Must be a glitch in the matrix or I got kicked into an alternate timeline, because until yesterday I never saw anyone here question the general meaning of "tragedy of the commons" and its stated implications, and suddenly it's the second time I see some 1968 book reference brought up and implications that "tragedy of the commons" is debunked, and that it's saying basically the opposite of what I know it to be saying...
I question it every time I see it on HN. Every time. Same on mastodon. Same on Lawyers, Gun, Money. One of my own personal quests. So many people know about "the tragedy of the commons", an idea that really does only go back to Hardin's book, but hardly anyone knows about Ostrom's work which IMO is vastly more important (and also more correct).
Comments
Must be a glitch in the matrix or I got kicked into an alternate timeline, because until yesterday I never saw anyone here question the general meaning of "tragedy of the commons" and its stated implications, and suddenly it's the second time I see some 1968 book reference brought up and implications that "tragedy of the commons" is debunked, and that it's saying basically the opposite of what I know it to be saying...
I question it every time I see it on HN. Every time. Same on mastodon. Same on Lawyers, Gun, Money. One of my own personal quests. So many people know about "the tragedy of the commons", an idea that really does only go back to Hardin's book, but hardly anyone knows about Ostrom's work which IMO is vastly more important (and also more correct).