[programmers frantically pulling cables out of the wall]
AI: "Nuclear power. Double teachers' salaries. Build more houses. Distribute food more fairly. TRAINS—"
— qntmyrrh (@qntm) November 24, 2023 I remember growing up with that same old adage of how you could be the next scientist to invent a cure for cancer, or a solution to climate change, or whatever. What they don’t tell you is that we already have solutions for a lot of problems, we just don’t use them.
Good read although I think the critics of this idea have gone a little too far recently. It’s certainly true that the tragedy of the commons is not some universal truth of commonly managed resources. There are numerous examples of well-managed communal resources from across the world and history—in fact I would argue that part of what all governments do is the management of commons. But there are also plenty of examples where management was non-existent or ineffective, which led to the squandering of resources. So the tragedy of the commons still exists, but in a smaller subset of situations than claimed by the original author. There are even examples of this “tragedy” from commons that have been privatized.
So I think it’s still an interesting concept, just one that needs a reworking with a more evidence-based and less ideological framework.
To me the point is this: Everything can be mismanaged. Whether something is administrated by private individuals, public companies, governments, communities, … does not prevent things from being mishandled or squandered. After all it can only take one mistake to destroy one asset or resource entirely.
And it’s that deliberate omission and the insistency that one approach will always fail, while another will always thrive that makes “The tragedy…” a piece of propaganda, rather than a serious argument.