Who Should Govern Nature?
Vložit
- čas přidán 30. 07. 2013
- People often feel that the government should be in charge of natural resources because the environment belongs to us all and the government represents the people. While there's no single way for renewable resource ownership, people tend towards government control a little too often. It can hurt instead of help.
Song / chinquapin-hunting
Patreon patreon.com/user?u=849925
References
Arnold, J.E.M. and Cambell, J.G. 1985. Collective Management of hill Forests in Nepal: The Community Forestry Development Project.
Harding, Garrett. 1968. The Tragedy of the Commons. Science. 13 (162) p.1243-1248.
dieoff.org/page95.htm
Ostrom, Elinor. 1990. Governing the Commons. New York: Cambridge University Press.
"People who are affected by the rules should make the rules"
Mutual responsibility. Autonomous group control. Transparency. Mind=blown
Also Communism, watch Dr Richard wolf = mind blowing
The problem with that is that the average person is really stupid and can't see the bigger picture
The average person would say "Yeah no more taxes ever!"
Which ignores the fact that as much as taxes suck, they do help in building roads, and schools and maintaining them as well.
@@dinoblacklane1640 Anyone can see the bigger picture if you educate them. The word you are looking for is ignorance.
I love the animations on these videos... the Nepal dude made me laugh.
But there is one thing I like to point out. Local resource control is done best at a local level. So the system in Turkey works great at a local level. However, what would have happened if the towns east and west of Alanya would fish in such way that they block the fish migration to Alanya. In other words, what happens when you size up the responsible communities for your argumentation. When is a community to large or scattered to share a resource?
Ruben B I don't have an answer to your question. But other fishermen blocking the migration did happen there. The institutions they set up got rid of the conflict and violence. Made it fair and peaceful. But the larger scale offshore fishermen were still taking a lot of fish and hurting the inshore catches. I don't know how they worked that out (if they even did).
This Place thank you for your comment! Nice to know you are reading the comment section. Just stumbled upon your channel and have been enjoying it a lot!
+This Place When are there new videos coming? I love your humor and how you approach teaching people about stuff. Please don't stop making videos.
+Ruben B Doesn't matter. People will create farms if their isn't enough resources.
I'm half way through 'Governing the Commons' just now, and it's blowing my mind. then I realized most people probably will never hear of the book... perhaps I should help make a short and attractive video to explain the concepts? Then I found this. thanks for the great work!
I liked the video, but I think it is only one half of the coin. You touched on it briefly at the end, but the system of local control only works when it is the locals working the land for their personal survival.
The purpose of governmental control is to protect the little guy from corporate domination and resource depletion. When the entity doesn't care how much damage they do because they don't live there anyways.
who protects the little guy from the government? government can also not care about the damage they do because they are removed from the situation
@@cooljool1 theoretically the little guy has equal say in the government as the big guy, but unfortunately many governments have systems to allow large donations where you can essentially buy votes, like in the US. if it were truly democratic the little guy would have the same vote as the corperate CEO, unfortunately thats not how it works here, it is possible to do it other ways though, i hear cuba is a good example of representative democracy done right
@@emmas1366 That must be why there's so much political unrest in Cuba.
Awesome channel! I love channels like this or ted ed, where everything is explained visually, textually and verbally.
Jane Binarystar hey this is me three years later. Still love this channel
This was such a beautiful video to watch, I loved your use of Nepal as example. It made everything so clear, thank you
why... how... are you this unpopular? you should have at least 17 million views on all your videos. you put alot of thought, research, time, and SO MUCH HEART in all your videos. I'm pretty sure this is a back up account and your real first account is out there some where with the appropriate amount of subscribers.
because it takes 3 months for a video ._______.
i think only one owns it, including "Minuteearth" and "Asapscience" and "SmarterEveryday" i can tell from the sponsors at the end of videos.
A good channel is more likely to have > 1 million subs than a bad channel, but I think it still is a low probability.
Blame the CZcams algorithm. CZcams favors channels that can produce videos on a daily basis, no matter how long those videos are or what kind of content they have. Simply put, CZcams invests in quantity over quality, so channels with high production value videos will always be at a disadvantage.
This person is unpopular because their arguments are based on cherry-picking their evidence, rather than looking at the big picture. Just because a village can organise their fishing doesn't make it wrong for the government to create fishing regulations that apply to the whole country.
This is brilliant! Please continue to make these videos. They are so helpful. Thank you so much.
I teach ESL Economics and I rarely find videos that the kids can actually understand. I really appreciate the simple explanations and examples you have in your videos. Thank you for all the hard work
Im watching this for a college class. 😬
Good video, man. Watching this for my environmental management class in an undergrad business program. Easy to watch as well as gain insight into the topic you're discussing.
Me too!
You deserve more subscribers for your work in animation. And the humor.
This video is absolutely fantastic. Keep it up!
Also, are you using After Effects? I love the animations.
love the videos!! keep them up I hope you grow!
Thank you for your videos. They are really helpful :)
Such an underrated channel
This is a damn good channel.
this is such a great channel :)
So what *should* we do here in Canada to better protect our ecosystems/ natural ressources? Is there a better way for Canada to do this, or is the Centralized model the best here?
Thank you!!
I like your channel. Seems like you should be getting more of an audience
Greetings from Brazil!
You are doing amazingly good videos and I hope that your channel can get some sort of financing because I want to see many more of them. Good Luck!
tem brasileiro ate aqui
How is this not more popular?
we need more local government control and less government control from who knows where.
Marx was right in so many things (and wrong in some others).
Hey is your name a pen name? If Agar a reference to the material used to grow cultures?
Best intro song ever
not sure if i understand it correctly, but you said in the begining of this video that deforestation was already a big problem in Nepal to the point the government feel the need to step in. Then later you said these forest was traditionally managed by local communities. Does that mean both the government and local communities already failed to manage Nepali forests? And then we are supposed to give it back to the local and call it a day?
I'm from Nepal, Its true Now the community owns the forest. Great video! (But why the background music is Scottish?)
This works fine when effect are localized. But when a local practice affect other area then central regulation is needed. One obvious exemple would be climate change, there needs to be a concerted effort to change things there because there isn't a single part of the equation whose short term interest is to reduce their CO2 emissions.
Same with things like dumping toxic waste into rivers, usually those who are dumping the waste aren't those receiving the consequences (unless those consequences are pitchforks and torches) so there is no incentive to actually work together there. In those cases regulation are important.
We shouldn't aim to regulate everything, but we should see regulations as strict limit on what is and isn't ok, which then can be adapted into more local systems.
the new fishermen rules going with the flow of the fish migration was super cute.
How do you make these videos?
YES! Good video.
great vid
your voice is very nice
why was your cod fishing video taken down?
well said.
I think the best solution to how governing a system should work is a mix of both the options presented here.
I think a 'higher-up' or politician like figure can be useful because they're less likely to have a bias because they don't use that resource - it's their job to make that resource as beneficial to *everyone* long term. Which means other people outside of those using that resource - they'll be more likely to care about side-effects and welcoming newcomers that'll be more efficient for everyone - rather than those who just currently use the resource.
They get paid the same amount either way - however they lose their job if they fuck it up, so it's basically a position where they HAVE to find the best possible solution.
However, at the same time, it pays to have someone from that background who knows how things work and are more likely to realize the consequences of whatever actions they choose to take.
This is why I think specialists should be elected to manage specific fields - ones who know that they're talking about but also no longer rely on that resource to survive so they won't be tempted to exploit it either for short-term gain.
And ideally, someone who still lives locally so they'll be easier to contact and more swiftly respond if things go wrong.
So in these example given I'd say the best choice would have been making someone at the forest-park office the official who dictates the rules - with the government only intervening if they become corrupt or aren't doing their job.
I know a lot of people hate bureaucracy and middle-management styled systems but there's a reason it exists and is often so important to have around. Especially since there's nothing stopping said middle-management doing other jobs at the same time.
What is the name of this type of study and analysis?
3:48 you switched B and C, also the first one needs to be greater or equal and not just greater.
This video chocked full of common sense and logic. I loved it. It goes to show that those who work with the environment are the best advocates and tend to know what is fair ... outsiders can't understand what's fair because they are not their day to day.
Hurray my country! Hello from Turkey :) . Thanks for great videos.
Yes, workers controll of industry and recources.
But I thought u were a Stalinist!
The betrayal!
how do you animate the 3d yet drawn world like that?
I think it's 2d, but he draws in 3d
It's a drawing of an earth on a popsicle stick. It looks 3D because it's a recording of paper puppet things.
Devious Atrocities no
Ohh, you mean the backgrounds? That's called shading.
no
@This Place: Man you'll be in leagues of Vsause and CGP! Just wait for it!
Yeah, these are great points. But all your examples are for small scale groups. Large lumber companies still need governmental regulation
i guess this model assumes that all participating parties are equal, so it doesn't account companies that can exercise greater control and don't see a need to cooperate.
SpiceTrade Magnate thats fair
BBN Wes Not really, there's no proof that government regulations like that work, at all, just look at east asian countries pre privitization, or at south america now
I mean bounds of reason bud, huge lumber companies can be regulated, the worst deforestation isn't being caused by small villages. This video doesn't appear to be a strictly libertarian, it acknowledges that in developed nations regulations on logging companies makes sense. Do I think pre industrial nations should regulate villages? no. Should we regulate large resource companies with executives who are just as disconnected as people in Washington, yes. On a small scale libertarianism makes sense but it's idealistic just like communism both assume that people on a national scale will act moral, CEOs aren't there doing the fishing, if forcing their employees to meet over fishing quotas gives higher profits they're likely to do it, sure in the long term they'll learn maybe but I'd prefer we didn't decimate species at all.
One reason privatization works in places like Singapore (and so consistently) is that incentives are tied with rule of law. I assume you're talking about a country like singapore in this case because its one of the few where your idea of privatization fits the bill. Where rule of law isn't very prominent, like China, you get speculation and ghost cities. Which hardly counts as efficient use of resources when it comes down to average citizens.
Singapore can privatize because it has the legal framework and capacity in the civil service to do so.
(Note; I'm using singapore as an example because it's a relatively successful state)
Moreover, Singapore does regulate parts of the economy, especially in cases where resources are critical to the economy functioning. From what I can gather Singapore exerts control over public utilities and infrastructure, and it also oversees land management. That would include environmental regulations, which Singapore does have in the form of the Green Plan (circa 1992). A Singapore is strict-as-fuck on pollution control with regards to businesses. It's still a fiscally open environment, but that doesn't mean it's unregulated. Regulation shouldn't really be the boogeyman here because there are cases where you can't expect individuals or entities to run the commons, so to speak.
Any way to get the music for this vid?
Simen Johansen Found it! When I made this I was much less committed to sourcing stuff. soundcloud.com/stephen-moller-1/chinquapin-hunting
Thank you :)
+This Place wouldn't you have a chance of getting copyright striked..?
This true for so many thing..... Like at work,
Govt= If it ain't broke, we'll fix it till it is!
So pretty much it's everyone... if someone is out of the loop, get them in or tell them to get lost.
Sounds about right.
Why was there deforestation in Nepal before the new rules, then?
what do you mean?
Idk 2 🤔
Wowee, Nepal and Canada have similar populations?! Nepal must be packed! But still have room for forests? Hmm, maybe Canada's just got lots of not-so-people-friendly cold areas? Still.
MAKE MORE VIDEOS!!!
HAHAH that moment when he uses the grail at 2:42
2:45, assuming government incompetence is a fair assumption in all economic models.
Unfortunately, local government control didn't help save the Vanquita from extinction.
so that's what the first draft of the Prisoner's Dilemma video looked like
I own nature, all of it!
There's actually a very simple answer to all of this: I own nature. Problem solved.
Hang on, you were basically pitching an argument for privatisation vs nationalisation, using the nationalisation of the forests vs privatised regulation of fisheries as examples. But they aren't examples that support an argument for privatisation vs nationalisation, they're examples that support an argument for decentralised government vs centralised.
There's no reason the regulation used in the Turkish example couldn't have been government-lead rather than privately lead - indeed, regulation of that sort usually benefits from government sanction and funding - but as long as it's decentralised; as long as the people involved in what's being regulated are the people involved in forming local government with the power to make that regulation, or have close contact with those who do. You'd see the same sort of problems in the nepalese example whether it was a government reclaiming the forests or a large, distant corporation buying them, even with the intention of preservation.
HaniiPuppy I think you're misrepresenting the argument being made in the video. At no point did the man argue against public ownership of land, he simply argues that if it's done incorrectly, it can cause problems. He argued for more efficient systems based on facts about the actual land and the way people actually interact with said land. He also stated that sometimes an entity (private or public) can make bad decisions based on assumptions, even if their hearts are in the right place. That is all.
no1 *leaves*
or as what happened, the fishermen started killing each other.
Who should do the video titles? (Not you.)
These are narrow examples, more the exception than the rule. In reality government regulation is an overwhelming success. Issues arise when there is a lack of enforcement or government/cooperate corruption.
meadowsirl Do you have sources for this claim? There's no such thing as "government" or "corporations". They're just concepts--legal fictions. There's just *people*. So who regulates the _people_ in government?
+meadowsirl No. More regulations result in poorer resource management across all board. We have thousands of examples to this.
+Jakub Grygiel So, regulating the environment is a bad idea in your version of reality? The sad truth is most companies will happily poison your water supply if it is cost effective for them and it cannot be traced back to them. Known as the issue of externalities.
meadowsirl There are no versions of reality, there is one objective and true reality. In this reality the fact is that the worst environmental disasters were caused by government agencies: be it soviet union, in which case Chernobyl disaster is just a drop in the sea; or China that gives carte blanche to companies, where they would be normally brought to court by private agents.
Regulating environment never works, because of the reasons quite well explained in this video. You need ownership for something to have value, be it a tree, a mountain or a stream. If a plot of land is owned by nobody, then it can be abused by anybody. Be it amazon or the pacific ocean.
You shouldn't look at it as if it was ruthless materialism and sticking price tag on pristine beauty of nature, but its nature in of itself. Its natural that the most capable to take care of a resource are those who's life depend on the resource, since they have all the incentive to adapt to changing circumstances. If they don't they face degradation of their quality of life or something much worse.
+Jakub Grygiel The soviet union was too corrupt to learn much from. "Regulating environment never works", that's a pretty meaningless phrase, it works all the time all over the world. There are all sorts of banned substances and limits. Do you remember CFCs and the Ozone layer? Cuyahoga River? Emission limits on cars?
Sticking a price tag on nature is a good way of getting it paved over and turned into something that can turn a profit.
15 people miss clicked the dislike button, we can forgive them.
+ewan hassall they are the government,
I didn't. I just dont like the lack of seriousness and the buzzfeed-like poor argumentation.
@@1964DMG How would you have structured it?
6 politicians disliked this video
Amodii 6 politicians and 2 haters.... cuz its 8 now.
Amodii 51 Politicians
bro is he Nepali
I should.
Nice man, you should be a teacher or something.
You stated pi as 3.74 when I believe its 3.14
Well make them change it to 3.74. I'm not changing the video.
Sauron Op.
does this guy know what the internet is?
*Gary Mosher*
Nature
I SHOULD.
+Paul Z NOT YOU , I should
+Mămăligă 50/50?
Paul Z 1 v1 ?
I really like your videos, and I enjoy most of this video, but I feel like it is a bit obtuse. The comments made in this video and the one about cods seems to be about bashing central government or governments in general. I would be the first to say there are a lot of problems with governments and a lot of bad governments, but it seems narrow-minded to say the problem is government and private ownership is better. There are MANY instances where a strong government has been essential to protecting a natural resource. If it was left to private entities, greed often wins over human or environmental decency. The market opinion would say it would regulate itself, but the reality is, if money is the ultimate goal, problems occur. Sure, jobs are about producing things, but more and more businesses, such as large corporations, do not have that goal of producing that thing, but rather producing money. The production of the thing is the means to getting that money. Look at the way the large ag businesses or drug businesses are doing things. Sure, they are "farmers" to some extent, but really they are more like a factory. I think the problem isn't a pro or con government but a matter of scale. Small local government often is better, more efficient (though sometimes big government needs to keep them in check, such as ensuring they are managing their resources well - we don't want to end up like the country of Nauru). Small businesses are generally better. You keep things local and focused on the community.
Nathan Howard This is a strawman. Please refer to the comments I made on HaniiPuppy's similar rant.
3:51
Not the government
Libertarian socialism ftw!
The government is issued as the 'responsible' of who owns what in nature, this isn't true, the government is 'unofficially designated' as such. The pragmatic exploitation is done by the market. The market devides what is to be conquered, the government, owned by the market through its own means (commercial currency) only has territorial ownership, and can only regulate the market by taxes. To be is too often confused with to have... Should we issue an international currency for ALL public investment?! Dunno.
i just discovered you and you are like cgpgrey but way to unpopular! let me change that with my sub ^^
Jess Agar.... Agar... Agar.....io????
So this basically disproves the Tragedy of the Common
Illya Lypyak Yes and no. The problem in applying the tragedy of the commons was always forgetting the assumptions that are necessary to make it true. Assumptions that aren't true for all situations. It's not that it isn't true, it's a model that works within the rules it sets for itself. It's just not super applicable to most situations. People tend to assume that it is.
+Illya Lypyak when people communicate and cooperate it's not really an open access. So it does not fit in the Tragedy of the common model.
Bikram Shah But that is how most if not all commons operated, the most famous case being in England, not to mention the 'tragedy of the commons' does some assumptions, the first being that their was no communication (their was) and the second that they sold their grain for profit while they only sold it to have to pay taxes
You confused me a little. Tragedy of the common is a model to explain the phenomenon that occurs when a resource is equally available to everybody. There is no restriction, no communication among consumers, no cooperation, and no sense of conserving the resource, which result in the harm of resource and the consumers as well. You commented that the case if Nepal (I'm from Nepal) disproves the Tragedy of the common. But in fact, Nepali (Nepalese) sharing the resource, forest, while communicating, cooperating and conserving the very resources makes it incomparable to the scenario of the tragedy of the common. These are two different situations, of course they do not fit in the same model. But they also do not disprove each other.
On a second thought, communication and cooperation could be the cure to the tragedy of the common. But as presented in the video, so can efficient and effective government owner ship.
canadas population is about same as nepal. how is it always that third world countries have a massive population that destroys nature while first world countries have far larger areas, with less people, and are far more aware of their actions. then third world countries become problem for the first world countries because they destroyed their nature and have massive overpopulation and now first world countries either have to house them or babysit them in form of sending them the first world resources, without gaining anything back in return what so ever.
this is best demonstrated by the migrant crisis and the aid given to africa. the worst part about all of this is the globalists, for the diversity equals no white people allowed. even tho these are our countries we are talking about. our grandfathers fought wars to secure us and our future, and our modern leaders would destroy it all just to demonstrate how accepting and understanding they are.
"Ownership" is an illusion, ultimately nature itself is going to dictate resource consumption. It would be best to remove human error when it comes to resource management and utilize technologies to monitor the precise amount of resources available, but it doesn't stop at carrying capacity of resources. We also need to improve how we use those resources, by designing goods to be durable, upgradable, and able to be recycled, the moment they have become obsolete. It doesn't stop at resource distribution, you have to design efficiency of resource usage to reduce as much waste as possible.
150th comment-
good video, but now that internet and cell phones exist does everything this video mean everything? I am smart enough to know there are many places and people who cannot afford this technologi.
Septan Looks like u haven't understood the problem well enough
Me
set playback speed at 0.75
thank me later
Sometimes I wish the government weren't there, but then I'd remember that the world would fall into chaos, and at least somebody with either charisma, strength, or some other power, will come along and organize us all back into the endless bureaucracies.
Francis Lai and you base that on...
government NO government BAD GOVERNMENT
no kitty, bad kitty, very bad kitty
Hayek, Mises and Rothbard like this video :D
Workers control over their workplace? What are you? some kind of socialist? ;D
+Quiestre Socialism would be centrally controlled. This is more of a minimum government or anarchist (possibly anarcho-capitalist) video.
Mbeluba Uhm no, as the titles implies "Communal Ownership" meaning Communism. It was the joke.
Capitalism is private ownership.
Quiestre Anarcho-capitalism allows existence of communal ownership. Probably a good portion of the land would be used communally, under voluntary conditions, that would wary from one property to the other.
I am however a minarchist, but that system would also allow communes.
Socialists want to abandon private ownership althogether, which requires some kind of coercion, after all *I* would not give my property willingly. By abandon, I mean also slight breaches of private property, in form of taxes or forced "sharing".
Your "communism" applied without any form of coercion would in fact be anarcho-capitalism.
Mbeluba First of all "Anarcho" capitalism is an oxymoron and doesn't exist.
Secondly the whole idea behind capitalism is private ownership of resources, instead of communal or state ownership.
I am personally against private property (not ownership by the way) in all forms, since it is philosophically not justified and also leads to many issues.
_Your "communism" applied without any form of coercion would in fact be anarcho-capitalism._
No it wouldn't but it's hard to understand that if all you feed yourself is neo-liberal bullshit.
Quiestre I think I didn't stated that clearly enough. Commune is still a private property, but owned by multiple people at once.
JOHN CENA
Nepali haru !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
I thought you were going to talk about all living beings.
The first bacteria?
Or the smartest humans ( Meaning that would thankfully exclude Donald Trump)?
I think the vast majority of people are incompetent
"the government represents the people" not in my lifetime lmfao
TURKEEEEEEEEEEEEEY.Thats my country.TURKEY.
Devious Atrocities puhahauhuaha
Procrastinator cabbagehair You mean new kurdistan
Asın bayrakları
BAYRAKLAR İLERİİİ!!! ASIN TÜM BAYRAKLARI!!!
Asın bayrakları yazacaktım çoktan asmışsınız :D
As as as :}