30-12-2013, 11:55 PM
Hi Magda....
As I was trying to understand property rights and profit I came across Hardin's work... and thru you explored Ostrom and others.
I then went back to Plato and Aristotle to see just how issues of ownership and ruling were addressed and find that economics leading to wealth was as strong a factor then as now.
After reading Ian's piece and re-reading Hardin I conclude that Ian here missed the boat and is taking the presentation entirely too literally and in only the smallest of chunks... he appears to have dismissed MOST of the essay.
He apparently fails to realize that among the herdsmen are those who live their lives via "Unenlightened self-interest"... (the SPONSORS in the Drago/Evica model - you KNEW I would get back to JFK with this right? )
In contrast to enlightened self-interest is simple greed or the concept of "unenlightened self-interest," in which it is argued that when most or all persons act according to their own myopic selfishness, that the group suffers loss as a result of conflict, decreased efficiency and productivity because of lack of cooperation, and the increased expense each individual pays for the protection of their own interests. If a typical individual in such a group is selected at random, it is not likely that this person will profit from such a group ethic.
Some individuals might profit, in a material sense, from a philosophy of greed, but it is believed by proponents of enlightened self-interest that these individuals constitute a small minority and that the large majority of persons can expect to experience a net personal loss from a philosophy of simple unenlightened selfishness.
It has never been the lack of ability for humans to work together for a greater good... it has invariably been the unification of a small group within the whole who band together in order to create a NEW entity which acts as the greedy herdsman and embarks on a course of spoiling the "meadow" by adding cow after cow until the value of ALL the cows has fallen, production of the smaller, individual herdsman is not enough to satisfy his individual need and there is no more space for adding more cows. This "cabal" then goes about buying all the cows at a depressed price until they own all the cows and the other herdsmen are forced into either buying their supplies from this new entity which owns all the production, or securing a different way - outside the system - to address his needs.
It's as if Ian here has completely forgotten about the nature of humans and the general selfishness we exhibit in our daily decisions.
Ian asks... "Why does the herder want more"? and then proceeds to make an argument with only FAITH IN HUMANS as the evidence.
That entire "answer" to the question sets to remove any and all real world situations from his rebuttal and then he clims that Capitalist Society has not crush human cooperation and solidarity. He states the FACT that we have not "overgrazed the commons" disproves Hardin. (the number of "commons" which have been overgrazed is staggering... we are not talking meadows here anymore)
He then speaks of "conditions" like a free market system:
In short, Hardin didn't describe the behaviour of herdsmen in pre-capitalist farming communities, he described the behaviour of capitalists operating in a capitalist economy. The universal human nature that he claimed would always destroy common resources is actually the profit-driven "grow or die" behaviour of corporations.
Magda, what planet does this man live on? Unless there is a demand or need for excess production, what motivates the herdsman to add more cows?
The very POINT of Hardin's work is that pre-resource scarcity there is no Tragedy of the Commons.... (it exists yet has not been realized or planned for)
If there is no market for his animal - there is no motivation to expand (other than production in preparation for scarce times which indeed would be communal and cooperative - and GREED/Unenlighted self-interest) which Ian here seems to fail to understand IS the conditioned state of most humans on the planet.
Hardin quotes Situation Ethics by J Fletcher: the morality of an act is a function of the STATE OF THE SYSTEM at the time it is performed
Ian completely forgets this point with is lynch-pin to the discussion. Manifest Destiny made it possible for common folk to override the American Indian without moral consequence.. the State of the System at the time put cooperation with the indigenous at the bottom of the pile... and individual decision (which we know worked well for those that choose to live WITH the Indian, not exterminate them) until the bigger group on the block came along adn made that decision FOR the individual.
Another think Ian seems to neglect is the factor of TIME.
The only listing of "SCARCITY" is in reference to a Malthusian source. (and I do not agree with Hardin on his dismissal of Bentham's goal of "the greatest good for the greatest number" being impossible... he speaks of it in relation to "maximizing population" - which is not what it meant imo.
I get the impression that Ian read the first few paragraphs of Hardin's essay and stopped.... the message appears to me as: IF we do not recognize that the solutions to some problems are CHANGES IN HUMAN NATURE on a global basis and the removal of PROFIT-DRIVEN economies, it will be too late for the majority to survive.
As populations grow scarcity increases.. the basis of the work still remains Population growth control - agreed-upon and implemented on a human species scale... which Ian in turn seems not to understand or agree with for some reason.
A band of 500 Indians on the plains of Montana without anyone else for 1000 miles will not have a Tragedy of Commons problem whcih cnanot be worked out among themselves...
Put the same 500 on 1 square mile with 7 other tribes surrounding them also in 1 mile borders... with a 1 mile square COMMON area in the middle...
and then let's talk about there not being a COMMONS problem that can be solved thru technology... first a higher yield crop could be invented which could support even MORE people...
Without the agreed upon "coersion" as Hardin puts it, in the long run ruin is most likely.
Elinor states: "Well, I don't see the human as hopeless". and then goes on to offer SMALL TOWN / LIMITED POPULATION with LIMITED INTERFERENCE analogies ??
She also says: "Alot of communities have figured out subtle ways of making everyone contribute" Sounds like Hardin's coersion of conscience for the greater good...
He writes: "Responsibility... is an attempt to get something for nothing"
So where are you on this?
DJ
As I was trying to understand property rights and profit I came across Hardin's work... and thru you explored Ostrom and others.
I then went back to Plato and Aristotle to see just how issues of ownership and ruling were addressed and find that economics leading to wealth was as strong a factor then as now.
After reading Ian's piece and re-reading Hardin I conclude that Ian here missed the boat and is taking the presentation entirely too literally and in only the smallest of chunks... he appears to have dismissed MOST of the essay.
He apparently fails to realize that among the herdsmen are those who live their lives via "Unenlightened self-interest"... (the SPONSORS in the Drago/Evica model - you KNEW I would get back to JFK with this right? )
In contrast to enlightened self-interest is simple greed or the concept of "unenlightened self-interest," in which it is argued that when most or all persons act according to their own myopic selfishness, that the group suffers loss as a result of conflict, decreased efficiency and productivity because of lack of cooperation, and the increased expense each individual pays for the protection of their own interests. If a typical individual in such a group is selected at random, it is not likely that this person will profit from such a group ethic.
Some individuals might profit, in a material sense, from a philosophy of greed, but it is believed by proponents of enlightened self-interest that these individuals constitute a small minority and that the large majority of persons can expect to experience a net personal loss from a philosophy of simple unenlightened selfishness.
It has never been the lack of ability for humans to work together for a greater good... it has invariably been the unification of a small group within the whole who band together in order to create a NEW entity which acts as the greedy herdsman and embarks on a course of spoiling the "meadow" by adding cow after cow until the value of ALL the cows has fallen, production of the smaller, individual herdsman is not enough to satisfy his individual need and there is no more space for adding more cows. This "cabal" then goes about buying all the cows at a depressed price until they own all the cows and the other herdsmen are forced into either buying their supplies from this new entity which owns all the production, or securing a different way - outside the system - to address his needs.
It's as if Ian here has completely forgotten about the nature of humans and the general selfishness we exhibit in our daily decisions.
Ian asks... "Why does the herder want more"? and then proceeds to make an argument with only FAITH IN HUMANS as the evidence.
That entire "answer" to the question sets to remove any and all real world situations from his rebuttal and then he clims that Capitalist Society has not crush human cooperation and solidarity. He states the FACT that we have not "overgrazed the commons" disproves Hardin. (the number of "commons" which have been overgrazed is staggering... we are not talking meadows here anymore)
He then speaks of "conditions" like a free market system:
In short, Hardin didn't describe the behaviour of herdsmen in pre-capitalist farming communities, he described the behaviour of capitalists operating in a capitalist economy. The universal human nature that he claimed would always destroy common resources is actually the profit-driven "grow or die" behaviour of corporations.
Magda, what planet does this man live on? Unless there is a demand or need for excess production, what motivates the herdsman to add more cows?
The very POINT of Hardin's work is that pre-resource scarcity there is no Tragedy of the Commons.... (it exists yet has not been realized or planned for)
If there is no market for his animal - there is no motivation to expand (other than production in preparation for scarce times which indeed would be communal and cooperative - and GREED/Unenlighted self-interest) which Ian here seems to fail to understand IS the conditioned state of most humans on the planet.
Hardin quotes Situation Ethics by J Fletcher: the morality of an act is a function of the STATE OF THE SYSTEM at the time it is performed
Ian completely forgets this point with is lynch-pin to the discussion. Manifest Destiny made it possible for common folk to override the American Indian without moral consequence.. the State of the System at the time put cooperation with the indigenous at the bottom of the pile... and individual decision (which we know worked well for those that choose to live WITH the Indian, not exterminate them) until the bigger group on the block came along adn made that decision FOR the individual.
Another think Ian seems to neglect is the factor of TIME.
The only listing of "SCARCITY" is in reference to a Malthusian source. (and I do not agree with Hardin on his dismissal of Bentham's goal of "the greatest good for the greatest number" being impossible... he speaks of it in relation to "maximizing population" - which is not what it meant imo.
I get the impression that Ian read the first few paragraphs of Hardin's essay and stopped.... the message appears to me as: IF we do not recognize that the solutions to some problems are CHANGES IN HUMAN NATURE on a global basis and the removal of PROFIT-DRIVEN economies, it will be too late for the majority to survive.
As populations grow scarcity increases.. the basis of the work still remains Population growth control - agreed-upon and implemented on a human species scale... which Ian in turn seems not to understand or agree with for some reason.
A band of 500 Indians on the plains of Montana without anyone else for 1000 miles will not have a Tragedy of Commons problem whcih cnanot be worked out among themselves...
Put the same 500 on 1 square mile with 7 other tribes surrounding them also in 1 mile borders... with a 1 mile square COMMON area in the middle...
and then let's talk about there not being a COMMONS problem that can be solved thru technology... first a higher yield crop could be invented which could support even MORE people...
Without the agreed upon "coersion" as Hardin puts it, in the long run ruin is most likely.
Elinor states: "Well, I don't see the human as hopeless". and then goes on to offer SMALL TOWN / LIMITED POPULATION with LIMITED INTERFERENCE analogies ??
She also says: "Alot of communities have figured out subtle ways of making everyone contribute" Sounds like Hardin's coersion of conscience for the greater good...
He writes: "Responsibility... is an attempt to get something for nothing"
So where are you on this?
DJ
Once in a while you get shown the light
in the strangest of places if you look at it right..... R. Hunter
in the strangest of places if you look at it right..... R. Hunter