• Ace! _SL/S@ani.social
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    22
    arrow-down
    9
    ·
    2 months ago

    There will be atleast 1 asshole trying to take all the aplles fer themselves. I guarantee it

      • Ace! _SL/S@ani.social
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        9
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        edit-2
        2 months ago

        I didn’t say we shouldn’t do it. I just wanted to point out that sadly one jerk will probably try and ruin it for everyone

        • dessimbelackis@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          5
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          2 months ago

          We should bring back tar and feather punishments or maybe exile, for people who ruin good things so they can benefit more than anyone else

    • pelespirit@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      15
      ·
      2 months ago

      Meh, that’s why you plant an abundance. No value if you can’t steal at least most and probably be able to travel.

      • fishbone@lemmy.dbzer0.com
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        4
        ·
        2 months ago

        I grew up in a town with plenty of fruit naturally growing (blackberries especially, which grow like weeds) and having an abundance absolutely meant that no one tried to horde it all. You could pick 10 pounds of blackberries and barely make a dent in the amount in any given neighborhood.

      • Ace! _SL/S@ani.social
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        2 months ago

        That’s a good solution I didn’t really consider. Sad that my brain considers 1 apple tree already way more than any government might be willing to plant

      • SinAdjetivos@beehaw.org
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        4
        ·
        2 months ago

        And if you actually read the Wikipedia article you linked:

        The work of Elinor Ostrom, who received the Nobel Prize in Economics is seen by some economists as having refuted Hardin’s claims.[1] Hardin’s views on over-population have been criticised as simplistic[2] and racist. [3]

        Hardin’s work is criticised as historically inaccurate in failing to account for the demographic transition,[191] and for failing to distinguish between common property and open access resources.[192][193] Environmentalist Derrick Jensen claims the tragedy of the commons is used as propaganda for private ownership.[194][195] He says it has been used by the political right wing to hasten the final enclosure of the “common resources” of third world and indigenous people worldwide, as a part of the Washington Consensus.[196]

        Other criticisms have focused on Hardin’s racist and eugenicist views, claiming that his arguments are directed towards forcible population control, particularly for people of color.[210][211]

        The “tragedy of the commons” is one of those things that’s very Intuitive, but doesn’t actually hold up to much scrutiny.

        • Maeve@midwest.social
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          5
          ·
          2 months ago

          So the BLM lied about the (Cliven and sons) Bundy cattle degrading US property? No, I don’t sympathize with them, just saying the answer may be somewhere between each extreme. Key word: “may,” because I’m not a conservation scientist and people are people.

    • Swedneck@discuss.tchncs.de
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      2 months ago

      that just obviously doesn’t happen though, my city’s full of fruit trees all over and the absolute worst thing that happens is that dumb kids shake down some of the fruit because they’re dumb, and you can just… pick that up…