Wednesday, September 21, 2005
Hypothetical Sheep
In my enviromental planning class we've been endlessly discussing the world wide enviromental problem of hypothetical sheep. God, fucking hypothetical sheep ruin everything. The crux of conventional wisdom about hypothetical sheep is that left to our own devices and holding hypothetical land in common, we'll have no judgement at all about how many sheep are too many sheep and pretty we, and our sheep, will be wallowing in eroded mud all day long. The only solutions offered are a) have some powerful government bureacracy regulate how many sheep we can have or b) turn us all into private property owners.
I feel that this is dumb. As a bona-fide wingnut who is trying really hard to be a responsible adult I'm irritated as all get out that really smart responsible adults are convinced that too lousy solutions are all that stand between us and soil erosion. I really don't see why reasonable people can't get together and say, "you know, we have too many sheep. Let's have a bbq."
My planning class is on wednesday; on sunday I went to the barnyard meeting. Ten people in a room, not a single one of them reasonable, discussed exactly how many, totally non-hypothetical, pooping, wool producing, baa-ing, child-trampling sheep we should have. Solution: one more than we currently have.
It's really not that hard.
I feel that this is dumb. As a bona-fide wingnut who is trying really hard to be a responsible adult I'm irritated as all get out that really smart responsible adults are convinced that too lousy solutions are all that stand between us and soil erosion. I really don't see why reasonable people can't get together and say, "you know, we have too many sheep. Let's have a bbq."
My planning class is on wednesday; on sunday I went to the barnyard meeting. Ten people in a room, not a single one of them reasonable, discussed exactly how many, totally non-hypothetical, pooping, wool producing, baa-ing, child-trampling sheep we should have. Solution: one more than we currently have.
It's really not that hard.
# posted by leah @ 10:29 AM 
Comments:
<< Home
The thing is, the tragedy of the commons has worked out the wrong way so many times it's not funny. Sure, ten or so people can agree about sheep. But how can we agree about, say, carbon dioxide emissions?
It only takes a couple of jerks to say "well, *I* am going to graze more sheep and you suckers are going to be stuck cutting back on your sheep for *my* benefit" and pretty soon you have everyone raising as many sheep as they can before it all falls apart.
It only takes a couple of jerks to say "well, *I* am going to graze more sheep and you suckers are going to be stuck cutting back on your sheep for *my* benefit" and pretty soon you have everyone raising as many sheep as they can before it all falls apart.
on the other hand, people aren't as simple as hypothetical economic tables. The one reading refered to the "tragedy of the commons" as also reflecting the tragedy of basing public policy on metaphor, which I think pretty eloquently sums up my feeling on the subject. And, really, we're making public policy based on two "standard" solutions offered, both of which are pretty odious to have to live under and, don't *really* solve the paradox.
I think there's this tendency amoung both enviromentalists and free-market nutjobs to jump on the tragedy of the commons as a) a justification their behavior and b) the kind of pessimistic view of human nature that (not coincidentally) gives them, or their "side" power to make decisions for other people.
I think it's more useful (and less depressing) to look, with all that intellectual energy, at what factors allow people to escape from that crappy paradox and how we can bring as many of those factors as possible to as many situations as possible.
ps. you see, now that I'm in college again, I get to say this kind of asshole stuff.
I think there's this tendency amoung both enviromentalists and free-market nutjobs to jump on the tragedy of the commons as a) a justification their behavior and b) the kind of pessimistic view of human nature that (not coincidentally) gives them, or their "side" power to make decisions for other people.
I think it's more useful (and less depressing) to look, with all that intellectual energy, at what factors allow people to escape from that crappy paradox and how we can bring as many of those factors as possible to as many situations as possible.
ps. you see, now that I'm in college again, I get to say this kind of asshole stuff.
we have 45 million sheep.
4 million people.
no, i don't know what exactly it is that they do with all these stinkin' sheep.
4 million people.
no, i don't know what exactly it is that they do with all these stinkin' sheep.
You said "I think there's this tendency amoung both enviromentalists and free-market nutjobs to jump on the tragedy of the commons as a) a justification their behavior and b) the kind of pessimistic view of human nature that (not coincidentally) gives them, or their "side" power to make decisions for other people."
This is why I love reading your blog. The world needs more people like you. (Sadly, I am not one of them: I have a very negative view of human nature. But that's another topic.)
This is why I love reading your blog. The world needs more people like you. (Sadly, I am not one of them: I have a very negative view of human nature. But that's another topic.)
Sorry for being anonymous, I don't want to bother signing up for an account.
I would like to state, first and foremost, that I don't know shit. I haven't even graduted college. So please keep that in mind as I ask the following questions.
So I read the link you posted on the blog; fascinating stuff. You didn't seem to share the sentiments of the author, however; yet I didn't see your alternative proposal to the two rather dubious options presented. I would genuinely love to hear a third, one that "escape[s] from that crappy paradox".
You did suggest that people are (or should be) responsible enough to get together and say, "let's have a BBQ," but what about taking the real world situations where there is no disadvantage to, for example, dumping in a river or chopping down a bunch of trees, while there is a definite disadvantage to doing so? Are you saying that the heads of major corporations will (or should) just get together and say, "Wow, the world sure is getting polluted. Maybe we should stop making money."
And then at the end of your article, you stated that the solution was "one more than we currently have." I find it odd that you would be both so optimistic towards human nature and at the same time embrace this self-centered thinking that would lock us into catastrophe down the road.
You say iin your response to secretlyironic that environmentalists and free-market nutjobs use the tragedy of the commons as a means for justifying making decisions for other people; could you explain how both sides do this?
Finallly, you say it's more useful and less depressing to look at what factors allow people to escape the paradox. This implied that these factors exist. Could you identify some of them?
I really appreciate your thoughts, since ultimately we have the same goal in mind.
Doug
Post a Comment
I would like to state, first and foremost, that I don't know shit. I haven't even graduted college. So please keep that in mind as I ask the following questions.
So I read the link you posted on the blog; fascinating stuff. You didn't seem to share the sentiments of the author, however; yet I didn't see your alternative proposal to the two rather dubious options presented. I would genuinely love to hear a third, one that "escape[s] from that crappy paradox".
You did suggest that people are (or should be) responsible enough to get together and say, "let's have a BBQ," but what about taking the real world situations where there is no disadvantage to, for example, dumping in a river or chopping down a bunch of trees, while there is a definite disadvantage to doing so? Are you saying that the heads of major corporations will (or should) just get together and say, "Wow, the world sure is getting polluted. Maybe we should stop making money."
And then at the end of your article, you stated that the solution was "one more than we currently have." I find it odd that you would be both so optimistic towards human nature and at the same time embrace this self-centered thinking that would lock us into catastrophe down the road.
You say iin your response to secretlyironic that environmentalists and free-market nutjobs use the tragedy of the commons as a means for justifying making decisions for other people; could you explain how both sides do this?
Finallly, you say it's more useful and less depressing to look at what factors allow people to escape the paradox. This implied that these factors exist. Could you identify some of them?
I really appreciate your thoughts, since ultimately we have the same goal in mind.
Doug
# posted by 
: 12:49 PM
: 12:49 PM << Home
