I love the calm and honest atmosphere you bring to your videos . It reminds me how I used to read illustrated encyclopedia books and watch kids documentaries as a child , gives me an endearing feeling. Just wanted to show my appreciation .
Bojan T. Thanks, very sweet of you to say. Interesting you mention this though, just last week I found a show that makes me feel this way, Mr. Wizard's World. Never saw it as a kid (didn't get a lot of channels). It's so G-rated it's comical, and the old school transitions are ridiculous, but it's kind of like a really calm, no-bullshit version of Bill Nye the Science Guy (Although I also love that show): th-cam.com/video/dcPrIx0eR4E/w-d-xo.html
You are basing open source resource management on a scarcity driven economic system, the two cannot coexist, as long as you have scarcity driven economics there will always be competition.
Why Garrett Hardin's essay on the tragedy of the commons is an false premises Attacking the source as an intro: Garrett Hardin was a grantee of the Pioneer Fund (Hardin is one who engages in genetic fallacy) 1) TotC was written in the 1950s, when technology was not what it is now 2) Pre-emptively rejects solutions to the problem of the tragedy of the commons out of hand. 3) Tic-tac-toe analogy is reductio ad absurdum, presupposes that all parties are competitors rather than cooperative allies. 4) Reiterates refusal to consider solutions by ignoring technological breakthroughs. 5) Posits that resources are finite, ignores resource management and renewable/recyclable strategies of energy production and waste removal. 6) Conflates research and development as a waste of work calories 7) States that incommensurables cannot be compared yet the ruling class can afford any such activity that consumes work calories mentioned before. 8) Points out that zero growth is what qualifies a population as being non-prosperous, then states contradictorily that it is an unknowable fact whether or not the result of a positive growth rate is of an optimum capacity and purpose. No conclusion can be drawn from growth alone in a population. 9) Misappropriates Adam Smith's phrase “invisible hand”. That phrase was used as an argument against neo-liberalism. The choices of corporations to extract natural resources is not an “individual freedom”. Furthermore the idea of monarchist “corporation sole” is an intellectual dishonesty. If the decisions of the ruling class affect others, it's not an individual decision, it's coercive through the means of the state. 10) The example of everyone being a farmer seeking to make a gain is unrealistic and truncated. It assumes again that everyone is competing and that there is no reason for some of the population to take up other occupations. It is a false assumption that every human is as rigidly individualistic as a stereotypical merchant. 11) For each farmer to practice unsustainable infinite growth of their herd is symptomatic of unregulated capitalism, not gains for the public good. 12) He then goes on to say that individuals acting individualistically does damage to the common good. This is circular reasoning as anyone who takes the public good in to account will not behave like a stereotypical merchant, which would suggest central planning. 13) Hardin goes on to mention maritime law and the tragedy of the commons, when overfishing is directly from of lack of regulations and a purposeful business practices to make maximum profits as a function of time. This is the tragedy of the market, not the commons. It is also worth noting that kings and queens, who are corporation soles, do not travel overseas and across boundaries with a passport. 14) Hardin suggests that the commons be sold as private property... when his original allegation was that the tragedy of the commons is precisely because certain individuals were using resources as private property. This suggestion to move the commons perhaps to the hands of a small number of specific individuals is little more than feudalism when the history of feudalism is rife with civil unrest. 15) The intellectual dishonesty increases as pollution is discussed. Often it is government regulation that is supposed to keep “rational thinking individualists” from polluting. See: oil spills, fracking, planned obsolescence, privatization of nuclear waste disposal, etc. 16) As a closing point about pollution, he says that population and technology calls for a redefining of property rights. This is interesting, considering the problem would diminish greatly if property rights were not a factor in the first place. 17) His next point is a falsehood concerning legislating temperance. He claims that a native american could kill a bison, take one part of its body, and leave the rest to rot. This is not what native americans did. native americans used most if not all of the body of their kills as a sign of respect to what we would see as the commons. “he was not of any important sense wasteful” is an obfuscation. 18) Hardin then goes in to the ecological systems of nature by offering the notion as a farce, then saying that the notion can only be understood in words. This is another obfuscation. Recently the wolves were introduced to Yellowstone. This meant that the sick herd animals were hunted down, which diminished their numbers such that a certain tree could flourish, which in turn beavers could return to yellowstone and use for dams, which fomented the return of a myriad system of rivers, lakes, and marshes rich and diverse with life. Hardin has no understanding of ecology, at least at the time of the writing of his essay concerning TotC. 19) As an end note about legislation, he speaks of corrective feedbacks. This is stark contrast to his denial of the solution to the problem that I stated in 2). 20) Next, he states that breeding is intolerable and speaks on a welfare state. Today in the U.S., it is illegal in some states to live off of the grid and it is illegal to collect rainwater in other states. This is not because of the welfare state, it is because utilities companies lobby for a controlling monopoly of resources. Perhaps they think themselves “rational individualists”. It is worth noting that more welfare goes to corporations than those at the bottom of the economic ladder, where the psychosocial stress of being at the bottom remains regardless of welfare recipience. He then goes on confusingly to talk of witch trials and the U.N. 21) Another contradiction appears at the beginning of the “Conscience is Self-Eliminating” subsection. Hardin states that it is a mistake to control the behaviors of man through an appeal to conscience. This is in stark contrast to his calls for education and constant refreshing of knowledge concerning his statements about cow herding. 22) In passing, Hardin makes claims about the desire to breed being stronger in some more than others is hereditary. This is a racist fallacy of genetics. 23) In the subsection “Pathogenic Effects of Conscience” Hardin make an infantile and pedantic diatribe against the golden rule. 24) “Mutual Coercion Mutually Agreed Upon” is a one of the final great prevarications that tacitly applies the faults of unsustainable individualistic pursuits. In other words, he scapegoats the masses in order to openly support structural violence. This is interesting because he openly admits that taxes are structural violence and encourages others to engage in structural violence via transaction fees (taxes are transaction fees). It is tacitly explained that the tragedy of the commons is that the commons are controlled by private interests, and the situation is only a tragedy for the commoner. 25) Lastly, it is clear by his description of the commons as “evil” that he has an obvious confirmation bias. He claims that the support of the commons is an infringement of liberty. To whom, he does not say. This is the primary evidence of a territorial person who denies the value of all things public. Again he claims that education is the key, but public education is within the realm of the commons. The man is clearly confused. This was merely an accusatory hit piece against libertarian leftists. The worst aspects and problems brought on by individualistic capitalism is the basis in offering a vaguely authoritarian statist solution, which is then rejected in favor of manipulating the public through plutocratic means such as transaction fees (taxes and transaction fees are the same thing).
I love how your explanation of it basically includes the whole point of 'government' emerging naturally as a result of people communicating. It may be the form of a group, council, business, corporation, but ultimately the disorganized becomes organized naturally once people are communication and more importantly, working together. I'm currently looking into different takes on the Tragedy of the commons, like yours right now, because I want to see if there is a way to operate a cooperative in regards to owning a large section of land. Have multiple people interested take part, and have each do their own thing, while also doing at least one thing that helps each other. All together, we should be able to make our own lives better, and experience better growth in personal wealth in regards to having a good home, a good life, and preferably some good income to go with it. All while being partially shielded from the constant craziness of the rest of the world. I think it can be done, but I have to confront problems like the issue with open access like you put it. Ultimately there will have to be some form of rules we all agree upon. Hence my comment to you starting how it does.
This videos are amazing! They're funny and entertaining. I'm studying mathematics, and the first time I saw the channel I decided that I should study statitistics and economy as my main branches, so thanks I owe you a lot.
This Place Yeah. esp when one gets to game theory, 'ruined huck' does not even begin to cover it ^_^ really screws with how you approach pretty much everything.
Your topics are relatable, your style is universal and easy to understand as is your voice. The production quality is above average for this type of youtube video. I do not see why you are not allready at like at least 300k subscribers. Good luck ad keep producing your videos.
@@whiteslateone I want to have a proof that it was because of that, because of what you said? If you don't have, there are only two possibilities remaining why it worked, or both combined: 1.) special laws back then protecting allmende 2.) laws today, that wont protect allmende or lead to the "tragedy" as described above
@@FHCity I don't think you would get very far demanding proof of medieval and early modern European commons. The evidence is within mountains of ancient archive documents and literature, it's not like we can just point to a specific government or scientific document and say that prooves it. But, as someone with a BA (Hons) and MA in medieval history, I can assure you that medieval common land worked and when aristocratic and early capitalist forces seized the land and manipulated it with things like enclosure, the people became much worse off. It is indeed the point of the video that "Tradegy of the Commons" is a bad title becasue there are many times that things that are and were held in common that work well and people holding things in common do not fail to communicate.
@@edskeates5357 Thank you for your answer. It's so great that You work on that and every (if not proof but) hint is useful; and also modern examples are useful to be demonstrated that it works -, and indeed, showing that it could be not a tragedy but a paradise. I am concerned with the topic "soil" as I study agricultural science and also work in the field. That's why I asked, it would be always good to show to critics that we have good and strong arguments and also know how to achieve it (with the right legislation and laws). Some years ago I tried to study economics, but the mainstream theories seemed to have flaws, there was sth. disturbing in the main assumptions that profit seeking can be applied to almost every field (while I think if it never ends it can only be applied to the realm of ideas and thoughts, if it is about never stopping growth). The material world is limited. It was then when I started to think about the alternatives to the "tragedy of commons", about the terms "efficiency" vs. "effectivity" and (money) currencies, when I discovered the works of Henry George and Silvio Gesell.
Really glad I discovered your channel. I like the presentation style of your videos a lot. My life would be complete if you did a video on physics related content :)
You are doing great stuff, just as good if not better than larger channels like ASAP Science, Minute Earth, and etc. if you posted more often, I know you would really take off. Keep up the great work!
Matthew Flaherty At some point absolutely.... but for now I have to follow the money. I still work on this channel in all my free time. Although it may not seem like it. It's just what used to take 4 weeks to produce, now takes months. If you're interested in watching some stuff, I make videos for this channel: th-cam.com/video/E1v5eRs0_fw/w-d-xo.html
In great britain, they had commons. Then they fenced the land off, sold it to rich people, and now instead of being feuding shepherds, they were now beggers or wage slaves.
What about the interpretation of the solution of the problem in that model, the interpretation that making "clever rules" and establish push and pull factors in law can realise an "open access field" again? Is this the way out or is the Tragedy of the Commons or is it even untrue from the start, and so is Nash?
I have been seeing your videos for more than a month and yes it is the most interesting video.I felt proud when i saw nepalease flag in this video..good job mate.👍
Your channel is filled with so many high quality content. I have no idea why you don't have more views and subscribers. Do you write and animate all of these videos yourself? If so, that's incredibly impressive. Keep generating content! This us good stuff. :)
+Julian LeBerg I use the adobe suite. Voice in Audition, draw things in Photoshop, bring them into After Effects to animate and do motion. Then cut it together and add sound effects in Premiere. I’ve used a few things for frame by frame stuff but they just gave Flash a new update calling it “Animate”. I think it looks nice. Have not tried yet. If you can't afford the Adobe Creative Cloud subscription, this article talks about the best free programs that you can use in their place. lifehacker.com/5976725/build-your-own-adobe-creative-suite-with-free-and-cheap-software In the end if you're interested in animation/video it's less about what you use and more what you do with it. It looks like Vi Hart would just points a phone camera at her hands and she’s made some of my favorite stuff (I don’t know what she actually used) th-cam.com/video/ahXIMUkSXX0/w-d-xo.html Don Hertzfeldt is one of my favorite animator, he uses paper and markers. th-cam.com/video/1IUX0Qy-IDM/w-d-xo.html And they’re not my favorites because they seem simple, but because they spend time on what they want to say.
+EndlessSpiders I use the adobe suite. Audition for voice and some sounds, draw in photoshop, animated in after effects, bring into premiere for cutting together, adding sounds and finalizing.
No individual or entity may hold the deed to this (or any) field, but there is some level of control of access, ideally the community. How should access to the land be awarded? The fairest way is to hold an auction, not for purchase but a leasehold interest to the land for a limited period of time and with certain restrictions to protect sustainability.
wait i always thought that the "commons" referred to the commonality of the animals that are overgrazing the land. as in the animals are the common factor that cause the tragedy of land destruction. i think that's how i was taught this model in AP environmental science back in high school. can anyone clarify?
+Nicole Furze (sorry if you read this already from the description but:) So I was taught that "the commons" is sort of an old term. The semantics of the model I'm working from use common goods/common property/ common pool resources (resources used by multiple people) and common property regimes (the institutions or social arrangements between people, the property rights regarding common pool resources). "The commons" has issues because it blankets both common pool resources with no communication, no rules, no accountability, no punishment for those who break the rules, etc. (open access) and common pool resources with some cooperation or institution in place (common property regimes). When you get away from those aspects that allow people to trust one another and work together, the system looks like an open access system. The tragedy of the commons model describes what happens in that open access system. But not what happens when a common property regime is in place. But the term "commons" doesn't distinguish between the two.
In the UK a Common is a public space usually a park/field open up to whomever wishes to uses it, the terms 'the commons' maybe to do with the problem with allowing, in the olden days the use of such open fields by for grazing.
i remember hearing about this concept applied to California and the limited water reserves. Farmers use up all the water they can or someone else will anyway, so there's no conservation.
+Aditya Hari Because this is a side project, it takes real long. But I do work on it in all my spare time and don't go outside except for food. Hopefully come mid January I will be working on it much more. The next should be out very very soon though. I am open to the idea of patreon but I'll only go for it if it's necessary.
+This Place you should go all in on this, i believe you can make a living out of this really quick. But just promise me one thing, that you dont end up like buzzfeed
Atoptro I use the adobe suite. Voice in Audacity, draw things in Photoshop, bring them into After Effects to animate. Then bring that into Premiere to cut it together and add sound effects. If you can't afford that, this article talks about the best free programs that you can use in their place. lifehacker.com/5976725/build-your-own-adobe-creative-suite-with-free-and-cheap-software
This is a model. There is next to no evidence that degradation of resources ever occurs in a way that matches the model (or is solved by communication in the way described). It is then says something about ideology that the model keeps getting spread by teachers and video makers. Instead, pay attention to the ways people have unequal access to resources and information and the real world starts to get illuminated.
The problem can be solved in two ways: either allow the space to be owned as private property (like in private fisheries that manage their own fish populations), or allow people to ostracize others who use too much of the resource (like what happened with community fishing resources before they became regulated and given quotas that incentivized people to not attempt to self-regulate through ostracism). Personally, I think the better solution is to go with private ownership- that way it's distributed to the people who need it most because they're the ones most willing to pay for it, and they're incentivized through that same price system to not buy more than they need, thus allowing maximum efficiency in distribution of resources.
ThatGastrodon Thank you for answering. So if a town gets it's water from a few upstream lakes, how do we decide who gets to "own" the lakes and become rich by selling and managing such a valuable resource?
The same way land has always become owned: homesteading. It's a complicated topic, because there are various ideas for the moral foundation for homesteading, but in general what would happen is that you could claim to own land if you fence it in and work it. It's a little more complicated in the case of ownership of bodies of water, but in general the principle is the same: you make a claim to own a part of the resource, make improvements, and it's recognized as yours. The water is largely treated the same as the air in a piece of land: it's the land (or the park of the lake or river, etc.) that's owned, not the air or water in it. That does bring up another problem that today is seen as a problem of the commons, but wasn't always treated as such: what happens if someone upstream pollutes the river? It falls to property rights. It's the equivalent to someone dumping garbage on your property, and is therefore actionable as a violation of property rights. In fact, there used to be a precedent of this in law: repeatedly there have been cases where, for example, a farmer downstream sues a polluting factory upstream for property damage, and won. It was only the intervention of the federal government claiming that the pollution is necessary for the greater good that made cases like that unwinnable. The same principle applied to air pollution too, iirc., with people suing for smog from factories, forcing those factories to become much cleaner.
ThatGastrodon Let's ignore tangential problems like upstream pollution. Homesteading on water sources. I live in a town of 500k people and I make chairs for living. But anyone can sell chairs so I have a lot of competition and make only a moderate profit. But all of us in town need water so the 20 homesteads that live on the lake and sell water to 500k of us have a captured market with essentially no new competition. (let's ignore pipelines). So they get rich because they have such an enormous customer base and no one can make water to compete with them. That _seems_ like a problem. I have nothing against a few people being rich but they're getting it by selling a public resource that should have reasonably belonged to everyone to begin with.
NoneTaken Unless the whole resource is homesteaded by a single group (which has only ever happened when governments dictate who owns what), that hasn't historically happened with other similar situations. First of all, you simply can't buy out 100% of a resource because as you buy more and more of it, the remaining amount becomes increasingly valuable until it's impossible to purchase. Even if it is somehow all owned by the same person, there is an enormous incentive for disruptive technologies to be developed, as well as public outcry and boycotts for such an evil institution. If you're talking about collusion, that is also something that never lasts in a free market, because the collusion creates an increasingly massive incentive for one of the colluding businesses to break the deal and undercut the rest for enormous profit. The whole problem with monopolies in the free market is that they are too unstable to exist. Look up people like Herbert Henry Dow (who destroyed the german chemical cartel by using their own monopoly strategies against them), or (I believe it's) Rockefeller, who practically had a monopoly in kerosene, but only maintained it because he was able to continually innovate to make kerosene cheaper and more efficient to produce. There are also other examples (which I don't have time to elaborate on right now, sorry), but I'd suggest looking in the podcast archive of Tom Woods, searching for "monopoly".
Did you ever watch the Richard Dawkins - "Nice Guys Finish First" - Documentary? It also covers the The Prisoner's Dilemma and the Tragedy of the Commons and is very interesting to watch. these videos do a great job of summarizing the topics in concise, understandable and enjoyable way. However, the Richard Dawkins documentary is worth a watch if you want a more lengthy and in depth take on the subject.
It's all the vids boiled into one. Doesn't the reference to the Prisoner's Dilemma imply the Prisoner's Dilemma vid is part of the series? If so, doesn't that mean it should have been explored in more detail to make this vid totally standalone? I loved the series and I like this vid, I'm just curious as to why that bit was excluded.
Rafael Soto I guess "series" was the wrong word there (I took it out of the description). It had more to do with that the next video that talked about the Tragedy of the Commons falling short. Without that I think people would have placed too much importance on the model. Which isn't that big of a deal I guess, but at the same time it was only a few hours to change it... and it's been bugging me for like a year now.
This also assumes that the tragedy is one of a desirable consumable resource. What if it is just unintended like Orangutan population or acid rain or DDT? or carrier pigeons? Whales? Buffalo or birds eye maple trees? Water sheds? Air in China? Aquifers.
I was a little confused by the terminology of this video. By 'Open Access' are you using those words in the way they are most commonly used toady, especially in scientific circles? Were you referring to Open Access to scientific publishing resources? I think you probably were not, since you didn't address them directly and it seems from your other videos like you would rather than trying to be sly about such a thing. Applying these ideas to Open Access journals, and to other Open Access online resources, like TH-cam, though, leads somewhere interesting! Instead of one person either owning the field, or managing it for others (what I'd expect to happen... either the local community would 'own' the herd of animals or investors would own shares, having the field be shared but the animals totally private isn't consistent and is the source of the problem, a self-contradicting system generates its own fatal flaws), what happens when you just let everyone do what they want ONLINE? Luckily we've got a great solution for the online world. Machine learning tends the field. If TH-cam, and other similar online resources, were both totally open AND had no one or no thing tending the collection, users would simply be drowned in content. They'd be incapable of finding the things which interest them, because no matter the quality, the number of things which do not interest them vastly outnumbers those that do. With machine learning systems, we can simply let a bit of software take a look at what we watch, what things we 'like', and (for now) what other people with similar tastes also like, and bingo, a fully verdant, fertile field for everyone! It might not work so well to have a computer dictating to the shepherds when and how many sheep they could graze though...
@@thezonedoc I'm not sure what you mean? Is your main TH-cam page and Recommended lists completely filled with 18 seconds clips of someones back yard? Or 30 second clips of fireworks displays? The only reason it's not is because machine learning systems tend that for you. It's a bit corrupted on TH-cam by attempts to prevent some from seeing the things they want because the things they want to watch have been deemed harmful, but it certainly hasn't collapsed into just a straight list of all uploads with it being impossible to find anything except tiny personal videos that will only ever get 10 views in the next decade. (As intended, most uploads are just to quickly share with family or friends.)
@@DustinRodriguez1_0 You're woefully ignorant about the state of TH-cam, not even the "subscriptions" tab is unmodified. It is as bad, and worse, than the worst case scenario you described. TH-cam is now in the buisness of controlling what they consider "authoritative" and also "proper entertainment".
That whole idea is wrong. You can't say they are worse off. In their context they are better off and it will always stabilize itself. You can't have less that the carrying capacity when adding more. Even if you are alone, you can add an extra sheep as long as the total worth of the sheep (plural) is more than before. An example: If you have 3 sheep, and adding an extra sheep makes the worth of each sheep 25% lesser (including the new sheep) then the total would be the (75%*4=100%*3). Since we are talking about a perfect world, we can ignore things like taking care the sheep or having any other inconvenience and this making the 3 original or +1 options equally viable. This model only collapses when you have a breaking point prior to the equilibrium edge point. So even if we didn't have communication, the system would be stable unless we had this special case. That's why capitalism works.
The use of the ford commons is correct as it refers to something which can be used by everyone. I guess it is just a British term maybe because we call parks/woods with no owner "commons". The coined term would have derived from this.
The Tragedy of the Commons effect is devastating, and could be driving humanity inexorably towards its own extinction. Owners of corporations that pollute are going by this model because they personally benefit from industry, but the cost of the pollution they generate is shared amongst society as a whole. Corrupt politicians go by this model because they personally benefit from campaign contributions, and in return give subsidies and kickbacks of taxpayer money worth hundreds or thousands of times as much as the original contribution, and again the cost of this practice is distributed among the entire population as a whole. Any time a human being can privatize profit, and socialize cost, it's human nature to jump at that opportunity, and that's why we as a species will end up strangling to death by our own insatiably greedy natures.
+fase lebow I think Global warming is the best example of this. Single country leaders won't want to take action alone because they will be losing out on cheap energy, and then pay global warming costs anyway. Same goes for individuals within a country. So people tend to take less action than they should. These protocols that leaders sign don't have any real world consequences for not following, so there is little incentive or disincentive for cooperating. It's the biggest and most poorly unregulated common pool resource and has the biggest open access problem in my opinion. And there are other ways of modelling why people aren't behaving against global warming. Another may be because of discounting the future. With a fishing ground or field you can see the benefits of cooperation in the relatively short term. Whereas with global warming we may be paying costs in our lifetime, for benefits in a future we don't care about because we may not be around. Or those costs seem easy to pay if we plan for them now. Whereas a cost today is harder to pay. Or let's say cutting global warming would involve raising taxes and/or transforming your country into a more "socialist" society. If you are against socialism, then you have a bias against doing something against global warming. More so than simply your qualms with socialism. There's some sort of binary "good" and "bad" going on and you may no believe global warming even exists because you are against this idea of "socialism". (This is some sort of common bias with a name I can't remember)
+This Place Thank you very much! That has really helped me, to hear someone else's opinion on the matter in regards to this theory. Your video was really useful when trying to understand the theory as well.
The ending sponsorship jokes are very reminiscent of the sponsorship jokes the "The technical difficulties". And you do seem like the kind of guy that would watch them.
![สาวเมืองเพชร - ธีเดช ทองอภิชาติ [Official MV]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/kEt7F9PvO3I/mqdefault.jpg)
I love the calm and honest atmosphere you bring to your videos . It reminds me how I used to read illustrated encyclopedia books and watch kids documentaries as a child , gives me an endearing feeling. Just wanted to show my appreciation .
Bojan T. Thanks, very sweet of you to say. Interesting you mention this though, just last week I found a show that makes me feel this way, Mr. Wizard's World. Never saw it as a kid (didn't get a lot of channels). It's so G-rated it's comical, and the old school transitions are ridiculous, but it's kind of like a really calm, no-bullshit version of Bill Nye the Science Guy (Although I also love that show): th-cam.com/video/dcPrIx0eR4E/w-d-xo.html
You are basing open source resource management on a scarcity driven economic system, the two cannot coexist, as long as you have scarcity driven economics there will always be competition.
Why Garrett Hardin's essay on the tragedy of the commons is an false premises Attacking the source as an intro: Garrett Hardin was a grantee of the Pioneer Fund (Hardin is one who engages in genetic fallacy)
1) TotC was written in the 1950s, when technology was not what it is now
2) Pre-emptively rejects solutions to the problem of the tragedy of the commons out of hand.
3) Tic-tac-toe analogy is reductio ad absurdum, presupposes that all parties are competitors rather than cooperative allies.
4) Reiterates refusal to consider solutions by ignoring technological breakthroughs.
5) Posits that resources are finite, ignores resource management and renewable/recyclable strategies of energy production and waste removal.
6) Conflates research and development as a waste of work calories
7) States that incommensurables cannot be compared yet the ruling class can afford any such activity that consumes work calories mentioned before.
8) Points out that zero growth is what qualifies a population as being non-prosperous, then states contradictorily that it is an unknowable fact whether or not the result of a positive growth rate is of an optimum capacity and purpose. No conclusion can be drawn from growth alone in a population.
9) Misappropriates Adam Smith's phrase “invisible hand”. That phrase was used as an argument against neo-liberalism. The choices of corporations to extract natural resources is not an “individual freedom”. Furthermore the idea of monarchist “corporation sole” is an intellectual dishonesty. If the decisions of the ruling class affect others, it's not an individual decision, it's coercive through the means of the state.
10) The example of everyone being a farmer seeking to make a gain is unrealistic and truncated. It assumes again that everyone is competing and that there is no reason for some of the population to take up other occupations. It is a false assumption that every human is as rigidly individualistic as a stereotypical merchant.
11) For each farmer to practice unsustainable infinite growth of their herd is symptomatic of unregulated capitalism, not gains for the public good.
12) He then goes on to say that individuals acting individualistically does damage to the common good. This is circular reasoning as anyone who takes the public good in to account will not behave like a stereotypical merchant, which would suggest central planning.
13) Hardin goes on to mention maritime law and the tragedy of the commons, when overfishing is directly from of lack of regulations and a purposeful business practices to make maximum profits as a function of time. This is the tragedy of the market, not the commons. It is also worth noting that kings and queens, who are corporation soles, do not travel overseas and across boundaries with a passport.
14) Hardin suggests that the commons be sold as private property... when his original allegation was that the tragedy of the commons is precisely because certain individuals were using resources as private property. This suggestion to move the commons perhaps to the hands of a small number of specific individuals is little more than feudalism when the history of feudalism is rife with civil unrest.
15) The intellectual dishonesty increases as pollution is discussed. Often it is government regulation that is supposed to keep “rational thinking individualists” from polluting. See: oil spills, fracking, planned obsolescence, privatization of nuclear waste disposal, etc.
16) As a closing point about pollution, he says that population and technology calls for a redefining of property rights. This is interesting, considering the problem would diminish greatly if property rights were not a factor in the first place.
17) His next point is a falsehood concerning legislating temperance. He claims that a native american could kill a bison, take one part of its body, and leave the rest to rot. This is not what native americans did. native americans used most if not all of the body of their kills as a sign of respect to what we would see as the commons. “he was not of any important sense wasteful” is an obfuscation.
18) Hardin then goes in to the ecological systems of nature by offering the notion as a farce, then saying that the notion can only be understood in words. This is another obfuscation. Recently the wolves were introduced to Yellowstone. This meant that the sick herd animals were hunted down, which diminished their numbers such that a certain tree could flourish, which in turn beavers could return to yellowstone and use for dams, which fomented the return of a myriad system of rivers, lakes, and marshes rich and diverse with life. Hardin has no understanding of ecology, at least at the time of the writing of his essay concerning TotC.
19) As an end note about legislation, he speaks of corrective feedbacks. This is stark contrast to his denial of the solution to the problem that I stated in 2).
20) Next, he states that breeding is intolerable and speaks on a welfare state. Today in the U.S., it is illegal in some states to live off of the grid and it is illegal to collect rainwater in other states. This is not because of the welfare state, it is because utilities companies lobby for a controlling monopoly of resources. Perhaps they think themselves “rational individualists”. It is worth noting that more welfare goes to corporations than those at the bottom of the economic ladder, where the psychosocial stress of being at the bottom remains regardless of welfare recipience. He then goes on confusingly to talk of witch trials and the U.N.
21) Another contradiction appears at the beginning of the “Conscience is Self-Eliminating” subsection. Hardin states that it is a mistake to control the behaviors of man through an appeal to conscience. This is in stark contrast to his calls for education and constant refreshing of knowledge concerning his statements about cow herding.
22) In passing, Hardin makes claims about the desire to breed being stronger in some more than others is hereditary. This is a racist fallacy of genetics.
23) In the subsection “Pathogenic Effects of Conscience” Hardin make an infantile and pedantic diatribe against the golden rule.
24) “Mutual Coercion Mutually Agreed Upon” is a one of the final great prevarications that tacitly applies the faults of unsustainable individualistic pursuits. In other words, he scapegoats the masses in order to openly support structural violence. This is interesting because he openly admits that taxes are structural violence and encourages others to engage in structural violence via transaction fees (taxes are transaction fees). It is tacitly explained that the tragedy of the commons is that the commons are controlled by private interests, and the situation is only a tragedy for the commoner.
25) Lastly, it is clear by his description of the commons as “evil” that he has an obvious confirmation bias. He claims that the support of the commons is an infringement of liberty. To whom, he does not say. This is the primary evidence of a territorial person who denies the value of all things public. Again he claims that education is the key, but public education is within the realm of the commons. The man is clearly confused.
This was merely an accusatory hit piece against libertarian leftists. The worst aspects and problems brought on by individualistic capitalism is the basis in offering a vaguely authoritarian statist solution, which is then rejected in favor of manipulating the public through plutocratic means such as transaction fees (taxes and transaction fees are the same thing).
Let me remind you that your appreciation is still appreciated after 3 years.
The Problem with Free Wi-fi
Haha this XD
It's a shame that you're not getting the views and funding you need. Thank you for providing us with the videos you already have.
I love how your explanation of it basically includes the whole point of 'government' emerging naturally as a result of people communicating. It may be the form of a group, council, business, corporation, but ultimately the disorganized becomes organized naturally once people are communication and more importantly, working together.
I'm currently looking into different takes on the Tragedy of the commons, like yours right now, because I want to see if there is a way to operate a cooperative in regards to owning a large section of land. Have multiple people interested take part, and have each do their own thing, while also doing at least one thing that helps each other. All together, we should be able to make our own lives better, and experience better growth in personal wealth in regards to having a good home, a good life, and preferably some good income to go with it. All while being partially shielded from the constant craziness of the rest of the world.
I think it can be done, but I have to confront problems like the issue with open access like you put it. Ultimately there will have to be some form of rules we all agree upon. Hence my comment to you starting how it does.
Dude I love your videos. They're educational yet still quite engaging to watch and I love your presentation.
This videos are amazing! They're funny and entertaining. I'm studying mathematics, and the first time I saw the channel I decided that I should study statitistics and economy as my main branches, so thanks I owe you a lot.
Roger Sol uh oh... don't blame me when statistics and economics leaves you a ruined husk. A husky husk to be sure, but a husk none the less.
This Place Yeah. esp when one gets to game theory, 'ruined huck' does not even begin to cover it ^_^ really screws with how you approach pretty much everything.
I am to used to watch several science and philosophical channels. And the way you explain stuff is by far the best...
Your topics are relatable, your style is universal and easy to understand as is your voice. The production quality is above average for this type of youtube video. I do not see why you are not allready at like at least 300k subscribers. Good luck ad keep producing your videos.
Its really calm and relaxing, plus you add a sense of realness to it, as if your not just a narrator in space somewhere
Hey Jesse! been following you for a while and i was happy to see my professor used this video for a class on global issues! Keep 'em comming!!!
I have a uni exam tomorrow and wow I wish I had found this sooner. It's all clicked because of this video! Super easy to understand. Thank you!!!!
A common in the UK is a public park that is always open to everyone without a fence or gate
Channels like yours is why TH-cam is amazing.
Absolutely agreed
First video I ever saw of yours. Really awesome, taught me something new. Auto subbed, keep doing great work!
cant get enough of your videos
I just stumbled across your videos and wish I had sooner. Amazing work, keep it up.
Thank for the distinction about lack of teamwork being mandatory. Nearly misunderstood terribly much.
I love this channel so much! Just powered through all the vids and I love it =D
Hey dude, hope you grow big! Your vids are really good!
Thank you for saving my ass from failing exams and helping explain things in a fun and understandable way!
I don't know, people managed very well in England with commons for millennia before everything was stolen by the aristocracy.
+Avraham Ish Shalom I think that's the point
+Avraham Ish Shalom The strain on resources was substantially lower due to the lower population density and lower consumption rate.
@@whiteslateone I want to have a proof that it was because of that, because of what you said? If you don't have, there are only two possibilities remaining why it worked, or both combined: 1.) special laws back then protecting allmende 2.) laws today, that wont protect allmende or lead to the "tragedy" as described above
@@FHCity I don't think you would get very far demanding proof of medieval and early modern European commons. The evidence is within mountains of ancient archive documents and literature, it's not like we can just point to a specific government or scientific document and say that prooves it. But, as someone with a BA (Hons) and MA in medieval history, I can assure you that medieval common land worked and when aristocratic and early capitalist forces seized the land and manipulated it with things like enclosure, the people became much worse off. It is indeed the point of the video that "Tradegy of the Commons" is a bad title becasue there are many times that things that are and were held in common that work well and people holding things in common do not fail to communicate.
@@edskeates5357 Thank you for your answer. It's so great that You work on that and every (if not proof but) hint is useful; and also modern examples are useful to be demonstrated that it works -, and indeed, showing that it could be not a tragedy but a paradise. I am concerned with the topic "soil" as I study agricultural science and also work in the field. That's why I asked, it would be always good to show to critics that we have good and strong arguments and also know how to achieve it (with the right legislation and laws). Some years ago I tried to study economics, but the mainstream theories seemed to have flaws, there was sth. disturbing in the main assumptions that profit seeking can be applied to almost every field (while I think if it never ends it can only be applied to the realm of ideas and thoughts, if it is about never stopping growth). The material world is limited. It was then when I started to think about the alternatives to the "tragedy of commons", about the terms "efficiency" vs. "effectivity" and (money) currencies, when I discovered the works of Henry George and Silvio Gesell.
Really glad I discovered your channel. I like the presentation style of your videos a lot. My life would be complete if you did a video on physics related content :)
You are doing great stuff, just as good if not better than larger channels like ASAP Science, Minute Earth, and etc. if you posted more often, I know you would really take off. Keep up the great work!
Oh come on! Orphan Free? That's how it get its' flavour!
This video made me always come back to This Place.
Your videos are so cool! Do you think you'll make more, more frequently? Can you?
Matthew Flaherty At some point absolutely.... but for now I have to follow the money. I still work on this channel in all my free time. Although it may not seem like it. It's just what used to take 4 weeks to produce, now takes months. If you're interested in watching some stuff, I make videos for this channel: th-cam.com/video/E1v5eRs0_fw/w-d-xo.html
can you Papa? please Papa? (I agree)
A huge thank you for the infographic videos you're providing , we are so grateful to you ..🙏
In great britain, they had commons. Then they fenced the land off, sold it to rich people, and now instead of being feuding shepherds, they were now beggers or wage slaves.
this model was developed for the English Common land and was used to justify enclosure and privatization by the nobility.
What about the interpretation of the solution of the problem in that model, the interpretation that making "clever rules" and establish push and pull factors in law can realise an "open access field" again? Is this the way out or is the Tragedy of the Commons or is it even untrue from the start, and so is Nash?
I have been seeing your videos for more than a month and yes it is the most interesting video.I felt proud when i saw nepalease flag in this video..good job mate.👍
Your channel is filled with so many high quality content. I have no idea why you don't have more views and subscribers. Do you write and animate all of these videos yourself? If so, that's incredibly impressive. Keep generating content! This us good stuff. :)
really really good explanation! you tube needs more videos like this!!! :)
Please upload videos more often... Maybe once or twice a month if you can...
You've great, informative stuff. Keep it up 👍
Thank you for the video, this is very digestible material for students learning about the commons, also sends out a positive message.
THANKYOU!!!!
You, you you.....
Human being.
Your videos are the best.
I'm sharing this so more people can see. Very interesting and kind of sad, really.
VERY CLEAR, AND INFORMATIVE VIDEO!!! THANK YOU SO MUCH :)
I love your videos. You should try to make riddles, kind of like the prisoner's dilemma.
Great video and great explanation!
You just got a subscriber. Keep up the great quality videos. :)
Amazing videos!! Why did you stop??
R.I.P This Place, was a really good set of videos.
Could you please explain why there is flag of Nepal from 2:34 - 2:40. We feel that you have prejudice .
What kind of animation software do you use?
+Julian LeBerg I use the adobe suite. Voice in Audition, draw things in Photoshop, bring them into After Effects to animate and do motion. Then cut it together and add sound effects in Premiere.
I’ve used a few things for frame by frame stuff but they just gave Flash a new update calling it “Animate”. I think it looks nice. Have not tried yet.
If you can't afford the Adobe Creative Cloud subscription, this article talks about the best free programs that you can use in their place.
lifehacker.com/5976725/build-your-own-adobe-creative-suite-with-free-and-cheap-software
In the end if you're interested in animation/video it's less about what you use and more what you do with it.
It looks like Vi Hart would just points a phone camera at her hands and she’s made some of my favorite stuff (I don’t know what she actually used)
th-cam.com/video/ahXIMUkSXX0/w-d-xo.html
Don Hertzfeldt is one of my favorite animator, he uses paper and markers.
th-cam.com/video/1IUX0Qy-IDM/w-d-xo.html
And they’re not my favorites because they seem simple, but because they spend time on what they want to say.
+This Place thank you
Thank you a lot :)
What do you use to animate these videos? It's very nice looking.
+EndlessSpiders I use the adobe suite. Audition for voice and some sounds, draw in photoshop, animated in after effects, bring into premiere for cutting together, adding sounds and finalizing.
Your videos are brilliant.
No individual or entity may hold the deed to this (or any) field, but there is some level of control of access, ideally the community. How should access to the land be awarded? The fairest way is to hold an auction, not for purchase but a leasehold interest to the land for a limited period of time and with certain restrictions to protect sustainability.
thanks great explanation I will send people to this
wait i always thought that the "commons" referred to the commonality of the animals that are overgrazing the land. as in the animals are the common factor that cause the tragedy of land destruction. i think that's how i was taught this model in AP environmental science back in high school. can anyone clarify?
+Nicole Furze (sorry if you read this already from the description but:) So I was taught that "the commons" is sort of an old term. The semantics of the model I'm working from use common goods/common property/ common pool resources (resources used by multiple people) and common property regimes (the institutions or social arrangements between people, the property rights regarding common pool resources).
"The commons" has issues because it blankets both common pool resources with no communication, no rules, no accountability, no punishment for those who break the rules, etc. (open access) and common pool resources with some cooperation or institution in place (common property regimes).
When you get away from those aspects that allow people to trust one another and work together, the system looks like an open access system. The tragedy of the commons model describes what happens in that open access system. But not what happens when a common property regime is in place. But the term "commons" doesn't distinguish between the two.
In the UK a Common is a public space usually a park/field open up to whomever wishes to uses it, the terms 'the commons' maybe to do with the problem with allowing, in the olden days the use of such open fields by for grazing.
Your voice is so so GREAT
love this.. so informative
i remember hearing about this concept applied to California and the limited water reserves. Farmers use up all the water they can or someone else will anyway, so there's no conservation.
What happened to your old video on the "Tragedy of the Commons"???
Any more uploads coming or not?
How long does it take to make one of these videos?
Are you open to the idea of a Patreon page?
+Aditya Hari Because this is a side project, it takes real long. But I do work on it in all my spare time and don't go outside except for food. Hopefully come mid January I will be working on it much more.
The next should be out very very soon though.
I am open to the idea of patreon but I'll only go for it if it's necessary.
+This Place you should go all in on this, i believe you can make a living out of this really quick. But just promise me one thing, that you dont end up like buzzfeed
Where can I get some of that green house gas? Will it work in my SUV?
What program was used in this video to make the animations?
Atoptro I use the adobe suite. Voice in Audacity, draw things in Photoshop, bring them into After Effects to animate. Then bring that into Premiere to cut it together and add sound effects.
If you can't afford that, this article talks about the best free programs that you can use in their place.
lifehacker.com/5976725/build-your-own-adobe-creative-suite-with-free-and-cheap-software
Thank you so much :)
Awesome video!!!
This is a model. There is next to no evidence that degradation of resources ever occurs in a way that matches the model (or is solved by communication in the way described). It is then says something about ideology that the model keeps getting spread by teachers and video makers. Instead, pay attention to the ways people have unequal access to resources and information and the real world starts to get illuminated.
Incredibly true am so taken by it..
Hello 6th period science! Happy Wednesday!
Did I miss it, so what's the solution? Find ways of improving communication? Close the access?
The problem can be solved in two ways: either allow the space to be owned as private property (like in private fisheries that manage their own fish populations), or allow people to ostracize others who use too much of the resource (like what happened with community fishing resources before they became regulated and given quotas that incentivized people to not attempt to self-regulate through ostracism).
Personally, I think the better solution is to go with private ownership- that way it's distributed to the people who need it most because they're the ones most willing to pay for it, and they're incentivized through that same price system to not buy more than they need, thus allowing maximum efficiency in distribution of resources.
ThatGastrodon Thank you for answering. So if a town gets it's water from a few upstream lakes, how do we decide who gets to "own" the lakes and become rich by selling and managing such a valuable resource?
The same way land has always become owned: homesteading. It's a complicated topic, because there are various ideas for the moral foundation for homesteading, but in general what would happen is that you could claim to own land if you fence it in and work it. It's a little more complicated in the case of ownership of bodies of water, but in general the principle is the same: you make a claim to own a part of the resource, make improvements, and it's recognized as yours. The water is largely treated the same as the air in a piece of land: it's the land (or the park of the lake or river, etc.) that's owned, not the air or water in it.
That does bring up another problem that today is seen as a problem of the commons, but wasn't always treated as such: what happens if someone upstream pollutes the river?
It falls to property rights. It's the equivalent to someone dumping garbage on your property, and is therefore actionable as a violation of property rights. In fact, there used to be a precedent of this in law: repeatedly there have been cases where, for example, a farmer downstream sues a polluting factory upstream for property damage, and won. It was only the intervention of the federal government claiming that the pollution is necessary for the greater good that made cases like that unwinnable. The same principle applied to air pollution too, iirc., with people suing for smog from factories, forcing those factories to become much cleaner.
ThatGastrodon Let's ignore tangential problems like upstream pollution.
Homesteading on water sources. I live in a town of 500k people and I make chairs for living. But anyone can sell chairs so I have a lot of competition and make only a moderate profit.
But all of us in town need water so the 20 homesteads that live on the lake and sell water to 500k of us have a captured market with essentially no new competition. (let's ignore pipelines). So they get rich because they have such an enormous customer base and no one can make water to compete with them.
That _seems_ like a problem. I have nothing against a few people being rich but they're getting it by selling a public resource that should have reasonably belonged to everyone to begin with.
NoneTaken Unless the whole resource is homesteaded by a single group (which has only ever happened when governments dictate who owns what), that hasn't historically happened with other similar situations. First of all, you simply can't buy out 100% of a resource because as you buy more and more of it, the remaining amount becomes increasingly valuable until it's impossible to purchase. Even if it is somehow all owned by the same person, there is an enormous incentive for disruptive technologies to be developed, as well as public outcry and boycotts for such an evil institution.
If you're talking about collusion, that is also something that never lasts in a free market, because the collusion creates an increasingly massive incentive for one of the colluding businesses to break the deal and undercut the rest for enormous profit.
The whole problem with monopolies in the free market is that they are too unstable to exist. Look up people like Herbert Henry Dow (who destroyed the german chemical cartel by using their own monopoly strategies against them), or (I believe it's) Rockefeller, who practically had a monopoly in kerosene, but only maintained it because he was able to continually innovate to make kerosene cheaper and more efficient to produce.
There are also other examples (which I don't have time to elaborate on right now, sorry), but I'd suggest looking in the podcast archive of Tom Woods, searching for "monopoly".
Why did you delete your newest video? I finished watching it, refreshed the page after 2 hours and it was gone! Are you reuploading it or something?
+SteveGottaGoFast I wanted to add a scene. It will be back up soon.
Nice to hear that :D
and how you fix this problem?
It's good to find a place like that
You should make a patreon mate, I'd love to see more frequent content from you.
Did you ever watch the Richard Dawkins - "Nice Guys Finish First" - Documentary? It also covers the The Prisoner's Dilemma and the Tragedy of the Commons and is very interesting to watch. these videos do a great job of summarizing the topics in concise, understandable and enjoyable way. However, the Richard Dawkins documentary is worth a watch if you want a more lengthy and in depth take on the subject.
It's all the vids boiled into one. Doesn't the reference to the Prisoner's Dilemma imply the Prisoner's Dilemma vid is part of the series? If so, doesn't that mean it should have been explored in more detail to make this vid totally standalone? I loved the series and I like this vid, I'm just curious as to why that bit was excluded.
Rafael Soto I guess "series" was the wrong word there (I took it out of the description). It had more to do with that the next video that talked about the Tragedy of the Commons falling short. Without that I think people would have placed too much importance on the model. Which isn't that big of a deal I guess, but at the same time it was only a few hours to change it... and it's been bugging me for like a year now.
That makes sense. Well it's nice to see a new vid from you. I've learned interesting, new concepts thanks to your work. Much appreciated.
It seems more tragic than most things labelled as tragedies.
This also assumes that the tragedy is one of a desirable consumable resource. What if it is just unintended like Orangutan population or acid rain or DDT? or carrier pigeons? Whales? Buffalo or birds eye maple trees? Water sheds? Air in China? Aquifers.
Any more videos you will upload
There is also Tragedy of Private Property. Under this system land is bought and sold. It generally leads to collectivism and war.
I was a little confused by the terminology of this video. By 'Open Access' are you using those words in the way they are most commonly used toady, especially in scientific circles? Were you referring to Open Access to scientific publishing resources? I think you probably were not, since you didn't address them directly and it seems from your other videos like you would rather than trying to be sly about such a thing.
Applying these ideas to Open Access journals, and to other Open Access online resources, like TH-cam, though, leads somewhere interesting! Instead of one person either owning the field, or managing it for others (what I'd expect to happen... either the local community would 'own' the herd of animals or investors would own shares, having the field be shared but the animals totally private isn't consistent and is the source of the problem, a self-contradicting system generates its own fatal flaws), what happens when you just let everyone do what they want ONLINE? Luckily we've got a great solution for the online world. Machine learning tends the field. If TH-cam, and other similar online resources, were both totally open AND had no one or no thing tending the collection, users would simply be drowned in content. They'd be incapable of finding the things which interest them, because no matter the quality, the number of things which do not interest them vastly outnumbers those that do. With machine learning systems, we can simply let a bit of software take a look at what we watch, what things we 'like', and (for now) what other people with similar tastes also like, and bingo, a fully verdant, fertile field for everyone! It might not work so well to have a computer dictating to the shepherds when and how many sheep they could graze though...
This proposal hasn't aged very well, has it?
@@thezonedoc I'm not sure what you mean? Is your main TH-cam page and Recommended lists completely filled with 18 seconds clips of someones back yard? Or 30 second clips of fireworks displays? The only reason it's not is because machine learning systems tend that for you. It's a bit corrupted on TH-cam by attempts to prevent some from seeing the things they want because the things they want to watch have been deemed harmful, but it certainly hasn't collapsed into just a straight list of all uploads with it being impossible to find anything except tiny personal videos that will only ever get 10 views in the next decade. (As intended, most uploads are just to quickly share with family or friends.)
@@DustinRodriguez1_0 You're woefully ignorant about the state of TH-cam, not even the "subscriptions" tab is unmodified. It is as bad, and worse, than the worst case scenario you described. TH-cam is now in the buisness of controlling what they consider "authoritative" and also "proper entertainment".
soooo, what do we do about it?
That whole idea is wrong. You can't say they are worse off. In their context they are better off and it will always stabilize itself. You can't have less that the carrying capacity when adding more. Even if you are alone, you can add an extra sheep as long as the total worth of the sheep (plural) is more than before.
An example:
If you have 3 sheep, and adding an extra sheep makes the worth of each sheep 25% lesser (including the new sheep) then the total would be the (75%*4=100%*3). Since we are talking about a perfect world, we can ignore things like taking care the sheep or having any other inconvenience and this making the 3 original or +1 options equally viable.
This model only collapses when you have a breaking point prior to the equilibrium edge point. So even if we didn't have communication, the system would be stable unless we had this special case. That's why capitalism works.
could you explain more by using mathematique models PLZ
Reminds me of issues with evolutionary stable strategies.
I feel tragedy works very well when describing our world.
Those ads get me everytime
That was great
AWESOME :) MORE :D
I might get hate for saying this but im BEGGING YOU to make more of the movie vids like on that place witg the lotr vid and the Noah vid
nice reference to Garrett Hardin at the end disguised as an imaginary sponsor. good one.
Maybe looking at Elinor Ostrom's prize-winning work on the commons quandary would make a good follow-up video.
The use of the ford commons is correct as it refers to something which can be used by everyone. I guess it is just a British term maybe because we call parks/woods with no owner "commons". The coined term would have derived from this.
The Tragedy of the Commons effect is devastating, and could be driving humanity inexorably towards its own extinction. Owners of corporations that pollute are going by this model because they personally benefit from industry, but the cost of the pollution they generate is shared amongst society as a whole. Corrupt politicians go by this model because they personally benefit from campaign contributions, and in return give subsidies and kickbacks of taxpayer money worth hundreds or thousands of times as much as the original contribution, and again the cost of this practice is distributed among the entire population as a whole. Any time a human being can privatize profit, and socialize cost, it's human nature to jump at that opportunity, and that's why we as a species will end up strangling to death by our own insatiably greedy natures.
You should work in collaboration with CGP Grey
Maybe once
Am I the only one who heard "now orphan free" at the end there for Hardin's?
Could this apply to Global warming? Would really appreciate some examples or feedback. Thanks :)
+fase lebow I think Global warming is the best example of this. Single country leaders won't want to take action alone because they will be losing out on cheap energy, and then pay global warming costs anyway. Same goes for individuals within a country. So people tend to take less action than they should. These protocols that leaders sign don't have any real world consequences for not following, so there is little incentive or disincentive for cooperating. It's the biggest and most poorly unregulated common pool resource and has the biggest open access problem in my opinion.
And there are other ways of modelling why people aren't behaving against global warming. Another may be because of discounting the future. With a fishing ground or field you can see the benefits of cooperation in the relatively short term. Whereas with global warming we may be paying costs in our lifetime, for benefits in a future we don't care about because we may not be around. Or those costs seem easy to pay if we plan for them now. Whereas a cost today is harder to pay.
Or let's say cutting global warming would involve raising taxes and/or transforming your country into a more "socialist" society. If you are against socialism, then you have a bias against doing something against global warming. More so than simply your qualms with socialism. There's some sort of binary "good" and "bad" going on and you may no believe global warming even exists because you are against this idea of "socialism". (This is some sort of common bias with a name I can't remember)
+This Place Thank you very much! That has really helped me, to hear someone else's opinion on the matter in regards to this theory. Your video was really useful when trying to understand the theory as well.
Does hardin's canned animal meat actually exist?
Matthew Nguyen Why do you want some?.... but no it doesn't
It just reminds me of a TV show
This Place Orphan free... damn vegetarians.
It does exist and it wants you to have a personal relationship with it.
"Commons" is what we call open access rural land in the UK. That is what the original theory was referencing
The ending sponsorship jokes are very reminiscent of the sponsorship jokes the "The technical difficulties". And you do seem like the kind of guy that would watch them.
He lives! :D
Subscribed
2:35 Nepal's Flag 🇳🇵🇳🇵
1:57 hit the closest
NEPAL!!! Lol I was watching this for my homework but noticed my country's flag!! 😁
haha me too.
Now I see we need to regulate college dorm sinks!
Common: noun
1.
a piece of open land for public use.
upload more vids plz