I think it’s important to note the author’s biases. While much of what they state is important history to state - they are a bit reductionist and throw out the entire concept of the common resource management because of its tainted association with Hardin. In the article they link another article, which felt a bit less biased and more nuanced and goes into the details of the work of Ostrom, namely that of collaborative management, or healthy systems for managing the commons so as to avoid the ‘tragedy’. Her work was proof that it is not an inevitable outcome, and while the author correctly recognizes that capitalistic societies heavily weigh the scale to result in tragedy, it overlooks the situations in which it is not - examples such as community fiber internet, groundwater usage in los angeles, national parks and other environmental protection agencies, and more.
This is interesting, since my perspective on be tragedy has always been from the perspective of game theory. Often the optimal outcome isn’t a stable one because in many circumstances a totally altruistic system can be taken advantage of.
Humans of course beat the game theory predicted stability points quite often, because humans are not rational actors and that is an adaptive advantage that lets us beat gave theory often unintentionally, compared to most other animals which do behave rationally.
So the important takeaway I think is that models don’t describe everything, all perspectives have limitations. Humans beat the tragedy of the Commons regularly and often there are ways to. But it is a genuine problem that exists in many situations and does need to be solved.
This is interesting, since my perspective on be tragedy has always been from the perspective of game theory. Often the optimal outcome isn’t a stable one because in many circumstances a totally altruistic system can be taken advantage of.
Game theory is deeply flawed because it plays out on too small of a scale. Both in scope (individual games between too few actors) and in measure (doesn’t play out over tens or hundreds of thousands of repetitions in a system which can adapt/evolve). It has always stuck me as people who think they’re smart measuring what they think being smart should be.
A recent study on large scale cooperation shows that the creation of societal norms which help to promote cooperation naturally occurs and that working for the benefit of many is actually more advantageous.
The critique of simple games in game theory comes from game theory. It’s usually just people who don’t know game theory that think it’s bad or something. I think game theory pretty concretely leads us to some pretty based conclusions.
Years ago I read of a couple of game theorists who were attending a conference in … perhaps Egypt … and they decided to wait until at the destination ( taxi ) before declaring that they would only pay part of the fare, & the driver would just have to accept it…
What the driver did was drive them back to their origin, at his expense, & told them to get out.
Game theory didn’t allow that.
Therefore they invented Drama Theory, which takes into account emotion/politics, because the evidence that human behaviour contradicts Game Theory had finally got noticed by them.
No idea who they were, nor have I noticed anything obvious published as Drama Theory, since.
It may have been in Scientific American, or some similar thing, it was years ago, possibly last century.
game theory is deeply flawed
It’s… Not? Applications of it maybe but this is like saying algebra is flawed because it’s hard to model rates of change. I don’t think you’re totally understanding the purpose of game theory as a mathematical model. And believe me, game theory is absolutely verified as mathematically valid. We wouldn’t have modern gene theory without it.
A recent study on large scale cooperation shows that the creation of societal norms which help to promote cooperation naturally occurs and that working for the benefit of many is actually more advantageous
Very cool. And exactly what I was talking about. Humans aren’t rational actors, to do things exactly line this. Game theory on basic altruisistic systems predicted, as one of the first things that was done with it, that total altruism is more advantageous, but due to the nature of the choices rational actors make, impossible to sustain. If you want to learn more about these systems there are plenty of resources, but as discussed, they are demonstrative, the simple examples are rare and more easily found in genes.
Apologies I meant the application of game theory as an explanation for optimization of behavior or evolution. Not as like, a mathematical model or it’s potential applications. To be fair I’m also simplifying to what people think of as game theory which is more aspects of it, namely hypotheticals like the prisoners dilemma being used as an explanation for human behavior on a broad scale rather than on an individual level
What I probably should have said is that many applications of game theory are deeply flawed for the reasons I listen above
It’s certainly a functional way to model many many systems in evolution, social sciences, economics, etc. But all models are limited at least by how much complexity you can put in.
The fact that humans actually don’t behave rationally itself is a huge discovery of game theory. Evolutionary models fundamentally rely on game theory in a way that is hard to overstate. Genes are inherently rational actors, the system is just complex.
I don’t doubt there are plenty of misapplications of it like anything else. But I mean, same with statistics, or calculus, or set theory.
I think the metaphor is usually a way to convince right wing people that the market isnt always right.
I don’t think many people actually believe polluting is the same as grazing four cows this year when you grazed three the prior.
The climate crisis isn’t a tragedy of the commons and I haven’t actually heard this claim be made yet (but I admittedly avoid listening to oil companies speak).
The break room fridge and microwave sure are though. Stop bringing fish into work. You know who you are.
Going back to Hardin, the fundamental thesis of the tragedy of commons is that as society scales past a certain point, regulation is the only way to deal with the over-exploitation of things that are beneficial to one person but carry an externality borne by others.
In tribes / small societies (and presumably your workplace!), that regulation might come from ostracisation of people who over-exploit by their neighbours. In a large society, it could come from a government (and could come in many forms - subsidies, taxes, laws prohibiting or rationing activities, laws requiring counterbalancing good).
Now consider the climate crisis. It has the externality (if I burn fossil fuels, I cause emissions that warms the planet for everyone, and leads to rising sea levels, lots of people losing land, losses of biodiversity and the benefits that provides, and extreme weather events). Most of the impact of my own emissions would not be felt by me - in fact, most would be felt by future generations - making it an externality. At least until society transitions fully to non-fossil energy sources, in the absence of any regulation stopping me, burning fossil fuels is likely more convenient. So it meets all the requirements to be a tragedy of the commons.
As a result, that analysis tells us that, if we accept Hardin’s thesis, some kind of government intervention is needed to control emissions. Sadly, due to regulatory capture, in many countries there is not enough of that happening, hence why this has become such a crisis.
What the author is saying, I think, is that the inevitability of the tragedy is the right-wing concept. The concept of the commons is totally legit and the tragedy that can befall it from unregulated use is also clear. The right-wing concept that is dubious is that humans will self-regulate and do not benefit from governance.
Usually the tragedy is used to defend governance on the left, and defend property rights on the right. I think it’s a very effective metaphor for the need of the commons to be governed, and not sold.
It is about over population, over consumption, obsolescence, and disproportionate consumption by the wealthy. It is also about activities that are by their very nature not renewable which are most technologies.
In the end it is population multiplied by nonrenewable consumption. We all contribute to this, though the wealthy which typically have higher consumption typically contribute more.
