Tragedy of the Commons
Blijf op de hoogte en volg Lisa
11 Augustus 2012 | Duitsland, Berlin Pankow
Today Petra wrote about ‘eating now, paying later’ (http://itspetravanderkooij.waarbenjij.nu). Basically, what she said is that if we don’t eat organic food now we have to pay for the consequences later, whereas by paying a little more for organic food now, we don’t have to pay the prices of environmental problems later.
As soon as you start to think about it, eating organic food would be way more logical for those who want to save the environment. It’s always better to avoid problems instead of creating them and then getting them out of the way.
The only problem is that people have to take a look at the long-term consequences of their actions and take responsibility for them. Not everyone is able to do this, because it’s hard to see the consequences of your actions when everyone else is doing the same as you.
This is called the ‘tragedy of the commons’. Wikipedia explains the tragedy of the commons like this: “Central to Hardin's article is an example involving medieval land tenure in Europe, of herders sharing a common parcel of land, on which they are each entitled to let their cows graze. In Hardin's example, it is in each herder's interest to put the next (and succeeding) cows he acquires onto the land, even if the quality of the common is damaged for all as a result, through overgrazing. The herder receives all of the benefits from an additional cow, while the damage to the common is shared by the entire group. If all herders make this individually rational economic decision, the common will be depleted or even destroyed, to the detriment of all. Hardin also cites modern examples, including the overfishing of the world's oceans and ranchers who graze their cattle on government lands in the American West.”
The tragedy of the commons is the cause of a lot of problems, including environmental ones. People think it won’t make a difference if they turn off their light more often, or if they buy organic food. They know it’s better for the world, but think that if they keep doing the bad thing, nobody will notice it because everybody is doing it.
The collective choice will always be the easiest one, unless a group is able to get over the tragedy of the commons. The easiest way to do this has proved itself in the past: simply setting clear rules with clear consequences for the group.
Thankfully saving the world is not the only incentive for people to buy organic food, people also think it’s healthier. But what if people wouldn’t think that? Would organic food be popular in big groups of people? I don’t think so. People need economic or social incentives that affect themselves instead of the rest of the world if you want to avoid the tragedy of the commons. If the market share of organic food has to grow even more, those incentives have to be created. Organic food has to be cheaper than ‘normal’ food, and the only institute that can realize this is the government. Until then, it’s up to you to change the world.
As soon as you start to think about it, eating organic food would be way more logical for those who want to save the environment. It’s always better to avoid problems instead of creating them and then getting them out of the way.
The only problem is that people have to take a look at the long-term consequences of their actions and take responsibility for them. Not everyone is able to do this, because it’s hard to see the consequences of your actions when everyone else is doing the same as you.
This is called the ‘tragedy of the commons’. Wikipedia explains the tragedy of the commons like this: “Central to Hardin's article is an example involving medieval land tenure in Europe, of herders sharing a common parcel of land, on which they are each entitled to let their cows graze. In Hardin's example, it is in each herder's interest to put the next (and succeeding) cows he acquires onto the land, even if the quality of the common is damaged for all as a result, through overgrazing. The herder receives all of the benefits from an additional cow, while the damage to the common is shared by the entire group. If all herders make this individually rational economic decision, the common will be depleted or even destroyed, to the detriment of all. Hardin also cites modern examples, including the overfishing of the world's oceans and ranchers who graze their cattle on government lands in the American West.”
The tragedy of the commons is the cause of a lot of problems, including environmental ones. People think it won’t make a difference if they turn off their light more often, or if they buy organic food. They know it’s better for the world, but think that if they keep doing the bad thing, nobody will notice it because everybody is doing it.
The collective choice will always be the easiest one, unless a group is able to get over the tragedy of the commons. The easiest way to do this has proved itself in the past: simply setting clear rules with clear consequences for the group.
Thankfully saving the world is not the only incentive for people to buy organic food, people also think it’s healthier. But what if people wouldn’t think that? Would organic food be popular in big groups of people? I don’t think so. People need economic or social incentives that affect themselves instead of the rest of the world if you want to avoid the tragedy of the commons. If the market share of organic food has to grow even more, those incentives have to be created. Organic food has to be cheaper than ‘normal’ food, and the only institute that can realize this is the government. Until then, it’s up to you to change the world.
Reageer op dit reisverslag
Je kunt nu ook Smileys gebruiken. Via de toolbar, toetsenbord of door eerst : te typen en dan een woord bijvoorbeeld :smiley
