-
• #1302
I wasn't applying it to newspapers. I'm not even following that conversation. It was a response to a sentiment - i.e. the quoted text. I.e. exactly what I said in my reply.
But having said that, you're still wrong in your own example. In this case the commons in the newspapers. As you state yourself, if everyone does it, that common will disappear.
-
working in NHS (also) but can't download the pdf... -_- is that work for u?
ta -
As you state yourself, if everyone does it, that common will disappear.
No it won't, it is in a sense a 'renewable' resource. There's a new batch every day, in a limited number, and when it's gone it's gone - but it doesn't mean there won't be more tomorrow.
The 'tragedy of the commons' applies to things like over-fishing: the tragedy isn't that each fisher will take home less. The tragedy is that each fisher contributes to destroying the entire ecosystem, until there is no fish population left at all. Similarly, if some (few) people extract wood from the Amazon in controlled numbers, it's fine. If more people extract wood, at some point there will be less for each person - but the tragedy isn't that, the tragedy is that due to the increased deforestation, the entire area will turn into a sand desert, and the commons as such has disappeared.
So basically, as I said, while it is a super important concept to keep in mind and it does apply to a lot of things, not everything that only works if a small number of people does it is immediately a good 'tragedy of the commons' example.
Sorry for derailing the thread further, but I think it's an important distinction.
-
What if demand for free newspapers increases because people are burning them instead of reading them? Will supply increase as the publisher believes they are fairing better?
More papers are produced, more trees are cut down to be burned by people wanting to have heat and warmth but not pay for it.
The publishers realise the changed dynamic and halt production of newspapers meaning nobody gets one.
Tragedy of the commons?
-
• #1307
^^^ This is dumb, and a derail, so this is my last post. I know what the tragedy of the commons is. It can be applied to anything which can be conceived as a common. The time it takes for that common to be restocked does not change the underlying logic of the metaphor. The point of the tragedy of the commons is simply that the rational self-interested actions of individuals to better themselves can have an adverse impact on the thing which betters them (the common). This is the sentiment of the post I was responding to.
-
What if nobody reads the free papers because there's too much smoke in the air to see them?
-
Where is this great thread?
Is it @dammit's kitchen?
I want in on a great kitchen debaucle!
-
The time it takes for that common to be restocked does not change the underlying logic of the metaphor.
Also my last post on this topic: the point wasn't about the time it takes for restocking, it was that people picking up newspapers lying around in trains after people have read them has no impact on the amount of restocking, whereas this is exactly the issue with things like over-fishing, or indeed the original commons.
@Señor_Bear Nah, they'll use the increased numbers to get more money from advertisers...
-
The bike show is having a coronavirus stand and a team will focus on your 'high touch' areas.
https://thelondonbikeshow.co.uk/content/images/Coronavirus-Update-03_03_2020.pdf -
Suffocation is the easy way out
-
debaucle
is this a germanic style combination of a debauched debacle?
-
You can do 111 online:
https://111.nhs.uk/service/covid-19HealTFU. Something which sounds like what you've got is going round our work. I think probably not COVID-19 but it could be: for most people the symptoms will be mild.
-
An excellant example. More seriously though, isn't the deal with face masks that you want them to be disposable, because at some point you've got to take them off and put them somewhere.
A tuperware will presumably make it back to her house, infecting her when she removes it.
-
More seriously though, isn't the deal with face masks that you want them to be disposable, because at some point you've got to take them off and put them somewhere.
They're disposable because they made from things that aren't easily cleaned. Invent a face mask that can be washed time and time again at 90oC and still filters out particles as small as viruses and you'll be on to a winner.
Get home, stick tupperware container in a dishwasher on an 80oC wash, wash hands.
That's not the reason why it doesn't make much sense.
Albb
SwissChap
benjam
BareNecessities
ChainBreaker
Clockwise
dubtap
johnnettles2
dancing james
fredtc
Kurai
kerplaagh
Fox
christianSpaceman
andyp
kboy
Greenbank-
Post a reply
About
Chat about Novel Coronavirus - 2019-nCoV - COVID-19
Posted by
Well no, it doesn't apply here. Even if too many people tried to collect free newspapers to get free heating (and that's a pretty big if), they'll just end up not finding any, and they'll continue heating as always. Free newspapers in a train is not a common good that will be spoiled by or collapse due to overuse the way this happens with the classic shared commons.
You got to be careful with applying the 'tragedy of the commons' thing to everything. There are many things that work when, and because, only a small number of people do it, but usually there is a reason for why not everyone is doing it. If you have someone making biofuel out of green waste that restaurants no longer want, that's "not sustainable if everyone does it", but there's still no automatic tragedy of the commons happening either.
It's absolutely something to keep in mind, but you also run the risk of opposing every 'small' solution on principle, rather than seeing them as part of an overall approach to avoid the current 'big' solution which might be unsustainable long-term anyway.