Nice video. Haiti had that same issue with trees. Since people could cut them and turn them into energy source ( coal ) ,everyone cut them. Now, there are not enough trees to replace the old trees fast enough. Now, any rain, create flood since there are no more thees. :-(
@Andrew Potter The biggest problem with the increase in renewable energy is that government keeps taking money from the private sector to invest in renewable energy programs on their behalf. But the investments are almost invariably bad because they use other people's money (taxpayers) and so there is no incentive to create a suitable return. This is why the private sector (not the government) has always been the greatest source of positive change. Take whale hunting as an example. The government invested taxpayer money into policing whale hunters, while the private sector invested in alternative energy sources. With the benefit of time, we can see that the private sector's solution was 30x more effective because whale blubber was supplanted as the most efficient oil source and lost all value. Wind and solar are not effective energy sources at this time. There are other people out there who are generating much better ideas that are equally as renewable and productive, but they have much less access to funding or awareness.
@@bababa0184 It seems the government as an investor has gotten better at inhibiting their competition (private investments in the same sector) by regulating them. The fear surrounding nuclear power is easily maintained. For some in-context analysis, there is a section in this interview with Bjorn Lomborg where he addresses the current state of nuclear power without political motivation. ua-cam.com/video/0Te5al2APrQ/v-deo.html Observe as the private sector attempts to solve some of the seemingly insurmountable problems (like nuclear waste) with market driven innovation (diamond forever-batteries): ua-cam.com/video/VWwKqSzakYU/v-deo.html
water is tangible, grazing is not , unless you have a Ai camera watching over identifying all the cows , keeping an eye of the primitive INCOMPETENT things called HUMANS
Theoligarchist, what do you mean grazing isn't tangible? Lol. The consumption of that grass is tangible the grass itself is. And that's what is being measured here. There is no excuse. The person saying that water will become subject to the tragedy of the commons is exactly right. That's where this is headed. Your Master's want to take over everything or having you figure that out yet? You are a slave. Stop making the arguments for them. It's pathetic. There are plenty of places on Earth that are shared in common by groups of people and they are beautiful places. And there are other places that do much poorly because the people using them are not conscientious, or moreover and more often, they are hemmed into the place they live by government policy and mandates. A million little ones you'd never think about if you didn't live there. And you don't even think about most the time even if you do live there. It's just the way they live. In the United States we live the same way. Everything about why animals don't pay rent but we do? Ever think about how the so-called national forests are just a way to rope off most of the beauty of nature and places that we could just go set up a cabin and live? We were born on this land. There's no reason we can't set out into the mountains and make homestead there. But no, in the national forests, losers and stupid government uniforms will be along to move you out of your camp after you've been there 2 weeks or so. It's all imaginary. You cannot own air, you cannot own water sources, you cannot own land, you cannot own space. It's simply doesn't work that way. Even if every human destroyed every little bit of those things on the list I just gave you, it still wouldn't make those things ownable. What we do has no bearing on the immutable facts of natural philosophy as they arise from physics. All the stomping and crying of entitled babies will not stop this back from being true. And the people trying to pull this nonsense had better get their shit together. Because things are getting ugly for them. :-)
great knowledge ! illustrating how individual self-interest can lead to the depletion of shared resources, despite knowing the negative long-term impacts. It emphasizes the need for collective action and effective resource management to prevent such outcomes, suggesting strategies that communities and stakeholders can implement to safeguard common resources for future generations.
Thank you for beautiful video! At the end of the video it's mentioned that specific examples of solutions will be mentioned in one of the coming videos. Can you please share which video it is? Is it about Prisoner's Dilemma?
At the end of the video Elinor Ostrom is mentioned as if she were a footnote to Hardin's work, but her contribution to this topic was revolutionary. Ostrom pioneered empirical research programs (something economists generally can't be bothered with) showing the Tragedy of the Commons to be historically confused and her theoretical work turns Hardin's tale on its head. Ostrom found that humans are quite adept at managing commons, that such tragedies as Hardin describes as inexorable are in reality the exception not the rule. Moreover the resources of the commons are often spoiled when Hardin's solutions, privatize or regulate, are implemented. In other words, economics needs to stop teaching Hardin's tale as anything but a footnote to Ostrom.
C S You are the only personin this chat that gets it. The capitalist solution results in tha ownership of resources in the hands of a few people with the rest of the population being their serfs.
@jaxom6869 nonsense. Name a single monopoly during free market periods such as the industrial revolution. Free trade under strict private property rights throught contractual agreements is the best system.
Came here to say this, it's either the result of propaganda making it seem insignificant that the 'Tragedy of the Commons' has effectively been near entirely debunked as oversimplified, vacuum thought tripe, or willful misrepresentation.
@@austinbyrd4164 the Industrial revolution wasn't a monopoly, it was a response to unregulated Capitalism during the time workers innovated & built industrial machinery. Are you struggling with definitions or just with any amount of thoughts in general? If you're talking incredibly concentrated market owners, which doesn't require full control over, but have market dominance to the point of extreme control over said market: Unilever, Nestlé, Shell/Exxonmobile/whatever national oil baron you have, Fox or the death of local news (3 orgs own all news in the USA), Disney, Uber, Amazon, Wallmart/Target, Most US owned pharmacuetical companies (Pfizer, Johnson & Johnson, etc.), the list goes on; it's easy to find, you're just particularly bad at researching things.
@@austinbyrd4164 No offense, but what is it so hard to understand that one of Capitalism's most common evolutions is one that actively shuts down free trade? You're assuming every capitalist has the rationality, empathy and interest to maintain Free Trade, even though it actively goes against their Capital accumulation desires, as well as other personal desires (Delusions, prejudice, authoritarian behavior, insecurities). Free Market is extremely beneficial for a society that needs to generate wealth and employment, but it becomes a detriment to those that begin to hoard it and wish to keep it that way. The formations of trusts/cartels, or lobbying for legislation that gives said group an unfair advantage such as via subsidies and zoning laws, via governing bodies should there not be a counterweight to stop them, is always a symptom of this. Capitalism flourishes when free market is curbed down by an authoritarian system that encourages further wealth accumulation, as that is Capitalism's main (if not sole) goal. China is our single greatest example right now, and before that were the South American countries, and before them the European Colonial powers.
DUDE! This Channel is so amazing your doing awesome work im so glad I found it early. If you keep this content quality going your going to be huge. This is real knowledge, Love this shit so much,
Brazilians today are at an earlier stage of local resource exploitation than Britons in the last few centuries. Unfortunately, the opposite is true for the planet as a whole.
A resource can be used in secret in order to avoid the control. An example of this is to land catched fish in harbours lacking the control, perhaps even in another country.
Option 3 is literally what the tragedy of the commons is saying inevitablely fails. He tries to manipulate it, such as when he says the fisherman will 'naturally' keep other fisherman out and enforce rules. He's just changing it to option 1 or 2.
Yeah, fishermen can form a coop to to monitor fish population and take actions whenever something goes wrong. He probably failed to notice that fishermen can manage themselves *even without privatisation*
Use of the commons must be subject to objectively-established rules based on sustainability considerations. The best way to then grant access to the commons is by competitive bidding for a leasehold interest. The amount anyone would bid would be governed by the anticipation of maximum production subject to restrictions imposed.
@@w.t.fpipedreamwithhopefull5538 Positive change can actually occur. It is difficult, but look at the changes in election laws and public financing of campaigns that has occurred in Connecticut.
@@nthperson Maybe one day. You would think The tragedy of commons was a major part of any policy. I think might be going along the corporate line of max production that's in contrast to sustainability and quality.
@@nthperson I was pondering weather a corporation can exist if we took Tragedy of commons into account. Does a corporation ever help the commons instead of snatch and grab.
When the western land was commonly owned, the buffalo population plummeted as hunters would all try to get their game before others. Once the land was divided into parcels & bidded off onto the market, farmers secured the land & bread the buffalo. Why? Because that ensured greater profits over time. We've seen the same thing with droughts in latin america & parts of africa. Private property encourages investment into more profitable, sustainable, long-term ventures. Wasting resources is none of the above. Prices are the most efficient system of rationing & allocating resources. Although the government can technically 'solve' this tragedy, they do so through arbitrary regulatory gatekeeping. Gatekeeping which is often either too cautious, resulting in relatively less yield accrued from the commons, or isn't sufficient so the tragedy's not averted. The tragedies that can occur in the commons are often multifaceted. It's not always as simple as instituting a max on how many cows you can hunt.
The third solution is effectively the second solution, with the first solution wrapped around it. The "group" - at whatever level it acts at - owns the resource (keeping it away from those outside the group, solution 1), and polices its own members (applying top-down rules to those within the group, solution 2). This principle of "capitalism on the outside, communism on the inside" works at any scale.
The natural human condition is to choose what’s best for yourself. That’s the natural animal condition. Obscured only by hormonal shifts caused by childbirth or the drive to procreate. But a buffalo. Will not die so that another buffalo may live. The herd is a herd because each individual gains more from the group than they put in. It’s each individuals selfish drive to live and procreate that warrants their actions. We are no different from the buffalo in the herd. If leaving the herd meant it got to live a better life. The buffalo would do it. Without even thinking about it. The question is on how do you get the herd to act in a way that’s sustainable without arbritaryily killing buffalo or arbitrarily allowing for a billion buffalo to live on the plaines
Wizard games, what are you talking about with hormonal shifts and childbirth? Are you a man? Lol. Then don't be creepy or weird. mind your own business, not women's. You boys like to talk about your precious post nut clarity? Well how about a post birth clarity? Where you see how hard everything has been made for you as a woman and how much everyone around you hates and despises you? THERE'S THE REAL POST X CLARITY.. provided by the combination of enlightening hormones and the cold hard logic of a woman, who is the arbiter and administrator of the species. Most important job on earth. To be the giver of life. YOUR life. You're welcome. Now yes, self-interest is wise. You must put on your own oxygen mask before you put one on anyone else. That is how it works across the board. Anyone complaining about individualism is a stupid socialist. We don't listen to them. Especially not in the usa. They can keep harping and whining and squealing. And we will ignore them in favor of individualism, where in the individual is the base unit, not the group. And we will continue in our individual sovereignty.
She did right something debunking in the tragedy of the commons but then she said the answer is to put the natives of the region in uniform and have them patrol the land on behalf of the private owner.
The tragedy of the commons arises because each individual wants to make the most profit they can. Looking back at the cows on a pasture example, the pasture may have been common land, but one could only reap the benefits of their own cattle, so they grazed extra cattle instead of thinking of the good of the community. Had the cattle been common property as well, this situation would go quite differently. I think this actually displays the problem with capitalism rather than communism, where a personal profit driven way of thinking ruins what could have been most profitable for the group.
@@a.rushiii personal profit driven way aka capitalism made the smart phone your holding and also the UA-cam app your watching videos on certain amount of greed for profit is good because everyone benefits like our smartphones, private property works better service than public just look at Indian reservations poorest in the usa because they aren't allowed to develop or sell the land
@riqqarddo pv the children working in the mines of Congo to get cobalt for the production of smart phones at laughable wages definitely have not benefitted from this system, so you can not honestly say that everyone benefits in this system. While native Americans may not sell reservations, they can develop the land. However, this land tends not to be very good land anyways. Native Americans have been kept poor due to a history of laws whose purpose was to take away their economic mobility, rights, and culture.
@@a.rushiii If the cattle are common property, then you run into the same problem when it comes time to decide how many cows each family will eat. Only if every person involved cares about every other person involved as much as they care about themselves can you avoid self-interest messing up your communism.
what if we just reinstate Stalin's policy of planning the minimum output for certain places?, because that is a solution (nobody would go over the minimum, because you don't get anything extra from it, so therefor the tragedy of the commons will probably not apply)
The problem with regulation in this scenario is that it's entirely arbitrary. The market finds the most profitable way maximize resource utilization, without waste.
How do you manage to change a simple philosophical conundrum into such a pro-capitalist message? The tragedy of the commons is solved through regulation and co-operation, not by private ownership.
Solution #1: Private ownership Solution #2: Regulation The video said that explicitly. I suppose this video is a bit capitalist-biased, but it does acknowledge all of the options.
Not an argument. I can provide historical evidence, including the near extinction & revival of the buffalo population. When the western land was commonly owned, the buffalo population plummeted as hunters would all try to get their game before others. Once the land was divided into parcels & bidded off onto the market, farmers secured the land & bread the buffalo. Why? Because that ensured greater profits over time. We've seen the same thing with droughts in latin america & parts of africa. Private property encourages investment into more profitable, sustainable, long-term ventures. Wasting resources is none of the above. Prices are the most efficient system of rationing & allocating resources.
This video is just more slavery/wage slavery propaganda. It’s like saying poor people shouldn’t get more money because they don’t know what to do with it. The common lands should be all land except for certain exceptions like national parks. People use to have the right to land and the right to live off it by hunting, farming, and foraging. Now those are all illegal, taxed, and have fees unless you become a slave to land distributors. Their should be a free land land minimum so people have the right to land and aren’t a slave by definition. Then if they wanted more than the minimum they would have to pay because they would be taking up more limited land. Think about it back in the day farmers and hunters just had food for their families, then the king decided to tax them for their land. What money did these people have? None. Thus making them slaves. Forced to do more work that wasn’t necessary and if they didn’t you could expect your wife to be raped and the man to be beaten and tortured. Hmmm wonder why we still don’t have this right? It’s like history class tells you but also doesn’t want you to know.. like sure teacher they left their land for “religion” THEY WANTED TO BE FREE ON LAND WITHOUT SOME SLAVE OWNER FOR FUCKS SAKE, religion was just a part of their moral belief that contributed to wanting to be free. Go figure.
But those people could form rules and ethics for that common resource. moreover they all could be people from same neighborhood or community having strong social relations, so they might scold Gilbert in the first place for coming at a selfish solution for the problem which is going to affect all of them. I think it's more of a cultural problem if any. a culture that promotes selfish instant gratification instead of long term gain for everyone. we aren't greedy as an individual with our family and friends…we never put them down in our own greed, we share food and other resources with them even when we have little for ourselves in adverse times. why can't we extend the same with the whole society? Tragedy of Common is actually tragedy of "greed taking over rationality" and failure of society due to lack of communication and cooperation.
Go vegan! What do you think about that? I have become vegetarian so I still use the cows for yogurt and cheese. But I am considering a gradual move to veganism. But isn't it true that a plant based food economy might possibly be a bit more forgiving on the land, still we would need to figure out how to manage it better. Do like it was prescribed in the Bible and practiced by farmers following Bible regulations, and that would be to allow the land to rest every seventh year.
If you go vegan, then you just need a different example. The tragedy of the commons is very broad; it applies to vegan things too (like, say, having a communal garden where each person can plant and/or eat as much vegetables as they want).
Nice video. Haiti had that same issue with trees. Since people could cut them and turn them into energy source ( coal ) ,everyone cut them. Now, there are not enough trees to replace the old trees fast enough. Now, any rain, create flood since there are no more thees. :-(
Good example, but sad situation.
Deforestation in Haiti is a myth.
Living without fossil energy is not an easy task.
@Andrew Potter The biggest problem with the increase in renewable energy is that government keeps taking money from the private sector to invest in renewable energy programs on their behalf. But the investments are almost invariably bad because they use other people's money (taxpayers) and so there is no incentive to create a suitable return. This is why the private sector (not the government) has always been the greatest source of positive change. Take whale hunting as an example. The government invested taxpayer money into policing whale hunters, while the private sector invested in alternative energy sources. With the benefit of time, we can see that the private sector's solution was 30x more effective because whale blubber was supplanted as the most efficient oil source and lost all value. Wind and solar are not effective energy sources at this time. There are other people out there who are generating much better ideas that are equally as renewable and productive, but they have much less access to funding or awareness.
@@bababa0184
It seems the government as an investor has gotten better at inhibiting their competition (private investments in the same sector) by regulating them. The fear surrounding nuclear power is easily maintained. For some in-context analysis, there is a section in this interview with Bjorn Lomborg where he addresses the current state of nuclear power without political motivation.
ua-cam.com/video/0Te5al2APrQ/v-deo.html
Observe as the private sector attempts to solve some of the seemingly insurmountable problems (like nuclear waste) with market driven innovation (diamond forever-batteries):
ua-cam.com/video/VWwKqSzakYU/v-deo.html
I love the part where the music swells and I went "NOOO farmer, NOOOO..."
Some dramatic stuff right there
Soon water will be subject to 'The Tragedy of the Commons'. :(
And so will the whole Planet.
water is tangible, grazing is not , unless you have a Ai camera watching over identifying all the cows , keeping an eye of the primitive INCOMPETENT things called HUMANS
Never will happen. Fresh water will be in a different location. If water is going outer space then I assure you that water resource will be gone.
Theoligarchist, what do you mean grazing isn't tangible? Lol. The consumption of that grass is tangible the grass itself is. And that's what is being measured here.
There is no excuse. The person saying that water will become subject to the tragedy of the commons is exactly right. That's where this is headed. Your Master's want to take over everything or having you figure that out yet?
You are a slave. Stop making the arguments for them. It's pathetic.
There are plenty of places on Earth that are shared in common by groups of people and they are beautiful places.
And there are other places that do much poorly because the people using them are not conscientious, or moreover and more often, they are hemmed into the place they live by government policy and mandates. A million little ones you'd never think about if you didn't live there. And you don't even think about most the time even if you do live there. It's just the way they live.
In the United States we live the same way. Everything about why animals don't pay rent but we do? Ever think about how the so-called national forests are just a way to rope off most of the beauty of nature and places that we could just go set up a cabin and live? We were born on this land. There's no reason we can't set out into the mountains and make homestead there.
But no, in the national forests, losers and stupid government uniforms will be along to move you out of your camp after you've been there 2 weeks or so.
It's all imaginary. You cannot own air, you cannot own water sources, you cannot own land, you cannot own space. It's simply doesn't work that way.
Even if every human destroyed every little bit of those things on the list I just gave you, it still wouldn't make those things ownable. What we do has no bearing on the immutable facts of natural philosophy as they arise from physics.
All the stomping and crying of entitled babies will not stop this back from being true. And the people trying to pull this nonsense had better get their shit together. Because things are getting ugly for them. :-)
great knowledge ! illustrating how individual self-interest can lead to the depletion of shared resources, despite knowing the negative long-term impacts. It emphasizes the need for collective action and effective resource management to prevent such outcomes, suggesting strategies that communities and stakeholders can implement to safeguard common resources for future generations.
Thank you for beautiful video! At the end of the video it's mentioned that specific examples of solutions will be mentioned in one of the coming videos. Can you please share which video it is? Is it about Prisoner's Dilemma?
really clearly explained :)
Thank you for a wonderfully informative video. I am a professor and am using this video in my classes
At the end of the video Elinor Ostrom is mentioned as if she were a footnote to Hardin's work, but her contribution to this topic was revolutionary. Ostrom pioneered empirical research programs (something economists generally can't be bothered with) showing the Tragedy of the Commons to be historically confused and her theoretical work turns Hardin's tale on its head. Ostrom found that humans are quite adept at managing commons, that such tragedies as Hardin describes as inexorable are in reality the exception not the rule. Moreover the resources of the commons are often spoiled when Hardin's solutions, privatize or regulate, are implemented.
In other words, economics needs to stop teaching Hardin's tale as anything but a footnote to Ostrom.
C S You are the only personin this chat that gets it. The capitalist solution results in tha ownership of resources in the hands of a few people with the rest of the population being their serfs.
@jaxom6869 nonsense. Name a single monopoly during free market periods such as the industrial revolution.
Free trade under strict private property rights throught contractual agreements is the best system.
Came here to say this, it's either the result of propaganda making it seem insignificant that the 'Tragedy of the Commons' has effectively been near entirely debunked as oversimplified, vacuum thought tripe, or willful misrepresentation.
@@austinbyrd4164 the Industrial revolution wasn't a monopoly, it was a response to unregulated Capitalism during the time workers innovated & built industrial machinery. Are you struggling with definitions or just with any amount of thoughts in general?
If you're talking incredibly concentrated market owners, which doesn't require full control over, but have market dominance to the point of extreme control over said market: Unilever, Nestlé, Shell/Exxonmobile/whatever national oil baron you have, Fox or the death of local news (3 orgs own all news in the USA), Disney, Uber, Amazon, Wallmart/Target, Most US owned pharmacuetical companies (Pfizer, Johnson & Johnson, etc.), the list goes on; it's easy to find, you're just particularly bad at researching things.
@@austinbyrd4164 No offense, but what is it so hard to understand that one of Capitalism's most common evolutions is one that actively shuts down free trade? You're assuming every capitalist has the rationality, empathy and interest to maintain Free Trade, even though it actively goes against their Capital accumulation desires, as well as other personal desires (Delusions, prejudice, authoritarian behavior, insecurities). Free Market is extremely beneficial for a society that needs to generate wealth and employment, but it becomes a detriment to those that begin to hoard it and wish to keep it that way. The formations of trusts/cartels, or lobbying for legislation that gives said group an unfair advantage such as via subsidies and zoning laws, via governing bodies should there not be a counterweight to stop them, is always a symptom of this.
Capitalism flourishes when free market is curbed down by an authoritarian system that encourages further wealth accumulation, as that is Capitalism's main (if not sole) goal. China is our single greatest example right now, and before that were the South American countries, and before them the European Colonial powers.
DUDE! This Channel is so amazing your doing awesome work im so glad I found it early. If you keep this content quality going your going to be huge. This is real knowledge, Love this shit so much,
AND YOU ARE SO BS to feel so
Best videos easy to understand
Brazilians will never understand this... :(
No, the problems is that the amazon it's not owned collectively.
@@MrGoblin1000 You have a lot to learn.
@@MrGoblin1000I mean. If it was actually enforced as a national preserve. Sure. But it isn’t.
Brazilians today are at an earlier stage of local resource exploitation than Britons in the last few centuries. Unfortunately, the opposite is true for the planet as a whole.
"Freedom in a Commons brings ruin to all." Man that is a lost quote if I've ever heard one.
New Subscriber, Nice content, loving it so far!
LOL you poor sheeple
Only take what you need ✨🙏🏽✨
Or maximise efficiency on your own property maybe
Most places have very strict fishing and hunting regulations at least in the US.
Nice video. New subs
Basically a giant prisoners' dilemma
Exactly! The driving force behind these problems is the Nash Equilibrium
But this one more easy to understand
Why didn't you address the land grab that was the enclosures? That's what started the problem.
How did that start the problem?
Same problem in VN too. but at a larger scale
Same everywhere.
Ground water in cities of developing world are facing similar problem and is depleting very fast.
Nice video.
A resource can be used in secret in order to avoid the control. An example of this is to land catched fish in harbours lacking the control, perhaps even in another country.
The tragedy of the common like... Oil...
*America has joined the chat*
👍 also democrats say people are a resource!
@@sthomas7211 Wait they do? I thought that would be a Republican thing!
@@Tzizenorec I hear your sarcasm but no it's been said by democrats that America's greatest resource is the people. You know like cattle.
Option 3 is literally what the tragedy of the commons is saying inevitablely fails.
He tries to manipulate it, such as when he says the fisherman will 'naturally' keep other fisherman out and enforce rules. He's just changing it to option 1 or 2.
Yeah, fishermen can form a coop to to monitor fish population and take actions whenever something goes wrong.
He probably failed to notice that fishermen can manage themselves *even without privatisation*
Use of the commons must be subject to objectively-established rules based on sustainability considerations. The best way to then grant access to the commons is by competitive bidding for a leasehold interest. The amount anyone would bid would be governed by the anticipation of maximum production subject to restrictions imposed.
That fails due to cronyism. It would need to be completely independent of any outside forces.
@@w.t.fpipedreamwithhopefull5538 Positive change can actually occur. It is difficult, but look at the changes in election laws and public financing of campaigns that has occurred in Connecticut.
@@nthperson Maybe one day. You would think The tragedy of commons was a major part of any policy. I think might be going along the corporate line of max production that's in contrast to sustainability and quality.
@@nthperson I was pondering weather a corporation can exist if we took Tragedy of commons into account. Does a corporation ever help the commons instead of snatch and grab.
Congrats, you've invented crony-capitalism, that's only practised all over the world right now.
Wooot! Solution number 3 is our solution!
YOOOOOOO who has the edpuzzle answers 2024???!!
Who the heck told you it was "easy" to monitor ocean fish stocks??
No one. The video even says that the inability to monitor numbers effectively is something that exacerbates the 'tragedy of the commons'.
7:08
Cows = Carbon emissions
Common land = Climate
America has to do this with our economy
When the western land was commonly owned, the buffalo population plummeted as hunters would all try to get their game before others. Once the land was divided into parcels & bidded off onto the market, farmers secured the land & bread the buffalo. Why? Because that ensured greater profits over time.
We've seen the same thing with droughts in latin america & parts of africa.
Private property encourages investment into more profitable, sustainable, long-term ventures. Wasting resources is none of the above. Prices are the most efficient system of rationing & allocating resources.
Although the government can technically 'solve' this tragedy, they do so through arbitrary regulatory gatekeeping. Gatekeeping which is often either too cautious, resulting in relatively less yield accrued from the commons, or isn't sufficient so the tragedy's not averted. The tragedies that can occur in the commons are often multifaceted. It's not always as simple as instituting a max on how many cows you can hunt.
nice
The third solution is effectively the second solution, with the first solution wrapped around it. The "group" - at whatever level it acts at - owns the resource (keeping it away from those outside the group, solution 1), and polices its own members (applying top-down rules to those within the group, solution 2). This principle of "capitalism on the outside, communism on the inside" works at any scale.
Three ways to what?
Everything would be clear but there's one thing. It's called free-rider problem.
Western ideology promotes individualism and therefore self interest. That's going to be a problem.
The natural human condition is to choose what’s best for yourself. That’s the natural animal condition. Obscured only by hormonal shifts caused by childbirth or the drive to procreate.
But a buffalo. Will not die so that another buffalo may live. The herd is a herd because each individual gains more from the group than they put in. It’s each individuals selfish drive to live and procreate that warrants their actions. We are no different from the buffalo in the herd. If leaving the herd meant it got to live a better life. The buffalo would do it. Without even thinking about it.
The question is on how do you get the herd to act in a way that’s sustainable without arbritaryily killing buffalo or arbitrarily allowing for a billion buffalo to live on the plaines
Wizard games, what are you talking about with hormonal shifts and childbirth? Are you a man? Lol. Then don't be creepy or weird. mind your own business, not women's.
You boys like to talk about your precious post nut clarity? Well how about a post birth clarity? Where you see how hard everything has been made for you as a woman and how much everyone around you hates and despises you?
THERE'S THE REAL POST X CLARITY.. provided by the combination of enlightening hormones and the cold hard logic of a woman, who is the arbiter and administrator of the species. Most important job on earth. To be the giver of life.
YOUR life.
You're welcome.
Now yes, self-interest is wise. You must put on your own oxygen mask before you put one on anyone else. That is how it works across the board.
Anyone complaining about individualism is a stupid socialist. We don't listen to them. Especially not in the usa. They can keep harping and whining and squealing. And we will ignore them in favor of individualism, where in the individual is the base unit, not the group.
And we will continue in our individual sovereignty.
Elinor Ostrom won a Nobel in 2009 for debunking the tragedy of the commons
She did right something debunking in the tragedy of the commons but then she said the answer is to put the natives of the region in uniform and have them patrol the land on behalf of the private owner.
Public property sucks
The tragedy of the commons arises because each individual wants to make the most profit they can. Looking back at the cows on a pasture example, the pasture may have been common land, but one could only reap the benefits of their own cattle, so they grazed extra cattle instead of thinking of the good of the community. Had the cattle been common property as well, this situation would go quite differently. I think this actually displays the problem with capitalism rather than communism, where a personal profit driven way of thinking ruins what could have been most profitable for the group.
@@a.rushiii personal profit driven way aka capitalism made the smart phone your holding and also the UA-cam app your watching videos on certain amount of greed for profit is good because everyone benefits like our smartphones, private property works better service than public just look at Indian reservations poorest in the usa because they aren't allowed to develop or sell the land
@riqqarddo pv the children working in the mines of Congo to get cobalt for the production of smart phones at laughable wages definitely have not benefitted from this system, so you can not honestly say that everyone benefits in this system. While native Americans may not sell reservations, they can develop the land. However, this land tends not to be very good land anyways. Native Americans have been kept poor due to a history of laws whose purpose was to take away their economic mobility, rights, and culture.
@@a.rushiii native's arent allowed to develop their land watch "John stossel the tragedy of the common's" on UA-cam pretty self explanatory
@@a.rushiii If the cattle are common property, then you run into the same problem when it comes time to decide how many cows each family will eat.
Only if every person involved cares about every other person involved as much as they care about themselves can you avoid self-interest messing up your communism.
So earth is a common resource and we are overgrazing
Yes, but you'll need to be much more specific than that. XD
That's socialism for you
what if we just reinstate Stalin's policy of planning the minimum output for certain places?, because that is a solution (nobody would go over the minimum, because you don't get anything extra from it, so therefor the tragedy of the commons will probably not apply)
The problem with regulation in this scenario is that it's entirely arbitrary. The market finds the most profitable way maximize resource utilization, without waste.
That’s not a minimum. That’s a maximum. And it’s how you get shortages
Yo does someone wanna be a real one describe the tragedy of the commons and give an example not used in the video
How do you manage to change a simple philosophical conundrum into such a pro-capitalist message?
The tragedy of the commons is solved through regulation and co-operation, not by private ownership.
You mean communism? When things are tightly regulated.
No. Was Central Park built by communists?
Solution #1: Private ownership
Solution #2: Regulation
The video said that explicitly. I suppose this video is a bit capitalist-biased, but it does acknowledge all of the options.
You're dense
Not an argument. I can provide historical evidence, including the near extinction & revival of the buffalo population. When the western land was commonly owned, the buffalo population plummeted as hunters would all try to get their game before others. Once the land was divided into parcels & bidded off onto the market, farmers secured the land & bread the buffalo. Why? Because that ensured greater profits over time.
We've seen the same thing with droughts in latin america & parts of africa.
Private property encourages investment into more profitable, sustainable, long-term ventures. Wasting resources is none of the above. Prices are the most efficient system of rationing & allocating resources.
This video is just more slavery/wage slavery propaganda. It’s like saying poor people shouldn’t get more money because they don’t know what to do with it. The common lands should be all land except for certain exceptions like national parks. People use to have the right to land and the right to live off it by hunting, farming, and foraging. Now those are all illegal, taxed, and have fees unless you become a slave to land distributors. Their should be a free land land minimum so people have the right to land and aren’t a slave by definition. Then if they wanted more than the minimum they would have to pay because they would be taking up more limited land. Think about it back in the day farmers and hunters just had food for their families, then the king decided to tax them for their land. What money did these people have? None. Thus making them slaves. Forced to do more work that wasn’t necessary and if they didn’t you could expect your wife to be raped and the man to be beaten and tortured. Hmmm wonder why we still don’t have this right? It’s like history class tells you but also doesn’t want you to know.. like sure teacher they left their land for “religion” THEY WANTED TO BE FREE ON LAND WITHOUT SOME SLAVE OWNER FOR FUCKS SAKE, religion was just a part of their moral belief that contributed to wanting to be free. Go figure.
But those people could form rules and ethics for that common resource. moreover they all could be people from same neighborhood or community having strong social relations, so they might scold Gilbert in the first place for coming at a selfish solution for the problem which is going to affect all of them.
I think it's more of a cultural problem if any. a culture that promotes selfish instant gratification instead of long term gain for everyone.
we aren't greedy as an individual with our family and friends…we never put them down in our own greed, we share food and other resources with them even when we have little for ourselves in adverse times. why can't we extend the same with the whole society?
Tragedy of Common is actually tragedy of "greed taking over rationality" and failure of society due to lack of communication and cooperation.
Go vegan! What do you think about that? I have become vegetarian so I still use the cows for yogurt and cheese. But I am considering a gradual move to veganism. But isn't it true that a plant based food economy might possibly be a bit more forgiving on the land, still we would need to figure out how to manage it better. Do like it was prescribed in the Bible and practiced by farmers following Bible regulations, and that would be to allow the land to rest every seventh year.
If you go vegan, then you just need a different example. The tragedy of the commons is very broad; it applies to vegan things too (like, say, having a communal garden where each person can plant and/or eat as much vegetables as they want).