You must log in or register to comment.
I mean, sure. Fuck malthusians.
Social dilemma theories (e.g. totc, prisoners dilemma, etc) are kind of neutral, though, and it’s one of the easiest ways to argue in favor of climate change regulation. As in, people make choices between selfish and cooperative choices. Some are more inclined for one or the other, but regulation can help curb the selfish oriented people.
In my social psych class I get to share research that literally says conservatives and people who prefer authoritarianism prefer competitive choices (as well as other factors). It’s basically a field devoted to figuring out what causes people who ruin everything for everyone else, lol.
I don’t think that should matter.
It’s like, if I say 2 + 2 = 4…
…and go on to say sex with animals should be legal… That doesn’t mean 2 + 2 isn’t 4 anymore.
Like, vegetarians shouldn’t give up on the concept just because of Hitler, you know what I mean?
It isn’t supported by evidence (see ostrom link below) and was spread by eugenicists to support their claims
Interestingly, The Tragedy of the Commons really does work with psychopaths, so once you move from a person to person level to corporations interacting the Tragedy of the Commons problem becomes a serious issue. Take a minimum wage, it necessary for the population as a whole to have surplus wealth to spend to keep an economy going. Individual companies, on the other hand, have an incentive to pay their own employees a pittance. If every company does that then there’s no surplus wealth for people to purchase most goods and slowly the economy grinds to a halt. Hence it’s in society’s best interest to have a healthy and large minimum wage (or better yet a UBI system) which will have to be enforced on companies by an outside force.
Yup. Once you go from a community of lasting relationships to a spot market of one-off, arms length transactions between strangers, the commons disappears. The Commons is not a place, it’s a set of relationships.