GiganticWebsites.com is a project through which I make it possible for people to build truly gigantic websites (thousands of articles each!) at ridiculously low prices. If you have a great domain you want to turn into an amazing website or an existing site you'd like to upgrade/scale, visit our website or check out the One Minute Economics presentation video below: czcams.com/video/gE8yEOQFMvo/video.html Please note that this comment is not an ad for a third-party service provider. GiganticWebsites.com is my baby 100% and I will personally be involved in each and every project so as to ensure the website turns out great :)
I've noticed you don't get a whole lot of praise for these videos, although almost all of my environmental studies classes in university show us your channel so I feel like you should be getting a lot more exposure! Thank you for all of the time and hard work that goes into creating this!
Thanks a lot for dropping by and taking the time to say something nice Laney, comments like yours always make my day. Also, I'm really glad more and more universities are using my work and yes, promoting an education project tends to be like pulling teeth a lot of times, it's definitely (multiple orders of magnitude) easier to promote let's say an entertainment channel and I have a hard time believing that will change anytime soon. But as long as there are people like you who don't shy away from finding a bit of time to say nice things, people like me (the few maniacs crazy enough to work on edu projects) have more than enough fuel to keep going :)
Lol. Of course those state-controlled brainwashed clowns would endorse this silliness. Privately owned lands get destroyed all the time. By the owner's negligence and incompetence.. Conversely, there are plenty of commons areas on this planet that do far better than your average so-called privately owned land. Regardless of the utilitarian position, you cannot own land. It is not an ownable anymore than air or water sources are ownable. Everyone on Earth could flock to one area and totally destroy it with their best efforts and still, land would not be ownable. What we do has no bearing on the immutable principles of physics and therefore of natural philosophy. The former begets the latter. And I am a capitalist, so any attempts to accuse me of a less savory ideology will be of no avail.
Important to note that in the thought experiment the pasture is collectively owned but the cattle are not. Common resources are consumed to feed privately owned capital. The tragedy of capitalism, no?
"private property actually gave incentives to the owners to use that resource (pasture) in a sustainable and durable way that would benefit them in the long run." Cool idea, history debunks it. The ocean is overfished, rainforests are being cut and burned, kids in mining towns are getting birth defects, species are going extinct at accelerating rates as wild land is paved over for housing developments. "Incentives" are laughable, indefensible bullshit. Competition fosters manic exploitation and destruction. Capitalism is an absolute catastrophic failure.
@Gassan Al Dhaim élève 1. The web was developed by DARPA, a tax funded federal agency, and tax funded universities as well. It's also well known that tech companies develop their products with the help of federal research grants. 2. "capitalism has shown itself to provide technological innovation to remedy to these problems" People provided those innovations, not "capitalism". The stock market doesn't magically produce science and engineering, people do (and rarely are they compensated for their work proportional to the value created). This is borderline religious reverence for the invisible hand of the market, a pure thought experiment. 3. "Besides capitalism, there is no better system of production and distribution. " This is dogma. It's recieved wisdom. Capitalism has only existed for a tiny fraction of recorded history, but it grip on public consciousness has gone so deep that people can't even imagine different ways of doing things. In point of fact, community ownership of land is not a thought experiment, it was the default mode in most societies throughout human history. The "tragedy of the commons" is an invented dilemma, not a materialist analysis.
@@LimeyLassen The role of government in tech is to start research into fields that have a high chance of being commercially unviable at first. Capitalism's role is to take their ideas, improve the technology, and lower the cost of production and distribution. That's what has been done. You're not giving the system enough credit. 'People' wouldn't do shit if they didn't have selfish incentives to do so. How many Mother Theresa's do you really think exist in the world? The answer is not enough. Btw, what other economic system would incentivize people to protect the environment? At the end of the day humans as a whole have demonstrated their disregard for the environment. 99.999% of people saying otherwise are guaranteed hypocrites. This has nothing to do with an economic system, it's just a derivative of the reality that we're barely evolved apes that have convinced ourselves that we're special because we have the ability to pass on knowledge across generations.
@@ericmanget4280 I understand the argument you're making, but I think it's rhetoric detached from reality. People have been saying for decades that free market incentives will fix environmental damage. Decades! Where's the results? This ideology isn't delivering.
@@LimeyLassen I never said it'd fix it. I just said no other viable economic system, to my knowledge, has a solution for climate change. Quite frankly having the resources to spare to worry about the climate is a privilege when Marxist systems have historically left people focusing on how to feed themselves first. Also, companies like Tesla are popping up in response to the global call for climate friendly solutions. Maybe it's just inertia, we have no reference points to compare to to see how fast humans would adjust in another system.
I personally see it everyday with dumpsters, recycling efforts, littering, shopping carts in the middle of the parking lot, public bathrooms… …it’s EVERYwhere! Any common area will always become trashed or misused. Always. Speaks volumes about humanity and makes me thankful for authority and government. We’d eat each other if allowed.
The tragedy of the commons is a phenomenon where resources that are commonly owned and accessible to everyone can be quickly depleted and ultimately become unusable due to the short-term self-interest of individuals. This was first observed by William Foster Lloyd in 1833 in the context of common pastures. When individuals act based on their own self-interest, they consume too many resources, leading to depletion of the resource, and ultimately causing harm to everyone in the long run. This situation occurs frequently in modern times, including with fishing grounds and environmental pollution. This tragedy can be prevented if there is a system of ownership that incentivizes sustainable exploitation of resources.
a big problem with the tragedy of the commons is that it assumes that the open access resource that is called the commons in this thought experiment is completely unregulated and that the users of this land are not in communication. this situation is possible with the prominent example of fishing that is used in this video, but is uncommon to say the least. any regulation or management of the commons would make the tragedy of the commons fall apart.
Just a minor side note, the members of the community can be in communication and struggle from this phenomenon, they just can't have it regulated/organized. I speak from experience, since this is the exact situation with my roommates right now. Everyone theoretically wants to clean the apartment, but generally leaves it for someone else to do, then one or two of the other roommates gets angry, one of us will clean, rinse and repeat
Tragedy of the commons seems to describe issues with capitalism more than any other system. Communities around the world have lived without capitalism, while managing common land for thousands of years before colonization. As for you roommate example. Individuals who don't contribute or violate the agreement are subject to banishment.
The tradgedy of the commons has been commonly disputed by current reseachers and scholars of human- and political ecology. They mean it is only valid so far as the growth imperative is holding. See for example "tradgedy of the commodity" (Clausen et al. 2015). Commons have been the most common (haha) way of managing land for most of human history. Many of these resources were not depeleted due to strong cultural institutions making measured exploitation a part of cultural hemogeny. See for example "ecologies of the heart" (Andersson 1996) and "rethinking envrionmental history" (Hornborg et al. 2007)
Yes, commons had been the way we’ve lived for hundreds of thousands of years. Yet we’ve made more progress, technologically, economically and socially in the last 300 years than the rest of human history
No to mention Elinor Ostrom's Nobel Bell prize winning work in "Governing the Commons." I am not sure why we are still talking about Hardin's thought experiment when empirical study has proven him wrong so often.
So freaking great. I wish economics was taught like this when I learned it ! I'm curious what software you use to make these animations, and how long you spend making them? Must be tiring, but just know that we appreciate it. Subscribed!
Welcome aboard and thanks a lot for the comment, I'm really happy you like them :) GoAnimate is used for the videos and yep, a LOT of time is invested in each one, publishing two per week is definitely not easy but comments like yours make it all worth it. Realistically speaking, this channel will probably never be huge, as in over a million subscribers or something along those lines and that's fine. My long-term objective is reaching 50,000 - 100,000 subscribers and turning One Minute Economics into a friendly community which encourages productive debates. Our very own little corner of the Internet, a place where people discuss economics and perhaps even ways to make the world a better place in a civilized manner. I'm working my you-know-what off but love every minute of it!
Btw, regarding the second half of your question: I can't accurately approximate the amount of time that's invested in a video because I'm not the only one who works on them. I'm the one who decides which topics need to be covered, does the research, writes the scripts and gives the artistic suggestions (something along the lines of "a guy called George should ask "Should I buy another cow" in a dialog box, another cow appears and then the other people do the same" to give you an example of a scene from this video). The voiceover guy then does his part, I assume this is the part of the video creation process which involves the least amount of work but still, I'm sure the voiceover guy doesn't get it right from the first try. Next, the video designer has to take my script + artistic suggestions and turn them into a video animation using GoAnimate. This takes quite a bit of time I imagine, especially for certain videos which involve a lot of back-and-forth exchanges between me and the designer. Some of the videos are more straightforward or let's say easier to put together, the designer occasionally gets it right from the first try. In other situations however, it's more difficult to represent the things I write and as such, it takes a lot of tweaking until we get it right. I'd say that in an ideal situation, we might even finish the video within 24 hours. It usually takes us a couple of days and for some topics, over a week is required. Now of course, not an entire week of us working on just that video but rather a week or more of back-and-forth discussions.
I absolutely love your work. It can be difficult to have a short praxeological discussion and have your listener understand. You've given me multiple videos I can send others to help them understand exactly what we're discussing.
You're more than welcome, very glad you found it useful! The answer to your question is yes but it's most likely going to take quite a while until I start covering such topics :)
One Minute Economics needs your help! Please give me a minute (heh) of your time by watching the following video if you find the channel useful, literally anyone can help (either financially or by spreading the word about my work): czcams.com/video/io04ckq1X1M/video.html
Thanks :) The channel is starting to gain traction, about 500 people subscribed over the past month or so and we're getting very close to 1,000 subscribers. My long-term goal is getting as close as possible to 100,000 subs. The more subscribers One Minute Economics has, the easier it will be to attract more. If 1 out of 50 subscribers shares a video on Facebook or Twitter, the results won't be spectacular if the channel only has 50-100 subs. At close to 1,000 subscribers though, this changes because 20 Facebook shares per video are enough to attract a reasonable number of subscribers. And as the subscriber base grows, more and more people will share future videos. A virtuous circle basically. This is why I really hope people share my videos with others. Most viewers don't think something like a Facebook or Twitter share counts but it does, it DEFINITELY counts :)
'Extracting' market-possibilities is the tragedy. Not the Commons itselve. The tragedy-story was used to make privatisation possible. There is a lot of documentation in `Flanders and other countries that commons had clever regulation against 'overexploitation'. bollier.org/blog/eight-points-reference-commoning
except a fool and his money are soon parted and everyone who has ever existed or ever will exist is a fool, whether they own property or not. this means absolutely no one cares about sustainability because such a thing is impossible.
China. They collectivized all the farmland and had a horrible famine where millions of people starved to death, then in 1978 they started privatizing the farms and a lot of industry. Today China is the second largest economy in the world where obesity is becoming a problem. Also in anarchist Catalonia they actually had to create rules that people could only take a certain amount of stuff because everyone was taking more than they needed.
@@HammerheadGuitar privitization has its own problems man, alot of them to be fair. Non consideration of non-market values is one, which does degrade the environment and the (pastures) , contrary to what the clip suggests.
@@HammerheadGuitar China suffered from catastrophic central planning. Nobel prize-winner Elinor Ostrom showed that bottom-up planning by locals could manage commons, with evidence of this happening worldwide - otherwise there wouldn't be any grazing land left. Anarchists accept laws that are decided voluntarily and mutually, just not ones enforced by a central power.
@@LowestofheDead Most grazing land in the world is based on property rights that are enforced by a centralized state. If it were true than why are people fishing certain fish species into extinction?
As always, it depends on whom you ask and as of this point, we venture well into ideology and as such, I'd recommend my political economy playlist as a starting point: czcams.com/play/PLhICud5IUwVhJbaQYhgmZIV0mNKD0ILBl.html
Except this has been proven not to be a real thing. In reality people aren't dumb economic animals and will naturally realize this risk, talk to each other, and collectively manage their resources.
It has proven to be 100% real. Collectivization of farm lands almost always lead to famine. And no people do not talk to each other to collectively manage their resources, they talk to each other to divide the resources and land and give everyone ownership over a small piece of land.
Hardin's tragedy of the common uses environmental scarcity to justify racial discrimination. We should stop propagating his flawed theory. Just google critique of tragedy of common
GiganticWebsites.com is a project through which I make it possible for people to build truly gigantic websites (thousands of articles each!) at ridiculously low prices. If you have a great domain you want to turn into an amazing website or an existing site you'd like to upgrade/scale, visit our website or check out the One Minute Economics presentation video below:
czcams.com/video/gE8yEOQFMvo/video.html
Please note that this comment is not an ad for a third-party service provider. GiganticWebsites.com is my baby 100% and I will personally be involved in each and every project so as to ensure the website turns out great :)
I've noticed you don't get a whole lot of praise for these videos, although almost all of my environmental studies classes in university show us your channel so I feel like you should be getting a lot more exposure! Thank you for all of the time and hard work that goes into creating this!
Thanks a lot for dropping by and taking the time to say something nice Laney, comments like yours always make my day. Also, I'm really glad more and more universities are using my work and yes, promoting an education project tends to be like pulling teeth a lot of times, it's definitely (multiple orders of magnitude) easier to promote let's say an entertainment channel and I have a hard time believing that will change anytime soon. But as long as there are people like you who don't shy away from finding a bit of time to say nice things, people like me (the few maniacs crazy enough to work on edu projects) have more than enough fuel to keep going :)
Ah sir, you are doing well.
I'm grateful too, it was explained succinctly.
God bless you richly sir.
Lol. Of course those state-controlled brainwashed clowns would endorse this silliness.
Privately owned lands get destroyed all the time. By the owner's negligence and incompetence..
Conversely, there are plenty of commons areas on this planet that do far better than your average so-called privately owned land.
Regardless of the utilitarian position, you cannot own land. It is not an ownable anymore than air or water sources are ownable.
Everyone on Earth could flock to one area and totally destroy it with their best efforts and still, land would not be ownable. What we do has no bearing on the immutable principles of physics and therefore of natural philosophy. The former begets the latter.
And I am a capitalist, so any attempts to accuse me of a less savory ideology will be of no avail.
The tragedy of the commons is a cool concept and all, but did you ever hear the tragedy of darth plagueis the wise?
I thought not. It’s not a story the Jedi would tell you.
It's a Sith legend.
is it possibly to learn this power?
@@breezetha27not from a Jedi.
love this comment section
@@Danger_Dee
Important to note that in the thought experiment the pasture is collectively owned but the cattle are not. Common resources are consumed to feed privately owned capital. The tragedy of capitalism, no?
"private property actually gave incentives to the owners to use that resource (pasture) in a sustainable and durable way that would benefit them in the long run."
Cool idea, history debunks it. The ocean is overfished, rainforests are being cut and burned, kids in mining towns are getting birth defects, species are going extinct at accelerating rates as wild land is paved over for housing developments. "Incentives" are laughable, indefensible bullshit. Competition fosters manic exploitation and destruction. Capitalism is an absolute catastrophic failure.
@Gassan Al Dhaim élève 1. The web was developed by DARPA, a tax funded federal agency, and tax funded universities as well. It's also well known that tech companies develop their products with the help of federal research grants.
2. "capitalism has shown itself to provide technological innovation to remedy to these problems"
People provided those innovations, not "capitalism". The stock market doesn't magically produce science and engineering, people do (and rarely are they compensated for their work proportional to the value created). This is borderline religious reverence for the invisible hand of the market, a pure thought experiment.
3. "Besides capitalism, there is no better system of production and distribution. "
This is dogma. It's recieved wisdom. Capitalism has only existed for a tiny fraction of recorded history, but it grip on public consciousness has gone so deep that people can't even imagine different ways of doing things. In point of fact, community ownership of land is not a thought experiment, it was the default mode in most societies throughout human history. The "tragedy of the commons" is an invented dilemma, not a materialist analysis.
@@LimeyLassen The role of government in tech is to start research into fields that have a high chance of being commercially unviable at first. Capitalism's role is to take their ideas, improve the technology, and lower the cost of production and distribution. That's what has been done. You're not giving the system enough credit. 'People' wouldn't do shit if they didn't have selfish incentives to do so. How many Mother Theresa's do you really think exist in the world? The answer is not enough. Btw, what other economic system would incentivize people to protect the environment? At the end of the day humans as a whole have demonstrated their disregard for the environment. 99.999% of people saying otherwise are guaranteed hypocrites. This has nothing to do with an economic system, it's just a derivative of the reality that we're barely evolved apes that have convinced ourselves that we're special because we have the ability to pass on knowledge across generations.
@@ericmanget4280 I understand the argument you're making, but I think it's rhetoric detached from reality. People have been saying for decades that free market incentives will fix environmental damage. Decades! Where's the results? This ideology isn't delivering.
@@LimeyLassen I never said it'd fix it. I just said no other viable economic system, to my knowledge, has a solution for climate change. Quite frankly having the resources to spare to worry about the climate is a privilege when Marxist systems have historically left people focusing on how to feed themselves first. Also, companies like Tesla are popping up in response to the global call for climate friendly solutions. Maybe it's just inertia, we have no reference points to compare to to see how fast humans would adjust in another system.
I personally see it everyday with dumpsters, recycling efforts, littering, shopping carts in the middle of the parking lot, public bathrooms…
…it’s EVERYwhere!
Any common area will always become trashed or misused.
Always.
Speaks volumes about humanity and makes me thankful for authority and government.
We’d eat each other if allowed.
The tragedy of the commons is a phenomenon where resources that are commonly owned
and accessible to everyone can be quickly depleted and ultimately become unusable due
to the short-term self-interest of individuals. This was first observed by William Foster
Lloyd in 1833 in the context of common pastures. When individuals act based on their
own self-interest, they consume too many resources, leading to depletion of the resource,
and ultimately causing harm to everyone in the long run. This situation occurs frequently
in modern times, including with fishing grounds and environmental pollution. This tragedy
can be prevented if there is a system of ownership that incentivizes sustainable
exploitation of resources.
Good short explanation of the topic :)
No system is gonna defeat human greer. There will always be an asshole to find a way around, a loophole in the system.
a big problem with the tragedy of the commons is that it assumes that the open access resource that is called the commons in this thought experiment is completely unregulated and that the users of this land are not in communication. this situation is possible with the prominent example of fishing that is used in this video, but is uncommon to say the least. any regulation or management of the commons would make the tragedy of the commons fall apart.
Just a minor side note, the members of the community can be in communication and struggle from this phenomenon, they just can't have it regulated/organized. I speak from experience, since this is the exact situation with my roommates right now. Everyone theoretically wants to clean the apartment, but generally leaves it for someone else to do, then one or two of the other roommates gets angry, one of us will clean, rinse and repeat
@@Victoria-ij3cb Thay feels more like a bystander effect than tragedy of the commons tho
Tragedy of the commons is like a lot of economics. It falls apart as soon as you apply even an ounce of reality or logic
Tragedy of the commons seems to describe issues with capitalism more than any other system. Communities around the world have lived without capitalism, while managing common land for thousands of years before colonization.
As for you roommate example. Individuals who don't contribute or violate the agreement are subject to banishment.
Wow, was doing homework for an ethics class on an article and was completely confused. This video summed it up so efficiently. Thanks!
The tradgedy of the commons has been commonly disputed by current reseachers and scholars of human- and political ecology. They mean it is only valid so far as the growth imperative is holding. See for example "tradgedy of the commodity" (Clausen et al. 2015). Commons have been the most common (haha) way of managing land for most of human history. Many of these resources were not depeleted due to strong cultural institutions making measured exploitation a part of cultural hemogeny. See for example "ecologies of the heart" (Andersson 1996) and "rethinking envrionmental history" (Hornborg et al. 2007)
Yes, commons had been the way we’ve lived for hundreds of thousands of years. Yet we’ve made more progress, technologically, economically and socially in the last 300 years than the rest of human history
No to mention Elinor Ostrom's Nobel Bell prize winning work in "Governing the Commons." I am not sure why we are still talking about Hardin's thought experiment when empirical study has proven him wrong so often.
So freaking great. I wish economics was taught like this when I learned it !
I'm curious what software you use to make these animations, and how long you spend making them?
Must be tiring, but just know that we appreciate it. Subscribed!
Welcome aboard and thanks a lot for the comment, I'm really happy you like them :)
GoAnimate is used for the videos and yep, a LOT of time is invested in each one, publishing two per week is definitely not easy but comments like yours make it all worth it. Realistically speaking, this channel will probably never be huge, as in over a million subscribers or something along those lines and that's fine. My long-term objective is reaching 50,000 - 100,000 subscribers and turning One Minute Economics into a friendly community which encourages productive debates. Our very own little corner of the Internet, a place where people discuss economics and perhaps even ways to make the world a better place in a civilized manner.
I'm working my you-know-what off but love every minute of it!
Btw, regarding the second half of your question: I can't accurately approximate the amount of time that's invested in a video because I'm not the only one who works on them. I'm the one who decides which topics need to be covered, does the research, writes the scripts and gives the artistic suggestions (something along the lines of "a guy called George should ask "Should I buy another cow" in a dialog box, another cow appears and then the other people do the same" to give you an example of a scene from this video).
The voiceover guy then does his part, I assume this is the part of the video creation process which involves the least amount of work but still, I'm sure the voiceover guy doesn't get it right from the first try.
Next, the video designer has to take my script + artistic suggestions and turn them into a video animation using GoAnimate. This takes quite a bit of time I imagine, especially for certain videos which involve a lot of back-and-forth exchanges between me and the designer. Some of the videos are more straightforward or let's say easier to put together, the designer occasionally gets it right from the first try. In other situations however, it's more difficult to represent the things I write and as such, it takes a lot of tweaking until we get it right.
I'd say that in an ideal situation, we might even finish the video within 24 hours. It usually takes us a couple of days and for some topics, over a week is required. Now of course, not an entire week of us working on just that video but rather a week or more of back-and-forth discussions.
+
@@OneMinuteEconomics nice, thinking about long term objectives instead of short term profits
I absolutely love your work. It can be difficult to have a short praxeological discussion and have your listener understand. You've given me multiple videos I can send others to help them understand exactly what we're discussing.
Thanks a lot for the kind words and for telling others about my videos, I *really* appreciate it :)
yo... thx alot dude... this helped me in my assignment... can you make a vid about factorials??
You're more than welcome, very glad you found it useful! The answer to your question is yes but it's most likely going to take quite a while until I start covering such topics :)
Ahh... ok... Well the man! When I need more knowledge I now know where to find em
Wow, this is great. Thank you so much for your help!
Thanks. Great summary !
Glad you liked it Ema :)
Currently reading a Bank of England book where it's discussing it, but this video brought it to life.
One Minute Economics needs your help! Please give me a minute (heh) of your time by watching the following video if you find the channel useful, literally anyone can help (either financially or by spreading the word about my work): czcams.com/video/io04ckq1X1M/video.html
Excellent short overview.
You deserve more subs.
Thanks :)
The channel is starting to gain traction, about 500 people subscribed over the past month or so and we're getting very close to 1,000 subscribers. My long-term goal is getting as close as possible to 100,000 subs. The more subscribers One Minute Economics has, the easier it will be to attract more.
If 1 out of 50 subscribers shares a video on Facebook or Twitter, the results won't be spectacular if the channel only has 50-100 subs. At close to 1,000 subscribers though, this changes because 20 Facebook shares per video are enough to attract a reasonable number of subscribers. And as the subscriber base grows, more and more people will share future videos. A virtuous circle basically. This is why I really hope people share my videos with others. Most viewers don't think something like a Facebook or Twitter share counts but it does, it DEFINITELY counts :)
Already 1000 S in 2 months.
I wanna know who drew those fuckn cows my god
This is why I'm against public property
good job brother
Thanks a ton for the words of encouragement!
'Extracting' market-possibilities is the tragedy. Not the Commons itselve. The tragedy-story was used to make privatisation possible. There is a lot of documentation in `Flanders and other countries that commons had clever regulation against 'overexploitation'. bollier.org/blog/eight-points-reference-commoning
Thanks a lot for the feedback Rik and welcome to the community :)
is the land divide in to tow parts
except a fool and his money are soon parted and everyone who has ever existed or ever will exist is a fool, whether they own property or not. this means absolutely no one cares about sustainability because such a thing is impossible.
Unless the common space was collectively managed and the cows where collectively owned. Also, historical evidence?
China. They collectivized all the farmland and had a horrible famine where millions of people starved to death, then in 1978 they started privatizing the farms and a lot of industry. Today China is the second largest economy in the world where obesity is becoming a problem. Also in anarchist Catalonia they actually had to create rules that people could only take a certain amount of stuff because everyone was taking more than they needed.
@@HammerheadGuitar privitization has its own problems man, alot of them to be fair. Non consideration of non-market values is one, which does degrade the environment and the (pastures) , contrary to what the clip suggests.
the commons in England were successful for hundreds of years. The “tragedy of the commons was theory.
@@HammerheadGuitar China suffered from catastrophic central planning. Nobel prize-winner Elinor Ostrom showed that bottom-up planning by locals could manage commons, with evidence of this happening worldwide - otherwise there wouldn't be any grazing land left.
Anarchists accept laws that are decided voluntarily and mutually, just not ones enforced by a central power.
@@LowestofheDead Most grazing land in the world is based on property rights that are enforced by a centralized state. If it were true than why are people fishing certain fish species into extinction?
I want another cow!
google "the tragedy of the commons debunked"
more like 1 minute + 30 secs!
GULP
Nooooooooooooooooooooo... I have been exposed! :D
;D
☕
So we have a problem. What is the solution? If one person decides not to be selfish, someone will take their place.
As always, it depends on whom you ask and as of this point, we venture well into ideology and as such, I'd recommend my political economy playlist as a starting point: czcams.com/play/PLhICud5IUwVhJbaQYhgmZIV0mNKD0ILBl.html
Climate change inaction in a nutshell
Except this has been proven not to be a real thing. In reality people aren't dumb economic animals and will naturally realize this risk, talk to each other, and collectively manage their resources.
It has proven to be 100% real. Collectivization of farm lands almost always lead to famine. And no people do not talk to each other to collectively manage their resources, they talk to each other to divide the resources and land and give everyone ownership over a small piece of land.
Then why are there problems like overfishing? I don't see fishers communicate about how much fish they can catch a day 🤔
very obsolete information! Jacque Fresco’s resource based economy is indeed the future coming!
Forster, not Foster.
Nice article debunking the concept and decrying its author as racist and a eugenecist out now in Scientific American.
This video is too simplistic. The farmers you are referring to are more likely big corporations
Just don't eat cows, fish or any other animals.
Hardin's tragedy of the common uses environmental scarcity to justify racial discrimination. We should stop propagating his flawed theory. Just google critique of tragedy of common