You are viewing a single comment's thread from:

RE: Ideological Failures at Addressing Climate Change

in #science7 years ago (edited)

If we want to succeed at mitigating the worst damage to our global ecosystem, we need to act in a piecemeal fashion. There is no one single solution to our problems- it's going to take an ugly, stitched together collection of thousands of makework solutions, stopgaps actions, and frantic delaying attempts. We have to adapt our thinking to complex systems that interrelate, act unpredictably, and feed back on one another. We have to work on thinking scientifically.

Simple freedom is the only solution; and it goes hand-in-hand with what your saying. Perhaps this is libertarianism, but I don't necessarily think about it in those terms. There's no single solution to our problems, especially environmental ones, so why not just let people try different things and see what comes out of it? Experience tells us it's the only thing that works in the long run.

Sort:  

The tragedy of the commons argues otherwise. What's good for the individual is not the same thing as what's good for society- societal gains result in lesser gains for individuals quite often.

The tragedy of the commons argues otherwise.

The thing with the tragedy of the commons I never understood is how can you know what is better for the "greater or common good"?

What's good for the individual is not the same thing as what's good for society- societal gains result in lesser gains for individuals quite often.

If societal gains result in lesser gains for individuals then how is it good for society, which is nothing but a collection of individuals? Seems like this is based on a utilitarian assumption.

Well, take a look at the classic example that the tragedy of the commons is named for. Medieval English villages had a commons, or common green- a place where villagers could graze their sheep and cattle and the like when their pasturage was getting a little low on feed. The strategy that makes the most sense from an individual level is to exploit the commons as much as possible, which when everyone does, the commons is denuded and destroyed. (As happened often.) When, instead, the village controlled more strictly who could use the commons to prevent overgrazing, it became much more useful over the long term, benefiting more people. Admittedly that benefit was by a smaller amount than would be received by short term exploitation- but it lasted much, much longer, and that adds up in the end.

The strategy that makes the most sense from an individual level is to exploit the commons as much as possible, which when everyone does, the commons is denuded and destroyed. (As happened often.)

I see what you mean by exploiting the commons as much as possible for individual gains, but this is short term thinking. In the long run if individuals exploit the commons as much as possible there would be no commons later on to benefit from.

When, instead, the village controlled more strictly who could use the commons to prevent overgrazing, it became much more useful over the long term, benefiting more people. Admittedly that benefit was by a smaller amount than would be received by short term exploitation- but it lasted much, much longer, and that adds up in the end

OK, so if this control is based on each individual agreeing that the village should be able to regulate the commons, this is not mutually exclusive toward free association or self-governance. The problem occurs when people are forced to abide by certain controls without any chance to opt-out or the possibility of reforms within the village.This is when some individuals start to get greedy and exploit as much as possible, sort of like blowback causing the classic tragedy of the commons.

If there's one thing that history shows, it's that individuals almost never think in the long run- they always exploit the commons until it's destroyed unless restrained by social mores or government restrictions or the like. You can only reasonably expect someone to think in three generations- their parents, themselves, and their grandchildren, and even that's too much to ask from a great many people. And as for having opt-out from the regulations governing the commons- the only reason to opt out would be to exploit said commons beyond fairness. This is, essentially, how the needs of society and the individual diverge. To put it in utilitarian terms, the needs of society provide for individuals, but do not maximize their gains. It is in the best interest of the individuals to maximize their gains, but that is often harmful to society at large in many situations.

If there's one thing that history shows, it's that individuals almost never think in the long run- they always exploit the commons until it's destroyed unless restrained by social mores or government restrictions or the like. You can only reasonably expect someone to think in three generations- their parents, themselves, and their grandchildren, and even that's too much to ask from a great many people

I won't disagree with that, the masses of humanity definitely are short-termers best suited for collectivism; although it's sort of unfortunate for those rare individuals who are not like that and have to face this burden of sacrificing their autonomy.

And as for having opt-out from the regulations governing the commons- the only reason to opt out would be to exploit said commons beyond fairness. This is, essentially, how the needs of society and the individual diverge. To put it in utilitarian terms, the needs of society provide for individuals, but do not maximize their gains. It is in the best interest of the individuals to maximize their gains, but that is often harmful to society at large in many situations.

Well, you also might want to opt-out because you don't think the the authority behind the commons is being organized fairly.

I think the crux of this issue is whether or not the individual is more important than the collective. Personally, I believe in freedom regardless of the utilitarian benefits or disadvantages; history has also shown that "society at large" has been responsible for death and misery for millions of people, while individuals have been behind innovation and art that have bettered humanity.