it's sat night and i am watching alabama and west Virginia. check to see what is going on with the campfire. am old, retired, worn out, on fixed income, with health issues. damn, reality is facing me from nate and TOD. Glad I am an old man. We are some species. here comes the four horsemen.

Back in the period of 1989-1991 there was a huge struggle for the paradigm of the "settlement model" of the Internet between the NSF and CNRI (Bob Kahn, Vint Cerf et al) against myself my business partner, Mitch Kapor (Lotus/EFF) {the EFF did not exist at this moment in time}, Rick Adams, Mike O'Dell (BellLabs, now NEA), etc. You can read about most of this in the ancient archives of com-priv. The NSF/CNRI team had a fairly complicated model for settlement that mirrored the then PTT and X.25 networks where as our "team" argued (vociferously) for a commons model. To my knowledge no one has ever published the "true" history of that time and argument. The common model has essentially run the Internet since the first datagram in 1982 until this day, though it is under fire in many ways again. My point would be the tragedy of the commons might not always be applicable under every circumstances, and that scale undoubtedly matters when the argument is used, or disabused. In the CNRI archives you can find some interesting papers written by Amy Frielander which would be friendly towards the concept of the tragedy of the commons.

I am actually a believer in "peak oil", "social dislocation coming", "the slowing of technology advance", and a frenchmen named Tocqueville, but as an engineer/scientist/philosopher as I pursue exploiting 1 kw per sq meter of energy, through panels, greenhouses, pasture, chickens, gardens, etc over 60 acres I remember how good a life I had in the 60s in a small town in the lower middle class, with 30 amp service, walking to school, eating out of our garden. As I walk the backroads of Africa and other 3rd world places I question how much I need and use, and whether we will ever have leadership in the US that (as in the O'Bama camp) won't promise a return to 2007 or as Dick Cheney would rally the troops with "America's Lifesytle is Non-negotiable".

Sorry about that - the widely divergent understandings about the "two Americas", to use John Edwards's formulation. Is it that it is hard to reason when people have divergent axioms? Who knows. No reason not to keep at it, however, among other things that are more profitable.

1)Its been over 40 years since Tragedy of the Commons appeared in Science. What has changed to avert us from this tragedy in the meantime? What might be done to avert it in the future?

I'd say nothing at all has changed to avert the dynamics which create the TOC as an emergent phenomenon. In the arenas I've worked in, such as international fisheries, there are paper treaties which may or may not buy time. But except for situations which are handled in a systems-approach way to establish and fortify a new stable state for the system to collapse into, I don't expect such paper victories to count for much over even the intermediate term.

What might be done? Limit access to the commons in question, by any means possible. Feasible in some situations, not in others.

2)Would awareness of a global commons, globally among every citizen, be enough to avert individual exploitation at a cost to the commons?

Of course it's possible for humans not to indulge themselves, but statistically less likely as the number of people grows. I'd say "social stigma" probably works better than enlightenment. The cannibalism taboo might be a good example. But of course, as the human population starts contracting seriously worldwide, the TOC will shift into overdrive (in absence of some heavy overriding authority which probably won't exist in most places). I expect most treaties, indeed rules, to fall by the wayside and resource vandalism to become the norm.

3)As events surrounding the battle between fiat based and biophysical economics accelerate, how can well intentioned volunteers combat free riders without burning out? What is the natural institution that can effort the common good as opposed to special interests?

I'm not entirely sure that combatting free riders is the problem; I lean towards the society of sloth as a lower-mortality way through the bottleneck. Personally, I have taken the somewhat unusual approach of making a separate peace with the unfairness of the universe. That is, to acknowledge that "fairness" as I am evolved to perceive it in tribal-monkey fashion is not a feature of the universe I exist in, and not necessarily a healthy thing to validate. Particularly when looking at things from an "earthlife" perspective as opposed to "human only".

One useful natural 'institution' may be "predators"; we have killed them off; the big ones anyhow. I sometimes think of our current pickle as "the tragedy of humans being common".

And burning out - say, there's grist for a campfire of its own. It claims many of the best minds who strive.

1)Its been over 40 years since Tragedy of the Commons appeared in Science. What has changed to avert us from this tragedy in the meantime? What might be done to avert it in the future?

In the evolutionary time-scale, nothing much has changed to human nature. Tragedy of commons is probably a "good thing" from evolution's stand point - to create diversity and Select for fittest individuals as various bottle-necks occur. Of course, Blind Nature doesn't care a thing about Homo sapiens.

Humans too have made use of Energy in very much selfish ways to multiply. We're now 6 billion. Please standby for Natural Selection to begin... ;)

2)Would awareness of a global commons, globally among every citizen, be enough to avert individual exploitation at a cost to the commons?

I don't think so - what is required is a data driven approach where we constantly estimate the carrying capacity while also estimating foot-prints. Maybe a global law of sorts? But then, this is all Mental Masturbation - I think what is needed really is a spiritual understanding of one's place in this universe, forget even the planet. From that humility will spring clear thought, philosophy and intellect. Hopefully, this time, a Science without Applications. A science for the mere pursuit of knowledge.

3)As events surrounding the battle between fiat based and biophysical economics accelerate, how can well intentioned volunteers combat free riders without burning out? What is the natural institution that can effort the common good as opposed to special interests? Will Gresham's Law apply to blogs?

What more does one need than this understanding of the Tragedy of Commons, a strongly knitted community that will inevitably rise as people wake up to the realization that its only people that can help them and not cheap fossil fuels anymore.

Are you still hoping that humanity will _save_ itself?

I like the questions at the end - they remind me of my school reader chapter reviews:
"1. Compare and contrast the lives of Falstaff and MacBeth."

Or the questions my math teacher (who hated me) gave me, like
"2. A train leaves New York today at 3pm traveling 90 mph. At the same time a train leaves here. Be on it."

But seriously, The Tragedy of the Commons had/has exactly as much effect on society as Limits to Growth. 1 Percent of the population read it,and 1 percent of the readers said 'I will change my ways'. The other 99.99% said 'lets go out for a hamburger.'

This website seems to be populated by the 0.01% who put their chin on their thumb, first finger on their lips and though 'hmmm, we are so screwed'.

Let me get my Metaphor mixer down...

As an optimistic 'glass is half full'-kinda-guy as I try to be, I think we have a snowballs chance in hell of turning this ship of fools before it runs up on the (communal) rocks.

1,2,3: Doesn't matter. All that live must die. Fun to think about, though.

Great essay Nate; and some good responses. I know you have also spent some time understanding "mass psychology". My own personal journey started in 2005 with Peak Oil. I then wanted to formalize my learning in the area, so I did a Master of Sustainability Sciences degree. I read Spirit in the Gene a few weeks ago, the latest in a succession of books since I finished formal studies. I now lay claim to a reasonable lay knowledge in a number of related subjects including energy, climate science, ecology and resource/biophysical economics.

My own conclusion after 4 years of fairly intense study is that I have absolutely no idea about what will happen in detail. I am absolutely certain that as a species we are in significant overshoot; and a die back is inevitable. Quite how, or when it will commence, or play out, I have know idea. The essay is about Garrit Hardins Tragedy of the Commons. At a global level it is just a different facet of overshoot.

And this in a way is the central problem. There is passionate discussion about climate change, peak oil, species loss, collapsing fisheries and dead zones in the oceans, or the Tragedy of the Commons. I enjoy these subjects and they are very interesting. But it is part of our psychology that our brains only can absorb so much at once; and these are all big topics. So by concentrating on these sub-topics we are deluding ourselves, compartmentalizing them as if the other do not exist while we talk about one of the other problems. The real issue is over-population and how we manage a "down sizing", including a different way of sharing increasingly scarce resources. I suspect we will never have the courage to do that; and so the reptilian brain will take complete control and war will break out.

I first encountered Garrett Hardin in person at an abortion conference he led in 1968. The technology and acceptance of birth control (including abortion) has improved since that time. Birth rates have decreased in many countries. That is the good news. But the competitive exclusion principle persists. Furthermore we may have already passed post fossil fuel carrying capacity. It is a fantasy to believe that individuals or political groups can coerse 7 billion people. Jay found through direct experience that he could have little political effect on his own island. Can he control Asia, the Middle East, South America etc. Of course not.

2.Is there really a common good? Or does Hardin suggest otherwise in Tragedy?
"...If our goal is to maximize population it is obvious what we must do: We must make the work calories per person approach as close to zero as possible. No gourmet meals, no vacations, no sports, no music, no literature, no art. ... I think that everyone will grant, without argument or proof, that maximizing population does not maximize goods. Bentham's goal is impossible..." "...We want the maximum good per person; but what is good? To one person it is wilderness, to another it is ski lodges for thousands. To one it is estuaries to nourish ducks for hunters to shoot; to another it is factory land. Comparing one good with another is, we usually say, impossible because goods are incommensurable. Incommensurables cannot be compared..."----but see the essay

3. The fiat question is interesting. For most of my life governments have used inflation as a hidden tax. At times that becomes ineffective. Even in a post petroleum post dieoff world with a declining population, survivors will probably find that money of some sort is useful.

I once heard Hardin describe the writing and extensive re- writing of Tragedy. I believe that there were well over a dozen drafts following discussions with his wife and others. Were the final paragraphs satisfactory
MUTUAL COERCION MUTUALLY AGREED UPON
Or was the earlier "no technical solution" correct?
-------------------------------------------
See also http://www.garretthardinsociety.org/ or the Hardin papers in the special collections at UCSB

Despite Hanson's repeated and apparently pejorative use of "American", the case he makes seems really to be that democracy itself is the problem, as the phenomena are by no means limited to the USA. Thus, despite the currently fashionable penchant for dumping on America, getting rid of it would seem unlikely to solve the 'problem'.

If there is any natural institution to ("effort?" eh? what?) put the common good - whatever that means - ahead of private interests - whatever that means - perhaps it's something resembling monarchy. After all, if individuals can't weigh the costs and benefits properly on their own because information on the overall system is unavailable to them, or because game theory indicates they can't practicably make optimal choices, or because there's simply too much Idiocracy in the air, then presumably the weighing process must be centralized and perhaps supervised by experts - whoever they might be. Perhaps this could be done without resorting to a Soviet-style totalitarian state - we know what a jolly good job of conserving the commons that one did - but even comparatively benign approaches such as Pigouvian taxes seem to require an all-wise monarchical deus ex machina to descend from the sky and magically set the parameters. (The magic extends even to the mysterious roundness of proffered numerical values, for example 2C - not 1.7C or 2.2C mind you - for AGW.)

But the trouble with monarchy (or quasi-monarchy) is that it's easily, quickly, and inevitably corrupted, after the manner of Louis Quatorze. So then we chop off the heads of the monarch and everyone else who displays the least bit of intelligence, after the manner of the French Revolution. Then we have "democracy" again. But with civil society decapitated, "democracy" devolves into a free-for-all idiocracy of one sort or another, after the manner of Robespierre and company. When that becomes intolerable we turn to a monarch to sort out the mess, after the manner of Napoleon, and thus the wheel turns yet again.

So I dunno. Maybe in order to survive, we'd better figure out how to live without commons, or, more accurately, how to live with commons that are in rather less than perfect order, because that's the best we're ever going to get.

1)Its been over 40 years since Tragedy of the Commons appeared in Science. What has changed to avert us from this tragedy in the meantime? What might be done to avert it in the future?

Over forty years ago this nation passed Civil Rights Legislation. People from many walks of life joined forces and put their personal welfare at risk to turn back a grievous wrong - segregation and Jim Crow Laws left over from Reconstruction. People fought in the streets to stop a war that was immoral. The Peace Corp was born. Family Planning began in earnest. The Clean Air and Clean Water Acts were passed along with the Endangered Species Act under one of the most corrupt and conservative administrations in our history. Rachel Carson changed the World with the publication of her book Silent Spring. People learned about environments and what ecology meant. Wealthy individuals made the conscious decision to wear denim as a rejection of class divisions. People started voluntary communities (some that managed to survive into the present).

Today they tell us that we've got to allow mountain top mining to protect our energy security and maybe it's too expensive to clean up the water and the people shrug their shoulders and buy bottled water by the case rather than risk drinking the water. Canada, once considered a refuge of the natural is behaving like a despotic petrostate, cutting down it's forests for pulp and poisoning it's air and rivers for the short-term wealth of Tar Sands. Retired people who are wealthy collect Social Security because they're entitled to it while less fortunate retirees live on dog food. Homelessness is epidemic but we're tired of it and annoyed by these malodorous folks wandering our neighborhoods and panhandling in the parking lots where we buy our groceries. Our politicians are corrupt and we're no longer even shocked or discouraged that they lie, have illicit affairs while in office or take bribes and kickbacks. We're fighting two wars 1/2 way around the world because we need to import most of our oil so we can continue driving cars over freeways that are gridlocked. But we're entertained. There are 300 channels on 24 hours a day and now we can watch the most vile pornography at home while our children are in the next room with their eyes rolling in the back of their heads playing video games. And then we accuse our educators of being lax because our children can't read or write and have never seen the inside of a science lab.

In this brave new world you're classified as either a person or property. The natural world is a resource with no rights. We would like to get away from it all but when we get in our cars and travel to the parks they are choked with the stench of humanity. The world is going to hell, we're in the middle of the greatest mass extinction event in 65 million years with thousands of species going extinct every month and most of them have never even been discovered. The climate's changing and in a hundred years most of us will be extinct anyway.

In the end I don't know whether we've been corrupted or we just gave up but it amounts to essentially the same thing. It didn't happen all at once but over time each of us in our own way has sold out. Maybe all we want now is to be comfortable. It's all so depressing and after all what can I do? I just want to be left alone.

It's not the Tragedy of the Commons...It's the Tragedy of a Culture.

Joe

1)Its been over 40 years since Tragedy of the Commons appeared in Science. What has changed to avert us from this tragedy in the meantime? What might be done to avert it in the future?

The main thing that has happened that might avert us from this tragedy is ecological economics. In the textbook Ecological Economics Daly and Farley say that the term "tragedy of the commons" is a misnomer. It is not communally owned property that is the problem, rather property that is rival (if I have it, you don't) but not excludable (no legal means to regulate ownership or block you from owning or using the property). It is therefore NOT communal property, in fact the whole problem is that the property is not communally owned -- if it was, it could be regulated by the owners. They therefore prefer the term "open access regime."

What might be done to avert this tragedy in the future? How about: a different policy or set of policies regarding natural resources subject to the "open access regime." Thus, massive political change. This would probably look like "socialism" and therefore, in the U. S. A. at least, not happen until after a major crisis (deflation, hyperinflation, massive unemployment, something like that).

2)Would awareness of a global commons, globally among every citizen, be enough to avert individual exploitation at a cost to the commons?

It's possible. The discussion above of a "taboo" shows a mechanism which might operate with such an effect. More likely, though, a critical mass of people would create new policies, which combined with some awareness (although likely not universal awareness), would be effective in limiting destruction of resources needed for human well being. In time, these new policies might become values of humanity and the bad behavior we don't like might be subject to a taboo.

3)As events surrounding the battle between fiat based and biophysical economics accelerate, how can well intentioned volunteers combat free riders without burning out? What is the natural institution that can effort the common good as opposed to special interests?

"Let it fail." The current social system (which punishes those who act responsibly) and lack of awareness (which prevents action to halt such punishment) are the primary problems. By allowing the current social system to collapse, we remove it, and this collapse would also heighten awareness of the problem. But we have to be ready to act in concert with this collapse, otherwise there will be nothing to replace it, and ignorance will take over -- people will blame the Arabs, the oil companies, or the current villain of choice.

I am not quite saying, "the worse, the better," but I believe that we need systemic change, that this change will come from new governmental policies, that such policies will look like "socialism" to many people (even though private enterprise will continue to exist), and that efforts to patch the system might be useful tactically but are misguided if pursued as a basic strategy. I would encourage any well-meaning volunteers that I found along the path with apocalyptic expectations of fundamental change for the better. In the meantime, we need to further knowledge of ecological economics, at least among, uh, the "vanguard" of the well-meaning volunteers.

Will Gresham's Law apply to blogs?

I'm not quite sure what you're getting at. I presume you are asking whether the blogging phenomenon, taken as a whole, generally promotes bad ideas. Bad blogs have the same "currency" as good blogs, but they are easier to come up with, and there are so many of them. Is this it?

There is indeed a problem here, namely that it is difficult to express a new, complex idea in a blog, therefore the blog format discriminates against new, complex ideas -- which is exactly what "peak oil" and the associated economic and social problems involve.

If everyone were blogging from scratch, this would be the case, but you have to consider the audience and that the true competition here is not between individual blogs but communities of bloggers. Obviously science would have never progressed to the point it has if Gresham's Law were continually applied to the expression of scientific ideas. Within science, good ideas do drive out bad ideas within certain limits -- it progresses slowly, but it does progress, and the "limits" are continually expanded. That's because science is (1) reality based, and (2) it builds on previous work. Semmelweiss, for example, was not immediately recognized, but his ideas ultimately triumphed. This all applies in the long run, therefore may not be true tactically, and therefore we could still lose if we have a fast collapse and are not prepared.

Science is a reality-based community where you don't have to explain everything from scratch every time you open your mouth. Ditto for the peak oil community. So, I say, let us blog forward.

Keith

Nate,

Condolances. I sympathize with your frustration. One could suggest that your former friend read John Donne's "For Whom the Bell Tolls":

No man is an island, 
Entire of itself. 
Each is a piece of the continent, 
A part of the main. 
If a clod be washed away by the sea, 
Europe is the less. 
As well as if a promontory were. 
As well as if a manner of thine own 
Or of thine friend's were. 
Each man's death diminishes me, 
For I am involved in mankind. 
Therefore, send not to know 
For whom the bell tolls, 
It tolls for thee.

Then again, I doubt very much that William would grasp the poem's deeper significance. He'd see it as just so much la-te-da "I am my brother's keeper" liberal crap.

It's quite normal and entirely understandable that those who have been very successful attribute that success to qualities they possess -- drive, insight, intelligence. I'm sure the recipients of those million dollar bonuses at AIG sincerely believed that they "worked hard for the money" and really deserved the bonuses. Nobody wants to see himself as a fortunate parasite. It's likewise comforting to believe that the poor are just lazy and / or stupid. But those with any pretense at analytical skills should still be able to see that the road we're currently travelling leads into darkness.

The race to the bottom. People in your former occupation, who arguably have the greatest stake in the race and need for understanding it, overwhelmingly don't. Especially, they don't realize where it ends up, or recognize how much the current economic crisis has had to do with our advancing progress in that race. In a free market global economy, whoever can do the job for the lowest cost wins. That means the advantage goes not just to countries with the lowest labor costs, but also those with the weakest environmental laws, where manufacturers can dump wastes into the commons without the cost of cleanup.

It also means that capital will continue to drive out labor wherever it can. Have you noticed how much better speaker-independent voice recognition sytems have gotten lately? How hard it is getting to talk to a real person in customer support? The erosion of jobs knows no absolute barrier. We can all be replaced by machines -- and will be, if system collapse doesn't intervene to put a different end to our comfortable lives.

Nate, FYI I was over in Jay's town today. I still haven't hooked up with him in Hawaii, but looking forward to seeing him again. When I go, I plan on interviewing him with the intent of putting up an essay here.

2)Would awareness of a global commons, globally among every citizen, be enough to avert individual exploitation at a cost to the commons?

I think you know the answer to his already Nate.... My guess is no. We've evolved as a species to think of the tribe and our immediate surroundings in moral terms - not abstract concepts and faraway places like global commons. This is why in 'morality experiments' of the type commonly found in the Trolley Problems people respond in the ways that they do.

Diamond writes of this in Collapse when he examines those societies that were able to live within their biophysical means. Those societies which exhibited a great deal of flexibility, were relatively unified so as to prevent ToC problems between competing factions, and/or evolved strong cultural norms against overuse of resources were able to overcome the problem and achieve a form of biophysical and socio-cultural sustainability.

Locally and to some extent nationally we may have that in some places... But globally? No. Not going to happen. It won't happen unless we have a third world war or such terrible destruction of the natural environment as to cause the same effects.

Despite what I myself wish and hope for and teach to my students, I don't see a global consciousness emerging soon enough to save us from ourselves without some sort of catalyzing, global catastrophe.

Maybe Michael Moore's new movie, "Love Story", will help.

Hanson is seriously overextending the use of the concept of a "commons". He's applying it where it doesn't fit.

The case of Harry the herdsman is answered as follows. "The other nine herdsman see that Harry has violated a long-established stocking rate. They appeal to the village Council, who require Harry to remove one of his beasts from the common. Harry refuses, so one of his beasts is killed and the village has a feast. Harry learns to abide by the rules."

The tragedy arises when the users of the commons do not have a history of interaction with each other, or have such different world views that they cannot trust each other or submit to a central authority. Usually, mobility of the resource or the users is a factor. The classic cases are ocean fish (mobile resource) or central Asian nomadic herders vs settled farmers (users who do not understand each other's way of life or values).

In contrast, even enemies such as Pakistan and India can agree on sharing water from the Indus, because (a) they're both farming and (b) they have to live next to each other - the river doesn't move, nor do they. In this situation they both have an interest in supporting an institution that will issue binding judgements.

Hanson's examples of foreign companies stealing markets and wages being lowered due to foreign competition are unrelated to the Tragedy of the Commons.

Private property is most emphatically not a Commons. Perhaps it could be argued that the social and intellectual traditions that allow private property to exist are a shared heritage, and the heritage is a Commons -- but it is not susceptible to degradation from overuse.

Hanson's "Greshamite" article looks better founded. I'll have to re-read it and think it over, but I'll accept its theses for the time being.

So, to question 1. Your exchange with your ex-friend William demonstrates that he does not share or understand your values, Nate. At present the institutions that would put limits on the behaviour of William and his ilk (a church that can compel moral behaviour, social censure) are impotent. There is presently in the USA no institution that can reliably compel people to act against their own narrowly conceived self interest for the greater good.

What could be done? Well, I am afraid that I am a Hegelian here: "Civilisations perish from a morbid intensification of their first principles" - in the USA's case, the primacy of the individual over the collective, and the pursuit of wealth above all else.

I could suggest many things, all of them completely infeasible.

2) Would awareness of a global commons be enough? No. It's been demonstrated that information alone is not enough to change behaviour.

3) Burnout: do what you have to do, but don't do it too hard. In previous (European) societies, people worked about half the week on average.

Natural institution: "Nature cannot be fooled." - Richard Feynman. Ultimately, nobody beats the House.

Gresham's Law and blogs: it's hard to see where the element of hoarding fits in here.

What is the natural institution that can effort the common good as opposed to special interests? Let's start by outlining some of the natural things about humans that make us different as a species.

1. During development, testicles in human males move to the outside of the torso, to allow for a larger size, and more sperm production, indicating a history of sexual competition. Many other mammals have this adaptation.

2. The specific bulbed shape of the head of the male penis facilitates removal and displacement of a previous sexual partner's sperm during intercourse. Many other mammals have this adaptation. This function is greatly enhanced by the practice of cutting off the foreskin, or circumcision. Meaning if you're the last person to have sex with a woman, you're the most likely to spread your genes. If you're circumcised, you are far, far more likely to spread your genes vs. someone who isn't.

3. The shape of the female human breast and nipple are not well adapted toward nursing. But the shape of the enlarged breast during adolescence is well adapted as a sexual development signal.

4. Humans have lost most of their body fur, exposing their highly sensitive skin, which feels very good to be touched. Losing the fur also allows people to more easily see blood flow to the skin, or blush response, which is not only an embarrassment and aggression signal, but also a sexual signal.

5. Despite having lost most of our body fur, we kept our pubic hair, a sexual signal.

6. Humans walk upright, and during our evolutionary development when no-one wore clothes, this was an efficient way to demonstrate sexual signals. Walking upright allows all of the following to be seen easily and at the same time: changes in body posture, changes in facial expression, changes in blush response, enlargement of the breasts, and engorgement of the genitals.

7. The first tools that all complex mammals first learn to use are their own bodies. They learn to walk, fly, make noise, relieve themselves, and humans are no different. While the opposable thumb is useful for hammers and computers for humans, it would first have been useful for learning how to use the tools of your body and other bodies when pinching, grabbing, and masturbating.

8. Human sperm have three types: egg-getters, blockers, and killers. The volume of the blockers and killers far outweigh the egg-getters, indicating a long history of fierce sexual competition.

9. Humans spend a much longer time actually performing sexual intercourse than most other mammals, and will do so repeatedly when no further offspring are needed.

10. Humans are closely related to the bonobos, another highly sexual primate which also has opposable thumbs, which do masturbate frequently. The only bonobos in the United States that I'm aware of are at the San Diego Zoo, out in their vast natural expanse area, away from the tours. Americans get very uncomfortable at how sexual the bonobos are. Europeans don't have much problem with them, though.

11. Today, pornography, or watching people have sex, is over a $1 billion a year industry. Compare with the industries where you can pay to watch people eat, breathe, and sleep.

12. For approximately 1 in 20 of us, our father isn't who we think it is, though every one of us thinks we're among the safe 19.

The natural institution is sex. It's what we evolved to do.

We gave this up long ago when we adopted our first taboo, our first religion. This religion predates Judaism, paganism, and animism. It predates what Daniel Quinn formalized as "man was made to rule the world, and the world was made for man to rule it". It is incorporated into just about everything we do.

This nameless ancient religion has only two tenets:

1. Your body is dirty.
2. Sex is wrong.

Every tribal and civilized culture on the planet in recent history believed these to a significant extent.

Let the crash come. Maybe we'll learn something.

The solution we have chosen to the Harry and overgrazing problem is the private ownership of land. If Harry overgrazes then it's his problem, not everybody else's. A more recent solution is aggregated government ownership and strict regulation. Both work. When it comes to more ephemeral resources the problem becomes more difficult, air, water, roads, post offices, money, the Internet. Maybe we'll figure them out post-crash.

Nate, I think the problem is that we evolved to our current state as hunter-gatherers in a world that largely limited us. We have not had time to evolve new brain programs for the world we have created. Largely our unconscious brain makes the decisions. Our conscious brain seeks out info for those decisions and takes credit for them when they are made. (D Wegner, The Illusion of Conscious Will, Michael Gazzaniga who has done very interesting work on split brain patients, Human) When we humans have removed natural limits by immigration to lands that are rich such as Australia we have gone beserk until limits were re-established by our own depletion of the environment. The biggest removal of natural limits was the discovery of fossil fuels and the machines to use them. So once again we will deplete our world until it once again becomes a limited world, and possibly humans will survive to live in that world. We are not programmed to deal with winning the lottery.

Can we, could we have, overcome that lack of programming by using our conscious brain. The evidence so far is no IMO. In fact the push for alternatives to keep up our lifestyle instead of the push to cut back population and lifestyle is rampant on the Oil Drum and indicated to me that the answer is a resounding NO. Even those who know there is a problem refuse to let go of at least some semblance of energy intensive lifestyle. To them a life without powered vehicles is no life at all, even though humans got by without cars and ambulances and police cars for eons and many still do today. Donkeys have worked fine ever since they were domesticated http://dlc.dlib.indiana.edu/DLCImage/images/Mali2006-275-full.jpg What is so wrong about going back to a life that our forefathers lived. If the energy intensive lifestyle is the only life worth living all our forefathers for several hundred thousand years lived lives not worth living as do half of the people now alive. Does anyone really want to say that all those lives were not worth living?

The final paragraphs of Hardin's Tragedy of the Commons. From the start to the end this essay is about population. It is not about developing political or other systems to mitigate ultimate dieoff or to allow unfettered population growth. Hardin is not opposed to "other and more precious freedoms".

"The most important aspect of necessity that we must now recognize, is the necessity of abandoning the commons in breeding. No technical solution can rescue us from the misery of overpopulation. Freedom to breed will bring ruin to all. At the moment, to avoid hard decisions many of us are tempted to propagandize for conscience and responsible parenthood. The temptation must be resisted, because an appeal to independently acting consciences selects for the disappearance of all conscience in the long run, and an increase in anxiety in the short.

The only way we can preserve and nurture other and more precious freedoms is by relinquishing the freedom to breed, and that very soon. "Freedom is the recognition of necessity"--and it is the role of education to reveal to all the necessity of abandoning the freedom to breed. Only so, can we put an end to this aspect of the tragedy of the commons."

Nate asked:

3)As events surrounding the battle between fiat based and biophysical economics accelerate, how can well intentioned volunteers combat free riders without burning out? What is the natural institution that can effort the common good as opposed to special interests? Will Gresham's Law apply to blogs?

emphasis added

Questions are good. Especially when they force us to challenge the received/common wisdom. As to the last one about blogs...
Question Everything
George

PS. Regarding biophysical economics (BPE), I imagine Dave Murphy (EROIGuy) will have more to publish later on this, but Charlie Hall is organizing the second BPE meeting in Syracuse at SUNY-ESF, scheduled now for Oct. 16/17. Anyone interested can contact me or Dave for more information.

Serotonin levels as one aspect of the commons.

Consider that overall group serotonin production is in some ways limited. There is just so much to go around and so we all compete for all we can get. High serotonin levels are highly desirable and people tend to be fairly aggressive at getting their share.

The higher profile person you can become the more serotonin you can obtain. So people are reward to do what ever it takes to get ahead. Physiologically put down other people, which drives down their serotonin level, means there is more available for you.

I do not think it is this simplistic but I suspect that something of this nature goes on. If this is true this could be a very basic type of the commons the abuse of which would make for a mean and ugly society.

I do not think our problem is that we have no concept of a commons. I think that a majority of people recognize a common interest in preserving a healthy global biosphere as a necessary human support system. The problem is that certain kinds of actions which favor this particular common interest are in conflict with another perceived common interest, namely that of maintaining the 'health' of capital markets. One might claim that the desire for the continued health of capital markets is entirely greedy and self serving, but I think that this claim is false. In many cases an element of greed is involved, but very few Iagos and Richard III's exist in the real world. Even Nate's acquaintance who has convinced himself that homeless people are moral degenerates who prefer drinking and screwing to putting in an honest day's work is probably sincerely convinced that the continued success of capital markets serves the common long term interests of virtuous, hardworking people like himself.

Furthermore the perception of a common interest in preserving the health of capital markets is largely correct from a short term point of view. Our economic and political institutions are structured so that recessions produce widespread misery and suffering. Even I cannot help dreading the thought of the current recession deepening into a depression even though I know that an economic recovery in the traditional sense will really not contribute anything to our long term security. We need a different form of social organization before our desire to preserve the health and productivity of our common home can find effective channels of collective action.

1)Its been over 40 years since Tragedy of the Commons appeared in Science. What has changed to avert us from this tragedy in the meantime? What might be done to avert it in the future?

Very little or nothing has changed. While the number of those aware of the 'problem of commons' has increased linearly, the number of those that use commons increased geometrically. At the same time, the individual interest (the interest of individual) has been raised to the highest pedestal in the most of Western societies under assumption that what is the best for 100/1000/million etc individuals automatically is the best for them as a society. Common interest ceased to exist except as a sum of individual interests.
In such a way, the possibility to solve the 'problem of tha commons' disappeared. We are on the brink of destroying our commons. Seas are overfished, mineral resources are overmined and we are changing climate towards the probable tipping point after which we can only pray because we in fact cannot 'engineer' climate.

2)Would awareness of a global commons, globally among every citizen, be enough to avert individual exploitation at a cost to the commons?
Awareness would not change anything because it requires 100% compliance. Any swindler would make a benefit by providing better chances of survival to his offspring therefore actually increasing the number of swindlers in the society. Global commons can be saved only by legal regulation and merciless enforcement of that regulation.

3)As events surrounding the battle between fiat based and biophysical economics accelerate, how can well intentioned volunteers combat free riders without burning out? What is the natural institution that can effort the common good as opposed to special interests? Will Gresham's Law apply to blogs?
The society of free enterprise has to be replaced by the society of controlled enterprise. State must be controlling element. That is however the most opposed idea in most of the West. So, is there a solution? I don’t think there is… The things will start changing when damage becomes obvious but then it will be too late. Grand Banks fisheries are the best example and can be used as a blueprint for the whole system of ‘commons’.

Sortition Juries can reflect the desire of a population to preserve
the commons. I discuss this extensively in my Participatory
Democracy blog.
And we should have a sales tax, but one applied on the
basis of the baddness of each item.
Badness-based Consumption Tax. That way each nation doesn't discourage its own firms from exporting by imposing taxes on the
basis of the carbon they emit or for not providing
health care to the workers. The importing nation allocates its taxes
to hit those who pollute/etc. And the natural competitive pressures
would thus raise the
so that any point in time the business that significantly is not
polluting, etc. will pay no or significantly less tax than the
mass that are.

So an authoritarian fascist government would be the only way to avoid this? Capitalism will destroy resources. Entitlement states cause reindeeresque population explosions of Marching Morons......

I disagree nate, I think you often seem personally invested in anticapitalism/modern technology. Things have to change by their nature but not necessarily for the worst. The sun will shine for billions more years and the earth will continue to turn.......

Campfire Questions:

1)Its been over 40 years since Tragedy of the Commons appeared in Science. What has changed to avert us from this tragedy in the meantime? What might be done to avert it in the future?

What are you talking about Nate even the dopiest Atlantic cod fish left in the sea would find that a foolish question, one needn't even consider the outraged hubbub it would cause in the faltering Pacific Salmon.

2)Would awareness of a global commons, globally among every citizen, be enough to avert individual exploitation at a cost to the commons?

With World GDP 56 trillion dollars and population 6.7 billion then a share would be about 8600 dollars. How many here would wish to live on beans on toast for the rest of their natural.

3)As events surrounding the battle between fiat based and biophysical economics accelerate, how can well intentioned volunteers combat free riders without burning out? What is the natural institution that can effort the common good as opposed to special interests? Will Gresham's Law apply to blogs and Peak Oil outreach?

From the above 8600 dollars most of us in the west are free riders especially those in the financial district. Damn good that you have come over from the dark side Nate leaving those particularly terribly horrible sinners in order to join us just plain miserable aberrant ones.

BTW, drop by for coffee any time in the early fall and I will take you mushroom hunting in a so far still healthy commons full of these little guys ... a commons that will still make one smile and not take things more seriously than they can do anything about. We get things so wrong trying to do right.

A couple of years ago, talking with my niece about this stuff I offered the example of a wine vat full of crushed grapes and a handful of yeast.

The yeast eats the sugars and excretes the alcohol till it drowns in its own excrement.

My question to her then, and to everyone else since is this, "are we smarter than yeast?"

We WILL find out, one way or the other.

Easter Island.

OFF TOPIC: I don't post my own articles here at tOD, but this needs a drumbeat at least.

Can someone please spend some time to ascertain the feasibility of this?

A detailed description:
http://www.marshallsystem.com./complete.htm

A simple populist article:
http://cleantechnica.com/2009/09/04/mining-hydrothermal-vents-for-renewa...

The patent owner comments on the article:
http://www.reddit.com/r/energy/comments/9hvxp/completely_new_form_of_ren...

This and similar conversations are frustrating.

That's because you're used to getting praised for your arguments, no matter how feeble they are. And that is due to spending too much time in echo chambers like TOD, where the merit of an argument is whether it's ideologically correct, not whether it's actually well-constructed. You've forgotten what it's like to argue with someone who doesn't already agree with you, and as a result you've gotten lazy and your arguments have gotten sloppy and weak.

Look at yourself: someone rejected your argument, so instead of figuring out how to improve, you've retreated to your echo chamber for another hit of easy praise. Is that the kind of person you want to be?

Arguing with people who agree with you is like boxing with partners who don't fight back - you get a false impression of your own skill. I tried to remedy that - to be a sparring partner for TOD - but most people seemed to be a lot more interested in getting undeserved praise from the echo chamber than in getting deserved praise for building a strong argument. That's fine if your goal is feeling smug, but useless if you want to influence the outside world.

Take a look at the conversation you wrote out. Look at it objectively, not through the lens of self-pity. You kept repeating your view over and over as if sheer volume would change William's mind. The paragraphs tagged with your name can be summarized as:

Nate: There are huge problems.
Nate: There are huge problems.
Nate: Other people agree with me.
Nate: You don't understand.
Nate: You won't fall into line, so I'm done with you.

William isn't a lot better, but he has the only shred of real conversation:

William: I agree with your general points, but your timing is WAY off. These things could happen in 100 years, not in next 10. Adjustments have to be made, but instead of brainwashing people (like the “I pledge” video) we should be investing in massive changes in distribution systems, specifically for food. There are areas still yet to be exploited Nate that even you cant conceive. You and I see the same blood coming from the cut on our leg, but I am reaching for a first aid kit as you reach for the hack saw.

He's offering you a chance at real conversation there, reaching out and saying "it's only the interpretation we disagree on", but you go back to pushing your interpretation as the only interpretation, and that shuts down the nascent discussion. If you give William the impression that all you will accept is that he shuts up, listens to your sermon, and swallows your opinion whole - and that is the sense I got from your transcript - then it's completely unsurprising he's not interested. You've forgotten what it's like to discuss with people who aren't yes-men.

If you respect people's intelligence enough to let them come to their own conclusions and to take seriously the possibility that they might be right and you might be wrong, then I'm fairly certain you'll have more productive discussions with people like William. If all you're trying to do is feed your sermon on The Truth to "the sheeple", though, you're going to keep failing.

And you're certainly going to keep failing if your standard of a good argument is one that gets you your praise-hit from preaching to the choir at TOD. Echo chambers are intellectual graveyards; resistance training is just as important for strong arguments as it is for strong muscles.

A commons is destroyed by uncontrolled use—neither intent of the user, nor ownership are important. An example of uncontrolled use is when one can use land (part of our commons) any way one wants.

The underlying problem is that the use of the commons is perceived to be "free" by the user. There is no cost to the individual for overusing it.

This was the reason for the destruction of the English commons - people kept grazing more and more animals on it until all the animals were starving and nobody could make a living from it.

The solution was one of basic economics - never give a scarce resource away in an uncontrolled fashion. Always put a limit on it that encourages the individual to use it efficiently. Hence, you take the carrying capacity of the land, calculate the number of animals it can graze efficiently, divide by the number of users, and allocate that number to each user. If someone grazes more animals than he is allowed, you levy a fine on him.

A further refinement, since the quota may not be enough to support an individual, is to allow anyone to sell his quota to someone else. Fred sells his sheep quota to Bob, and sets up a sweater-knitting business. Bob grazes twice as many sheep and sells his wool to Fred to make sweaters. Both become rich and retire to the South of France. It's better than two people trying to make a living grazing skinny sheep.

But, if you're going to do that, you may as well give them title to the land. This was the effect of the homestead system in the U.S. Homesteaders got 160 acres of land for free. However, that was not enough to make a viable farm in the U.S. What happened in reality was that the successful farmers bought out the unsuccessful ones, and the unsuccessful farmers went into the city, bought houses, and got jobs in factories. The result was an increase in material wealth for all concerned.

Nostalgia for country living notwithstanding, this resulted in a far higher standard of living than the English commons.

There's a modern variation on the Tragedy of the Commons that is related to Peak Oil. I call it:

The Tragedy of the Freeways

Just as the Tragedy of the Commons resulted from overuse of the common land, the Tragedy of the Freeways results from overuse of the common road space.

The reasons for both are the same. For the individual English peasant there was no disincentive for overgrazing the common land, for the individual American driver there is no disincentive for overusing the common roadways.

The result in the first case was that nobody had enough food for their animals, the result in the second case is that nobody can get where they want to go in a reasonable length of time.

The solution for these Tragedies is a matter of simple economics - put a penalty on overuse. In London they applied economic theory and came up with the Congestion Charge: In order to use the streets of central London, you have to pay 8 pounds ($13) per day. This is a sufficient penalty to keep casual users off the streets (using the Tube), and the ones willing to pay can get where they want to go without excessive delays.

The bigger problem with overusing the freeways is that people also use too much scarce petroleum. The excessive fuel consumption results in the U.S. having to import two thirds of its oil, at vast expense.

The solution for the fuel consumption problem is one that is widely used in other countries - very high levels of fuel taxation. In itself this is enough to keep people off the streets. Other countries instituted these high taxes because they had to import almost all their oil. The U.S. used to be different because it was a major oil exporter, but now that the costs of oil imports are crippling the economy, it needs to consider a major hike in taxes.

The reason that Americans reject this solution is the same reason English peasants used to keep trying to make a living off the commons despite the fact it was impossible - people just can't resist getting things for free (even if it results in the destruction of their well being in the long term).

I think we should try to aim at the heart of these things, as much as it's fascinating and eventually useful to poke all around all the edges.

The "tragedy" part of the tragedy of the commons is that the people who thought they were winners are big looses too. As a culture we're clearly facing profound humiliation, and it seems not too far off either. The culprit is partly the popularity and influence of people relying on hindsight, and how they easily dismiss people having foresight, making our inability to articulate the obvious look like timidity and complacency.

The way "looking backwards" tells it, the work of economies is to constantly devote a fraction of our resources to increasing the usefulness of resources as much as possible, because it's always been our best source of growing riches. It's the "mother of all free lunches" you could say. From foresight the same plan appears to mean using up everything we find useful on earth as fast as humanly possible.

I do think its quite likely that there will be a greater economic collapse relatively soon, before we have healed from this one. It's a simple matter of my understanding that financial obligations to deliver unearned incomes have a way of growing faster than anyone's real ability to produce earnings. That 'pressure' may have been somewhat stimulative before we began running into natural limits, but now it drives everyone's interests into conflict. It's become more like quicksand, miring us all in unresolvable complications. I don't see anyone trying to fix the tendency for debt to grow exponentially even as capabilities don't.

Somehow we need to send the message that from a "steering" perspective our direction of development is definitely leading to tragedy, and is a real danger to our whole culture. It's like driving a race car or paddling a canoe, and discovering you need to make a dangerously sharp turn much too late for comfort.

My friends, family and most of my peers nod, acknowledging the strong appearance of that, and then nothing happens.

The Commons has become too large for us to manage.

Back in the day when the Commons was, for the vast majority, the local village, cause and effect was easily visible.

example : if you drop a hammer on your foot, it hurts. You quickly learn to stop dropping hammers.
example : In a small village, over-grazing is easy to spot, year over year, and so people learn to manage herd-size and farming practices are adapted accordingly.

If, however, you dropped a hammer on your foot and the effect was only felt by someone 6000 miles away, most people wouldn't care if they dropped bags of hammers.

Witness what is happening in Mongolia, for example - companies mining gold and minerals are effectively destroying the local environment that has, for centuries, supported local nomad herders.

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2008/10/081017-mongolia-mining-m...

Does the person buying gold as an inflation hedge care about that, or only about protecting their investments ? I suspect the latter - they are desensitized by the remoteness of the impact.

I suggest that all care for the Commons ends up being local, since it can really only be managed locally. As the Age of Oil unwinds and we have to deal more closely with neighbors, caring for the local Commons will become more of a priority than caring for the global Commons has been over the past 100 years.

I've been thinking along the same lines -- have we learned anything that might help?

My rudimentary working theories - which are NOT proofs nor are they statements of most likely outcome:

1) What has changed (that might avert us)?
- Discovery, application and spread of game-theory: we can calculate our theoretical minmax more easily and *ideally* just choose rationally
- Vast increase in computational power for simulation / forecast building: we don't have to rely only on educated guesses anymore for probing possibilities and communicating risks (ref: IPCC)
- Radical interconnectedness: previously it was possible not to change, if your unit was high enough in self-sufficiency. Currently almost none of the OECD countries are and the developing ones also would prefer to enjoy benefits from the richer ones. Thus, while it may become harder to change (everyone must, not just a few) -- at the same time the realization that everyone must change fairly synchronously has significantly increased.

I won't bore anybody with my thinking about systemic issues that have turned worse. Anybody can peruse the backlog here and in the appropriate literature.

2) Is global awareness enough?
- Obvious answer: not necessarily. Personal stance: most likely not.
- I don't know what is the average % for people who became aware AND then radically alter their behavior independently and without an external obligation, but I'd wager a guess that the figure is fairly low. It is very easy to be aware and suffer from the awareness, if the material life with it's diversions is luxurious or promising enough.
- Also my personal problem with awareness/action combo is this: how does one account for externalities? Estimate LCAs? Analyze systemic cause-effect changes? It is fiendishly difficult to do-the-right thing on many 'small but scalable' things, because the right choice is not always the obvious. The only sure/guaranteed ecological/resource option that is right is a radical give-up/do-less (hasn't scaled yet, btw) -- that is really, really hard for most - regardless of the amount of awareness. And even out of those who do it -- many end deluding themselves by using/doing less of X, but compensating that with higher amount of almost equally negating activity Y. I see this in me and my friends.
- Thought game: give up car, meat, flying, consumption as identity building and a big/energy-slurping house. There - that's a radical do/use less. Easy, isn't it?

3) How to combat free riders?
- I'm tempted to say that as long as the game along with it's reward systems is broken and the supporting systems of the game (legislation, culture, fitness functions, etc) are in support of the broken game -- I don't think there's a high probability of being able to combat many a successful free riders. In the words of an EU Parliament member :

"Big carbon footprint is a sign of success." - an EU parliament member

It's hard to argue with success, as Nate and others have so many times pointed out.
- So how about the personal level? Are we all doomed to lose friends who don't grok it and end up stocking up on ammo and moving to the wilderness. Nah, don't think so. While it's true that I'm just a single person, I can choose my place of work (currently), my boss, the organization of work along with it's values, the systemic output of my co-workers, etc. That is, I can limit freeriders by not offering my competence for them to exploit. Sure, they will still dump the externalities on me even if I try to avoid having to pay for them.
- Then there is of course the outlier argument : don't play their game on their rules, beat them in their game with your rules. As to practical applications of this, well let's say I'm all ears on this one.
- As for the Gresham's law -- I'm not sure the issue of commodity value is really going to be the deal-breaker between currencies, but I do see as Bernard Lietaer believes (afaik), that currencies will not unify, they will splinter and become more local and microscopic in size. This way it's more controllable, more transparent and also supporting of local structures. Now, if the local structures are not sustainable by themselves, their currency should theoretically lose in value in exchange with neighbouring ones. Unless of course, all the local municipalities cough up their own FED to rig the game and mask the realities. I have no idea how G's law might apply to blogs. I think it's the apparent increasing of one's fitness function that probably decides the selection between blogs.

And peak energy / capita, systemic thinking & statistical analysis is not nearly sexy enough to make any dent in the competition :)

Still, in summary it's so much fun to try and make a change. Besides, only dead fish swim downstream. Who wants a life like that? Not me -- and I guess not quite a many TOD readers either. One just needs to try and find the balance between the fight and burning out. So, if feeling burned out - take a break - the fight will still be here once you come back. That's guaranteed.

They hang the man and flog the woman,
Who steals the goose from off the common,
Yet let the greater villain loose,
That steals the common from the goose.

1)Its been over 40 years since Tragedy of the Commons appeared in Science. What has changed to avert us from this tragedy in the meantime? What might be done to avert it in the future?

I like the cyclical theories of rise and fall. They fit with the natural rhythms of the cycles all around us. There are several types of cycles cited by various persons, but current writings tend to lean toward the world being in final cycles or cycles indicating large changes. (Kennedy, Batra, etc., etc.) Kennedy's last cycle is the acquisitive. Money is everything, physical, experiential. Think Rome in the end. The next phase isn't a phase, it's collapse. Then phase one.

If one accepts that cycles repeat unless the system itself moves to a new state, then the inevitable awaits. Actually, either way we head into chaos as that is how systems move to new states - via disequilibrium.

The questions then are 1. can we manage the collapse/transition and 2. will we bother? That is, will we share the commons or not? Transition Towns, intentional ecovillages and the like indicate at least some of us are willing to. 3. Are enough of us willing to?

2)Would awareness of a global commons, globally among every citizen, be enough to avert individual exploitation at a cost to the commons?

I addressed this a little in the first question. While I think it unlikely, I do think getting as many as possible moving in the same direction to make this happen. (This is why suggestions that GBAU such as that the Millennium Institute is pursuing are doomed since they follow the same paradigm of high living here, screw everyone else. This is evidenced by trying to maintain OECD standards of living in a world of more than one diminishing resource.)

The desire for the previously mentioned standards of living practically guarantee exploitation of The Commons, so the idea that a global change might happen are slim and none - though still my hope.

But, yes, was everyone pulling in the same direction, of course we could tackle these problems. However, as I noted recently, even groups of people all seeking the same thing often can't work together because they get past differences of opinion, personal conflicts, etc.

Is there a critical % we need on board? And if so, what is it?

3)As events surrounding the battle between fiat based and biophysical economics accelerate, how can well intentioned volunteers combat free riders without burning out?

You need to add the abusers of the commons, who are far more the problem than the free riders. They can't. These things are cyclical. Some will burn and run, some will burn and renew and some not burn. Recruitment will need to be on-going. Of course, the more effective the movement, the less likely burn-out. But laws must change. Abusers of The Commons must face consequences. Free riders must be cut off if able bodied.

What is the natural institution that can effort the common good as opposed to special interests?

Community. Primarily family and the local society. These small groups can and will fuse into larger movements if conditions allow. The government is no longer trusted to do this. Movements that come from the bottom up are the long-term solution. Those groups must figure out how not to become corrupted by the existing structures, by the success and by the power.

Will Gresham's Law apply to blogs and Peak Oil outreach?

Of course. But laws can broken.

Cheers