mastodon.socialT This user is from outside of this forum
                          thatfeministwoman@mastodon.social
                          wrote sidst redigeret af
                          #59

                          @PsyChuan what is commons?

                          1 Reply Last reply
                          0
                          • suneauken@mastodon.worldS suneauken@mastodon.world shared this topic
                          Svar
                          • Svar som emne
                          Login for at svare
                          • Ældste til nyeste
                          • Nyeste til ældste
                          • Most Votes


                          • Log ind

                          • Login or register to search.
                          Powered by NodeBB Contributors
                          Graciously hosted by data.coop
                          • First post
                            Last post
                          0
                          • Hjem
                          • Seneste
                          • Etiketter
                          • Populære
                          • Verden
                          • Bruger
                          • Grupper