Tragedy of the Commons
Vložit
- čas přidán 17. 05. 2024
- The tragedy of the commons is a situation in which individuals acting in their own self-interest behave contrary to the common good of all others by depleting or spoiling a shared resource through their collective action. The phenomenon was first described by the British economist William Forster Lloyd in 1833. Lloyd observed that because grazing on the commons (fields that were open to anyone) was free, the land was spoiled, which diminished the value of the fields for everyone. Can you think of a free resource that’s possibly subject to the same tragedy? Sharks might!
SUPPORT us to discover more econ concepts!
/ sprouts 🐦:
DOWNLOAD video without ads and background music 🤫:
sproutsschools.com/video-less...
SIGN UP to our mailing list and never miss a new video from us 🔔:
eepurl.com/dNU4BQ
SOURCES and teaching resources 🎓:
sproutsschools.com/tragedy-of...
CONTRIBUTE by upvoting your favorite topic or suggesting new ones :
sprouts.featureupvote.com/
THANKS to our patrons
This video was made with the support of our Patrons: Adam G, Badrah, Andrea Basilio Rava, Angela, Bettina Kind, Brilliant Minds Learning, Broke, Cedric Wang, Daniel Kramer, David Markham, Denis Kraus, Digital INnov8ors, Don Bone, Enrique Arellano Farias, Esther Chiang, Eva Marie Koblin, Gatsby Dkdc, Ginger, Hal Beltran, Ich kann Deutsch und es war einfach, Jannes Croon, Jeffrey Cassianna, Joanne Doyle, Johan Klassen, John Zhang, Jonathan Schwarz, Judy Roland, kritik bhimani, Liskaya, Marcel, Margaret Grace, Maria, Marq Short, Mathis Nu, Mezes.Macko, Muhammad Humayun, Nancy Bueffler, Okan Elibol, Peter Bishop, Petra, Raman Srivastava, Raymond Fujioka, Reynir Örn Bachmann Guðmundsson, Robert Cook, Scripz, Shao Xiang, Sergei Kukhariev, Si, Susan Schuster, Stephen Clark, Stephen, Tetiana Gerasymova, Tristan Scifo, Tsungren Yang, Victor Paweletz, Vishruth Harithsa, Wolfgang Vullhorst and all the others. Thank you! To join them visit www.patreon.com/sprouts
COLLABORATORS
Script: Jonas Koblin
Artist: Pascal Gaggelli
Voice: Mithril
Coloring: Nalin
Editing: Peera Lertsukittipongsa
Head of Partnership Program: Selina Bador
Production: Morgan Lizop, Bianka
Proofreading: Susan
Sound Design: Miguel Ojeda
Classroom exercise: Morgan Lizop
SOUNDTRACKS
Toys Are Alive - Studio Le Bus
Terror Avenue - Jack Pierce
DIG DEEPER with these resources:
Bruce Yandle talks about the tragedy of the commons and the ways that people have avoided the overuse of resources that are held in common. Examples discussed in this econtalk include fisheries, roads, rivers and the air.
Learn about carbon tax as a solution for polluting the air and reducing carbon emissions. Carbon taxes are intended to make visible the "hidden" social costs of carbon emissions, which are otherwise felt only in indirect ways like more severe weather events.
SOURCES
Tragedy of the commons
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tragedy...
Plastics in ocean
www3.weforum.org/docs/WEF_The_...
Swiss alps law
www.csub.edu/~craupp/psyc332/...
Age of Humans
www.universetoday.com/38125/h...
Age of Sharks
www.nhm.ac.uk/discover/shark-...
Homework assignment
economicskey.com/the-tragedy-...
CLASSROOM EXERCISE
Don’t Kill The Rabbit! To experience the tragedy of the commons first hand, here is a group game.
The game has four elements:
A circle = the commons
Participants = farmers
Carrots = food
Rabbits = animals to be fed
Getting started:
Choose a number of people (say 5) to do this exercise with.
On an erasable board, draw a circle, then draw carrots in it (say 20).
Give each participant a secret note with a number on it (say: 1, 3, 1, 1, 4). This number represents how many rabbits each participant has to feed. Each rabbit needs to eat at least one carrot per round to stay alive.
Ask participants, one after the other, to take as many carrots from the circle as they want. At the end of the round, double the amount of all the carrots that are left.
Then continue to play round after round until all carrots are gone and the first rabbit dies.
The first time you do this, make sure you have exactly twice as many carrots as there are rabbits to feed so that if everyone picks just what they need (the carrots are replenished). What do you observe? Are the commons being depleted and do the rabbits die?
Try to do this again with a different number of carrots, letting participants tell each other how many rabbits they are feeding, or with settings we haven’t thought of. Let us know what you observe in the comments below.
Chapter
00:00 Introduction
00:47 Tragedy of the Commons theory
01:31 Social Norms
02:01 Privatization
02:33 State Regulation
03:50 What do you think?
04:15 Ending
Support the teaching of economics in schools: patreon.com/sprouts
This theory appears to be relevant to many more spheres than the physical world…it’s positive and negative aspects can be applied to cultures, societies and personal interactions.
I have been pondering about the concept of this video for so long.
I did not know it had a term like tragedy of commons.
I very much agree with you that this can be applicable to so many other areas. I feel like this concept is a big contributor to my sadness and depressive demeanour.
@@EonWhite I can empathize…sorry to hear you’re blue. Some of us feel and see a lot more than typical individuals and it’s isolating in a way. Take care and know it takes great courage and ability to be able to sit and ponder and wonder about oneself and the world.
@@EonWhite If you sad and depressed, read Algorithm to Live by Brian Christian and Tom Griffiths. Specifically Chapter 11 - Game Theory. It will do you better. It will give you a larger context behind that Tragedy of the Commons hypothesis.
Note 1, in some cases, the cures to the Tragedy of the Commons are worst than the disease. Think Solution 3 can lead to Stalinism / Leninism and their brand of Socialism.
Note 2, Tragedy of the Commons' posulate is always used by CZcamsr to advance their own agenda. Question you need to ask yourself, are you living your life or living based on other people agenda?
Do read the book, it will explain how Tragedy of the Commons in a greater context, and you'll see how it will lead to the creation of GOD, the Don (of mafia kind) and the reason we have a "sabbath day". Also, the book will tell you other contra-mechanism we can design to minimise the impact of Tragedy of the Commons.
@@EonWhite The _likely_ reason you feel tjhat way is that when we see a problem, we want agency to fix it. Another tragedy of all of this is that when something is seen as a larger, 'social' issue, the vast majority of people *_DON'T_** want* to contemplate dealing with it.
At all.
Then... where do you go? Most who prefer fixing things to leaving them get worse end up hating having to work with others. The structures in place are _run_ by those others (because there are more of them than of you, & they don't understand you, so they work to keep you out) making things infinitely worse.
Despite all this, I think that things _CAN_ be fixed. The majority of people who don't like new things also like following. It's easier.
You establish the new solutions, & after a while, it *becomes* what they blindly follow. The real question is how to get there (where we can establish this new normal) from here. This requires at least a _few_ people willing to work together.
Unless someone can think of things that I haven't.
Tragedy of commons.
I did not know this had a term.
I have been pondering about this issue for so long.
I’m glad that I finally have a term for this issue.
Thanks for sharing good knowledge such as this.
You'll want to look up 'moral hazard'.
@@NashLaoShi
That’s another great term in the same vein.
Thanks for sharing, I did not know of it already. 👌
Falls apart when private owners 'lobby' (legally bribe) regulators not to regulate.
And every single type of human society will have it as a component. No way out.
@@drjp4212 not necessarily...
This is the way.
Ideally.
In theory, this approach seems almost flawless. But, privatization and government have to regulate with public interest and also, regularly enforce them.
Which they don't seem to be inclined to do as their profit design is based on numbers and exploitation. Not, the sustainable way because it doesn't yield the profits.
Another great video.
Thank you
Which software you guys use to Create 2D drawing animation ?
ok, but why everyone is always concerned about the plastic bags and no one ever mentions plastic TOYS??? look at any 1 household with children and you will find toys equal in weight with the plastic bags of of the whole neighborhood for at least 5 years! the plastic toy is the most disregarded danger from absolutely any perspective - it pollutes, it messes up children psychologically, sometimes it's a danger even physically, it over clutters house space, it depletes budget, it serves as a substitute for parenting and in general makes the whole family look (at the least) stupid.
I worked at a recycling station. And while the amount of toys wasn’t that big compared to everything else the station received. The toys still always stood out to me, as they contain so much material for seemingly so little worth. And worse of all is that many toys are made of so many mixed materials, that recycling isn’t easily done or possible.
Most of it just got sorted as “small combustible”, meaning it got burned to create energy.
The last two things that should have been mentioned is making sure that the policy (whether creating awareness, privatization, or regulation) is based on doing good rather than feeling good, and practicality rather than the ideal.
Agreed. Recycling in America feels good. But the large majority of our plastics that are shipped to China for processing are just dumped immediately into the ocean from barges, because they're not profitable to remake and recycle. But most people don't know/understand that. Now if those recycling plants were in the US, we could at least guarantee they weren't dumping plastic in the ocean. But we can't do anything about a nation so dedicated to production at the expense of nature that their most famous "yellow" river - the Yangteze - is now a muddy blue from the indigo dye used to make jeans.
If we really want to focus on sustainability, we need to move to more and more USA produced products and away from other countries.
how much DOES it cost to clean up after a business and what do you do when they go to somewhere else without the fees?
"We humans," not "us humans."
Sharks have been here longer than trees.
Guess it's about time they made room!
The problem here is there are malicious actors and they cannot be coerced. You included China in your animation for international agreement. A significant amount of the plastic is there because of China. Many places pay China to take plastics for recycling. The contracts state that China must recycle this plastic. They do not. They just dump it in the ocean. Now these places that were paying China to take the plastics don't have the local facilities to recycle because they assumed China was properly honoring the contract. There is no way to coerce China to honor these contracts.
A great deal of our supply chain relies on plastic containers. Restricting how many we make will lead to shortages elsewhere. Notably with food. Food shortages on top of the issues caused by the pandemic and extremist governors of major ports (one policy by Newsom is why we had the giant buildup of ships waiting outside Cali) would cause major societal instability.
The Tragedy of the Commons is a type of Prisoners' Dilemma from Game Theory.
Give me ownership of the entire ocean and I'll do my best to clean it up and prevent further waste entering it
Thank you today I have class test on tragedy of commons
Companies produce it and people consume it. They are both equally culpable. The best method is to dedicate a tax on production and consumption of plastic to the purpose of environment/oceanic cleanup. This way not only is fund to help clean it but an incentive for producers and consumers to use alternatives.
Based
They are not both equally culpable due to the power difference between a single consumer and massive corporations, but yes we should tax them
Even though I agree with the idea of a plastic tax, technically companies are not at fault for plastic in the ocean, it is clearly not meant to be disposed of that way, this is purely due to consumer neglect
@@Heylon1313 bruh are you fr?
@@isaaccardenas8829 how about the power difference between an entire customer base and "massive corporations"? They depend on customers for their income, and not just on one individual customer either. So that differential isn't really relevant here.
The problem with plastics is we have to get certain countries to get on board, and asking them nicely isn't working.
Government intervention always sounds like a good idea until it becomes a bloated, bureaucratic mess and ends up being one of the worst you can think of
Some ways to restrict pollution by plastics: encourage the development of bacteria that can break down plastics under certain conditions and make those who deal with waste plastic use them in to consume the waste; tax plastic production to get people to use other things like wood and paper that are easily biodegradable at the end of their useful existence; get people to use reusable plastics only and phase out plastics that burn when you attempt to melt them. To work, plastics must be integrated into natural cycles so that they can be decomposed and not clog up the environment.
"There's enough for everyone, if you are not greedy"
Write: "plastic river" on youtube. In western countries we try limit polution by ban single use plastic bags or making drinking straw from paper. In same time on Haiti, in Amasonia, in India people use rivres as a waste dumps, and throw tons trash into rivers from trucks.
Regulations dont help. We can write anything op paper, but in pour countries they will not be able to comply with these regulations. They need investments, and also improve consciousness.
You are right. Also, as long as income inequality, poverty and hunger exists, it will be very difficult to implement these regulations. Somebody who has to worry about their next meal won't have time or energy to care about recycling.
How is making drinking straw out of paper any good after all paper comes from trees
@@sriharshabeela7478 Trees are renewables, people just plant forest. We have some natural parks and nature reserves, and have some commercial forest for wood productions. In EU more trees are planted than cut.
@@Laskuna then why these cop meetings are urging towards zero carbon emissions, if more trees are planted than cut then the they should nullify these carbon emissions but not happening, temperatures are soaring, polar ice caps are melting
@@sriharshabeela7478 this would be the case if we only burned wood. We also burn coal, oil and gas.
I don't know why but I read it as Tragedy of Condoms 😭😭
AND the thumbnail isn't helping either! 😜
😂
Now maybe you could investigate the fallacy of plastic recycling. You can't compel what doesn't exist. The US doesn't possess the capability to recycle all the plastic it produces. Furthermore, virgin plastic costs less than recycle as a raw material. There needs to be a LOT of change and improvement!
Thanks! Very true
That's it! Punish the innocent - oh wait! Question, if all of my plastic goes into my recycle bin, how does it end up in the ocean?
Since 90% of the plastics in the oceans come from just one percent of rivers and streams, the solution would not be going after the generation of the plastic material but the generation of the plastic waste.
If we spent millions of dollars putting catch basins at the Delta‘s of the onepercent of these rivers and streams, we would soon realize that the money would be better spent having the locals throw their garbage into garbage collection facilities and paying them for the garbage.This would solve two problems. Since these rivers and streams are in the poorest of places in the world, it would create a source of income for the individuals who would otherwise just be thrown in the garbage into the rivers and streams. Secondly since not everybody would be able to make it to the garbage collection sites to earn their money, entrepreneurs WoodSpring up and would pay people for their waist at a slightly smaller rate and then bring it to the garbage collection facilities themselves.
But instead, socially morally and ethically bound societies will impose laws and regulations that will affect the economies of the West in the availability of goods and services when none of those economies are to blame for the 90% of the trash that is winding up in the oceans.
Thinking that laws will stop people from catching too many fish is a silly as thinking that laws will stop criminals from shooting each other. If you target does self interested nature of the human population, you can solve the problems of plastic in the oceans.
There are companies like Danimer that produces biodegradable plastics. Not the perfect solution, but one none the less
We could use a double Pfandsystem. Whenever a company sells a (plastic) bottle, both, customer as well company, have to pay a deposit on top. If the customer brings the bottle back, he or she will get a refund of the deposit and if the company collect these bottles as well as reuse or recycling it, the company get a full refund for each bottle so resold and a half refund for every bottle that is recycled to another product back. The rest are fines for the customer or the company. Companies like fritz-kola, Lemonaide, or Mio Mio would get almost full refunds, while Coca-Cola will get just half refunds most of the time because CC likes to use disposable bottles over reusable bottles and plastic over glass. The tax for the emissions of greenhouse gas rules when a company uses a bottle. They would prefer glass over plastic for short regional selling because the refound deposit would be higher than the tax for greenhouse gas emissions while on longer delivery distances, the emission tax becomes greater than the refunded deposit.
Thanks 🙏
So in short:
Tragedy of commons is bad.
Creative commons is great.
Save The Oceans Before it's Too late 🤩🤩🤩🤩🤩🤩🤩🤩🤩🤩🤩🤩🤩🤩🤩🤩🤩🤩🤩🤩🤩🤩🤩🤩🤩🤩🤩
i think the grazing example is given by garrett hardin and not lloyd😅
New tech and biological advancements have solved this and other pollutants.. NGO will finish cleaning in 50 years with little effort.
Some people act as if pollution is getting worse, it's not.
I think this concept is very opt one for current corporate way of life
The first time viewer.
Rainbow!
This is just an externalities which means when economic tansaction happens between 2 people it will effect the third party
cool
I like option 2, privatization. I think this can even apply to the oceans. Fishing rights in cubic mile chunks of the ocean can be home-steaded, and rights to those regions defended by a voluntary association of fishers. They would have an incentive to police pollution in those areas if it hurt their fishing yields or the quality of their fish.
Yeah because privatusation has never fucking sucked, and as someone with no social leverage or capital you'd definitely stand to gain from it, right?
@@boozecruiser Privatization can tend to suck. The thing is, that government ownership tends to suck MORE.
@@freesk8 there's plastic in the enitere ocean, not just the parts that people fish in. so who would be responsible for the international waters? and if you sold off the international waters to a bunch of private owners, what's stoppig them from upcharging all cargo and cruise ships what sail through their waters?
privatizing the entire ocean would just give rich corporations another tool to get richer
We need recycling to be easier and instantly rewarding. Humans usually like those two.
The commons _is_ the tragedy… and state immunity (sovereign immunity, statutory grants & indemnities, regulatory capture, & the domain of public choice theory altogether) is just another commons. The only way to close the feedback loop against externalities is to eliminate externalities. No externalities equals distinct ownership with full benefits & liability, because anything less than full benefit is an externality & anything less than full liability is an externality.
Thanks! Very Insightful
Sharks are here for 400 million years and we're only 300k!!! Then why aren't they more intelligent than human due to evolution???
Sharks don’t need to be more “intelligent” to survive…they do pretty well in their environment. Humans had to develop other skills to survive in the earthly environment. Everything to its own purposes and needs. Good question to ponder.
Fishes evolved to amphibians, ambhibians to reptiles, reptiles to mammals, of who we are one of the latest. That's why we are the most intelligent beings, as per evolution.
We are the evolved sharks.
3:10 Relativism alert: "...morally obliged..."
….So?
@@mikesmnell414 ... exactly.
Privatization made things worse for us! I think we need to go back to a democratic based economy, where everyone gets involved about shared ressources in their local area. So the needs are considered of people affected by.
😍
MY AP BIO TEACHER JUST HAD AN ASSIGNMENT ON THIS WTF
Maybe they know each other 🌚
Plasma gasification is the solution to all non-radioactive waste. Unfortunately no one has figured out a way to get rich off it yet, so the problem persists.
American Liberals say this is fake american conservatives say its too real. Alot of the issues the Can/US and the UK have with this other countries dont, i wonder if this has to do with our individualism mindset being higher than our idea of communalism
Thank you, another thoughtful vid. Maybe Coca-Cola should clean up their god awful mess?
There's a reason they use plastic instead of glass bottles. Greed. That's the cause of most of the problems.
why can't we make plastic bio -degradable and or turn it back to oil from which it came
Easier said than done ! Can women sacrifice their Sanitary napkin for the environment 🙄? They are a major source of pollution also.
Technology once introduced can never be replaced until we get something more exciting!
Solution? Destroy Humanity, of course.
Wrong. Freedom of speech absolutely DOES mean the right to say untrue things AND things that are insults, particularly if they are opinions. Also, you absolutely have the right to declare untrue things to be facts, even if they can be proven not to be facts. They won't BE facts, but you have the right to say things are so that are not so, except under oath.
Interestingly, as mentioned with the alps, the commons actually worked perfectly, people just worked it out between themselves.
But lets imagine a different scale with insane complexity. Like climate change. Its not so easy...
There's a great episode on this in the Srsly Wrong podcast, explaining why this "theory" is actually bullshit, through Elinor Ostrom's work on the management of common property. HIGHLY recommended (and funny).
What exactly is wrong? Can you clarify a bit?
@@EonWhite Briefly, it's based on a thought experiment that from the very beginning assumes that the people involved with the "commons" are all isolated invididuals fully capable of privately accumulating wealth* and only able to reason alone in a purely and abstractly economic way that aims at maximizing and constantly expanding their own profits no matter the costs and consequences. The "theory" takes this to be - implicitly or explicitly - just "human nature", and therefore something pretty much natural and inevitable, while it is actually the way human beings grow up to be in a society - like ours - based on unlimited and legitimized private property, competion and all kinds of hierarchies (in fact, we know from anthropological research that human beings have spent the vast majority of those 300.000 years mentioned in the video in egalitarian communities: you can listen to Daniel Bitton's wonderful "What is Politics?" podcast if you want to hear more about this).
In other words, the "theory" is meant to argue against common property but is actually built from the very assumptions of a society based on private property! The "commons" of the thought experiment are not common at all, because people in it just access them privately, individually and anonimously, while what is "common" is only such if there's communication and community among people involved with it (which includes the stuff the video rightly mentions as the first "solution" to the problem, though it's not a solution but one of the very criteria to define something as a "common" at all!, otherwise it's just something that it's casually there in the middle among completely isolated and absolutist private kingdoms). The tragedy of the commons is really the tragedy of the private. Of course, since we do live in a society based on private property, the problem the thought experiment poses IS something we must think about and through, and that's exactly what Olstrom did (she defined 8 factors for the best management of common property, you can find them in that Srsly Wrong podcast I mentioned, episode 235). The problem of "the tragedy of the commons" is that the thought experiment itself doesn't help at all in claryfing the problem, but rather deeply obscures it by making it look like the fault is in common property instead of its own private property assumptions, and therefore making privatization sound like a plausible solution instead of the very source of the problem. And since the people circulating the myth don't really know what makes common property such, the only alternatives they can conceive of is public property - which is NOT common property - or mere top-down state regulation, i. e. the third solution in the video, two ideas that both overlook the fact that the state is deeply entwined with - and subject to the influence of - the interests of large-scale private property in all sorts of ways.
The "tragedy of the commons" was literally brought up - and named this way - by Garret Hardin, a white nationalist Neomalthusian who believed that people ought to be top-down sterilized after their first child so not to surpass "ecological limits": there's just not enough for everyone, so someone will have not to be born, and someone will also have to die (not him, of course - just backwards people in more or less faraway backwards countries). So uhm, there's not enough for everyone, but apparently there's enough for some 1% of people being billionaires unstoppably going on accumulating by exploiting people and the Earth's resources...
Do listen to that Srsly Wrong episode! It's really good.
* By "capable of", I mean to underscore the fact that "owning" something is NOT a simple, natural and direct relationship between one and "one's own" stuff, but a relationship recognized and therefore made possible by others. In our society, for example, private property is something you can not only use and enjoy, but also - and in a larger scale mainly - deny others and also abuse: you can waste and destroy and leave to rot your own stuff, it's not illegal, i. e. it's recognized as legitimate in our society (someone will likely find it immoral or dumb, especially in some cases, but still they would probably recognize it as unfortunately legitimate). So it's not at all neutral to assume in the thought experiment that people will be able to privately accumulate wealth.
@@ujieppurecade5256
I feel bad.
I asked you to clarify. And you clearly made a sizeable effort to do so. But yet I’m still struggling to understand your position, I think?
What I think you’re (very) basically saying, is that the theory in this video is based on some faulty assumptions? Although, that’s possibly, or most likely, a gross simplification?
But it seems like you know a lot about this stuff, while most of it is new to me. So I wish I could understand more of your explanations. But I might check out that podcast episode you mentioned. Maybe that will help me understand better?
In any case, thanks for taking the time to answer me. And I’m sorry for not being able to understand well enough. And please take care. :)
@EonWhite No need to feel bad! I'm the one that should apologize: I have taken too many things and terms for granted and gave too much of a long and heavy answer. I'm sorry it wasn't very helpful. But yeah, you did get the basic meaning right: the theory is based on some faulty assumptions because it imagines people to intrinsically be what they're actually only led to be in our society, which is based on limitless and pretty extreme private property (by which I mean that there's no limit to how rich you can get, you can even accumulate so much money that you wouldn't be able to spend it all, not even in more than a lifetime; and this is a very important point, because when someone criticizes private property the ones defending it at all costs will usually try to scare ordinary people by telling them that what the criticism means is that nobody will have their own shoes anymore or something stupid like that, which is total nonsense: one's relationship with some shoes s/he actually uses or might use in everyday life is something completely different - in quality and in scale - from someone's relationship with billions of shoes produced only to be sold for their own and a very few people's profits).
To make it more concrete, it is as if a huge pile of gold magically appeared all of a sudden in the middle of a public park or square in a city with the kind of society we live in: many or probably most people around would indeed rush to it and try to get as much gold as they can as soon as possible, but that's because (i) that's the way they have always had to live in their society, and it's in that society - beyond the park or the square - that they will be able to legitimately keep for themselves and make a private profit out of that gold, and (ii) that gold is not "common gold" for them, because no relationship with other people was formed around it before - it just appeared out of nothing -, so for them it is just "no one's gold (yet)", which is to say "anyone's gold", something quite different from "common gold"! This is the actual situation behind the "tragedy of the commons", but the thought experiment hides or ignores the context of the city - or whatever - that sorrounds the park or the square in my example, because it assumes that people naturally want to - and are individually able to - accumulate infinite wealth etc. etc.
I hope it's a little bit clearer now, but if you've got any question, I can try to say more. Just don't feel bad! There's no reason to. It's great you made an effort to understand even though it's not something you're familiar with. It's not easy and can't just be taken in all at once as if it was a donut, it takes some time and reflection. Give that podcast episode a try, I do think it might help (as would other related episodes, especially those mentioning "library socialism", which explore libraries as a metaphor for the commons: there's n. 236 that's a great introduction - the one with Ironweeds -, plus the original trilogy of episodes about it - n. 189, 196, 200 - and other stuff as well).
You take care as well. :)
@@EonWhite As long as I could understand, tragedy of the commons is a way to endorse the modern State, saying it's needed to exist such State to punish people "for the greater good".
That man is trying to explain, in too many words, the problem is about private property, and if there weren't any private property, such problem wouldn't even exist.
Publick property, in other hand, it's far from being common property, because what's pubick is, in the end, in the ownership of the most economic/political powerful individuals in such society.
I know that in many Mayan communities, they use the land in common to plant crops and it has worked for them since ancient times. Private property, in the end, becomes an incentive for greed and has caused many people to be dispossessed of common goods for the benefit of just one. The problem with the oceans is that those who, based on their privatization, have exploited the land and its surroundings, without taking responsibility for the consequences. People who think of the common good are the only ones who have done something to stop pollution.
Ban 90% of plastic, use renowal materials. This is simple. For every plastic there is better alternative, that is less profitable.
It also means more expensive lifestyle costs, which might be fatal for a large group of humans.
@@drjp4212 like in 1900s? Millions of people lived without plastic.
@@danieladamczyk4024 so do you wanna poor ppl to live without technologies like food preservatives? Whereas you profit from all goods from capitalism…
Ok
@@drjp4212 Plastic is not only food preservative. There is glass, aluminium, paper, wood. And people used them before plastic existed.
Even the rich ones.
@@danieladamczyk4024 why do you think all those materials aren’t mainstream compared to plastic?
Because plastic is utterly cheaper. I don’t know the world where you live, so you must think everyone lives in the same consumption paradise that those things are not even worthy to think about.
Who’s a bigger polluter chyna or the US?
While it’s important to know who the biggest polluters of the world are, so we can reach out to and discuss things with them. Other people/countries polluting more than you or your own country should not be a reason to not do more or what is needed.
Because that reasoning puts fairness above necessity and sensibility. And while fairness is very important and should be considered and addressed. I do think necessity and sensibility are more important.
In other words, we should all do what we can to preserve and take care of our planet *now.* Rather than not take initiative due to unfairness.
@@EonWhite so…, who’s the biggest polluter chyna or the US? Ever try to maintain your lawn only to have your neighbor ignore theirs?
Pringles man invented plastic
it all his fault
Regarding the last thought: plastic recycling quotas would appear, and trade with these. Just as it happens with carbon emission quotas.
😭
says who?
New Yorkers mentality
The vast majority of pollution comes from 3rd world countries in Asia. Its why I found it amusing that the video suggested Chinese cooperation in the initiatives. China has consistently signed every global agreement and ignored it entierly except for bragging rights against other nations that haven't signed it such as the US. Despite the US not signing these agreements, they managed to reduce their carbon and pollution output which is the inverse of what China does.
First world countries have a long history of pollution, century-wise.
It's easier/more feasible to pollute less when one's richer, once you have competitive advantages.
Moreover, it's not like poor countries pollute more, it's more like rich Countries exports their carbon print, because the production is in third world countries, but the gross consumption (demanding such production) is still in rich countries.
Problem is that we would carry all.of the burnden while other counties keep dumping. Make disposable bottles illegal. Go back to glass. Bettter for our health and the earth's health.
We?
@@everything5066 Countries that give a crap.
I don’t agree with this video. It feels very inept at advising us how to move forward. We need to reduce the production of these goods and privatization is not the solution. Instead of creating punishments for making people take care of nature we should be supporting people and nature with our wallet. Yes we need to clean the ocean but single use bottles shouldn’t be produced. We can do what we did for millennia. Carry our own drinking vessle and have it filled. Our germiphobia does not merrit having stuipid single use bottles. Additionally if private land is going to make the person who own it pay for the damage they do and they are ignorant to the damage this helps no one at all especially the animals that should be able to roam free on that land but since it’s privatized the human thinks they should be the sole resident. No
Rip sharks. you'll be not missed
This video is hilarious because this is not at all how the real world works.
You know this video is full of shit when it depends on relying on peoples morals as the number one solution, yet acknowledges only a small group of people in a remote area of the world managed to successfully do it. Then proceeds believe government can solve the problem xD
Governments are the reason for the tragedy
Btw: the tragedy of the commons is real, but this video missed the mark completely. Go back to Hardin for the best explanation.
Tax those who use plastic, tax even more those who preduce it,
And give heavy fines to individuals and companies that pollute or throw it in an autherized area.
For example if you find a bottle by Coca-Cola give Coca-Cola a fine that covers the cost of man power, boats and other expenses it takes to clean it up!
👍