In item 82, Rane mentioned, "the tragedy of the commons".  This is an
important concept, of which millions of examples can be found in all sorts
of areas, including ecology and economics.

The basic idea is that when individual decision makers aren't directly
assessed the costs of their actions, but the cost is spread over the whole
community, then those decision makers do things that can be very destructive
to the community, and to themselves.

Let me start with a fine example taken from the book "The Beak of the Finch".
This book tells about some scientists who have been very carefully studying
various species of finches on the Galapagos island.  Lots of fascinating
instances have been observed of all sorts of evolutionary processes that had
not previously been seen in the natural environment.  Read this book.

One of the species of finch is the Cactus Finch.  These birds live almost
entirely off cactus's.  The eat cactus fruit, nest in cactuses, etc.  Over
the 30 years of this study, it has been seen that the health of the cactus
finch depends closely on the health of the cacti.  When the cacti, do well,
the finches do well, and vice versa.

On one island, it was observed that a few dozen finches had developed a
new feeding strategy.  Instead of waiting for the cactus flowers to fully
open before feeding on the nector, they would go after the flowers early.
To do this, they'd snip off a part of the flower called the stigma, which
lets the reach the nector, but sterilizes the flower.

Now these birds gain because their strategy lets them get to the nector
first.  Of course, this is very distructive to the cacti, prevents them from
bearing fruit later, and prevents new cacti from being seeded.  This is
clearly going to harm the cactus finches.  In a bad year, it could drive
the finches extinct on that island.  But the harm is spread over all the
birds.  The dozen stigma snippers will be no worse off than the other
finchs.  The benefits go only to the snipper, and the costs are spread over
the whole island, so for the snippers it is a good strategy.  Using
commonly held resources to the point of destruction makes good competitive
sense, but at the same time is bad for the population as a whole.  That is
the heart of the "tragedy of the commons."

Another example, this time from the domain of traffic engineering:

Suppose we have two cities, A and B.  Every evening, people commute home from
city A to city B.  The can either drive or take the train.  Driving you have
to cross a narrow bridge, so that traffic slows down as it gets denser.

Each commuter wants to get home as fast as possible.  If driving is faster,
some people will shift from the train to driving.  By adding one car to
the traffic jam on the bridge, they slow down all drivers (here is the
cost being shared over lots of people).  But the slow down from adding just
their one car doesn't matter muc to them, so they still gain.

People will keep shifting off the train until the traffic is bad enough so
that the train takes just as long as the drive.  That's the equilibrium state,
both methods of commuting take the same amount of time.

Now suppose we widen the bridge.  People should get home faster, right?
Nope.  Now that the bridge is faster, more people shift to driving, until
once again the bridge is jammed to the point where it is just as slow as
the train.  So widening the bridge doesn't speed up traffic at all.

But it's worse than that, because with fewer people riding the train, we
run fewer trains, so you have to wait longer to catch a train.  So the
train is slower than it was before the bridge was widened.  So even more
people shift off the train, until at last a new equilbrium is maintained.
Now both the bridge and the train are slower than they were before the
bridge was widened.  *Everybody* takes longer to get home from work.

Now if the train riders had just had the decency to stay on the train,
this wouldn't have happened.  The drivers would get home faster over the
wider bridge, and the train riders would get home the same speed as before
the bridge was widened.  The decision of the train rider to drive weighs
the benefit of getting themselves home faster against the cost of everyone
being slowed down a tiny bit.  They make the obvious choice, and in the end,
they and everyone else suffers.

The way this can be fixed is to put a toll on the bridge, so you charge
people for the cost they place on others by using that bridge.  This
reconnects the commuter to the real costs of his decisions, and if you do
that, their decisions will really globally optimize.

This same phenomenon shows up all over the place.  If your factory emits
air-pollution, the cost is spread over the whole planet, but the cost to
install scrubbers in your chimneys would all be born by you.  Messing up the
commons is the better deal for you.  If too many people do that though, you
poison the atmosphere and everyone dies.  But one factory more or less isn't
going to make a difference, so you might as well pollute.

72 responses total.

I will add that the expression come from the British "commons", a grassy
area in nearly every town, which may be used equally by everyone,
including for running sheep. Those with sheep will find, of course, that
putting one more sheep on the commons benefits them by that one sheep,
with no evident detriment. However *everyone* with sheep think this, and
before you know it the commons is overlaoded with sheep, and destroyed by
overgrazing. Again, the solution to this problem is to put a cost on
grazing sheep, which represents the true cost of maintaining the commons
under grazing pressure. Exactly the same "tragedy" is occuring in the
American West, where cattlemen run cattle on public lands, at costs way
below the value being extracted from the land by overuse. However powerful
political interests are preventing charging true costs, thus compounding
the tragedy to come. 

A dramatic recent example of this phenomenon is the total collapse of the
Newfoundland northern-cod fishery, just three years ago. Everyone was
being warned too, for years, by fishery biologists, but what is a
fisherperson to do when the fishery starts to be overfished? Why, *add
another boat* to keep up the catch. 

Even the word "tragedy" in the expression has a special connotation. It is
not just because the outcome is "bad", but rather that it is inevitable.
This is tragedy in the Greek sense - wherein no matter what ordinary
mortals did their fates were sealed. That is the appearance of most of the
resource allocation problems we face, and none seems more inevitable than
the tragedy of overpopulation. 

  Thats a reason for China's overpopulation mess.  The Chinese are an ancient
and proud society with traditions and beliefs that pre-date the biblical era.
And part of chinese tradition is sexist in nature.  They are taught that the
first male born child is the heir to the family, and parents who do not have
male children have been dishonored. 
  Since China is suffering from drastic overpopulation, the government in chin
has imposed limits on the number of children a family may have.  Because it
is a sacred belief that every family must have a male heir, there is a tragic
level of infanticide going on.  In other words, female babies are killed so
that the family will not exceed its limit and can try again to have a male.
  This had led to a tragic and growing imbalance in the ratio of males to
females in china.  By the year 2020, there will be three times the number of
males of the ages 18-34 than females.  
  It is this sort of short-sightedness that can lead a species to extinction.
I had a chinese friend who is politically active tell me that if I was truly 
committed to human rights, and to the preservation of humanity, that I should
support the idea of government-mandated sterilization programs to stop this
infanticide.  He says its brutal but is the only way to stop it and is
more humane than mass murder and societal destruction.

  And the worst part of this is that there is no good solution.  China's
overpopulation problem is so severe that changing the limits on how many
children a family an have would be disastrous.  But the imbalance in order
that this policy is causing is just as bad if not worse.  That is why
chinese intellectuals like my friend, awful as it sounds, support government
mandated sterilization and/or vasectomies.
  This truly is a case where parents in china are thinking that it isnt going
to hurt anybody else if they do what they have to, in order to have a male 
child.  Some think science may be the answer, but test-tube pregnancies where
the sex is pre-determined would only magnify the problem.  The only parents
who would choose to have female babies would be the ones who already have
male children.  There just is no good solution.  None.  A tragedy in
the greek sense of the word to be sure.

Ummm...  There are two ways out, for this particular dilemma.  Only one is
desireable.  You can educate the families that a male child is not
necessary to a family's well-being.  Over one or two generations you might
pull it off.  The other solution (and the solution common to all of the
above dilemmas) is the demonstration by example.  That is, let things get
out of hand so badly that everyone suffers - a lot.  Then explain how
their actions have led to the problem, and secure a general agreement as
to how to solve it.  Obviously, this is not ideal, since this would
require, for instance, environmental devastation to show the detriments of
overpopulation, whereas a solution may not be possible once things have
degenerated to a certain point.  We can be rational about things, or we
can be human about things.  It's human nature to ignore the consequences
of our actions until they are shoved down our throats.  I'm not sure there
is a way to preserve things/change behaviors without drastic measures. 
Pessimism?  What, me?  :-)

  Thanks for entering this; I'm familiar with the concept, but wasn't
exactly clear on the term or its origin.  An example closer to home
is how doubling our Internet bandwidth isn't likely to speed up anyone's
Internet connection (without other barriers such as max user limits).
 
  With the Chinese population situation, it seems on one hand like a bad
problem, but on the other hand, with a 3:1 male:female ratio, that
generation will produce fewer offspring (if the limit remains in effect),
which would probably work to the benefit of China, and eventually another
equillibrium state will be reached, in crude terms by the "demand" of
women increasing due to the decreased "supply."  Meanwhile, life will be
less than peachy for the two thirds of female infants who are killed, and
for the two thirds of men who desire but can't find reproductive partners.

This response has been erased.

Global optimization is the old theme of "central planning" tried by
socialist or communist countries and recognizably failed. There seem to be
two major reasons (apart from other reasons). First, it breeds (or is the
result of) dictatorship, and bad central control brings worse results than
the "distributed" free wheeling capitalism. Secondly, global optmization,
by nature, requires individual sacrifice at least in the short run (just as
Jan also pointed out), its benefits require longer time to take effect, and
the effect may not necessarily be good for a particular individual.
Thus, it is not very motivating to people. As a result, those places even
with "good" global optmization cannot compete with the more free wheeling world
outside their boundaries. As the world becomes more connected (again, thanks
to the ever expanding free wheeling capitalism), such local global
optimization process tend not be able to survive for long.

Unfortunately, to be *relatively* better off seems more important to people
because it is easy to measure, by comparison. How can people be persuaded that
in order for us *all* (including future generations) to be better off, you need
 to be worse off than him, her, people living across the ocean, and so on? Who
should make decisions of such kind? Actually, decisions of such kind have been
discussed and debated every day in a democracy, right?

As for the Chinese population, it is an excellent example to show the
effect of dictating central control. The "one child per family" policy is
extremely harsh to individuals but is *forced* upon them. It does not mean
that one absolutely cannot have one more child, but that's subject to extremely
high fines and all kinds of discrimination. (Jan, is that similar to charging
fines for adding more cars to the bridge?) However, this harsh measure,
despite its severe side effects, does tremendously contribute to population
control in China, and thus benefit the world tremendously as a whole. I guess
most of us hope that global optimization does not have to be that harsh to
individuals. But the pessimism about the world future and the sense of
emergency seem to suggest that measures of this kind are necessary in other
aspects of life. Even this particular Chinese policy seems necessary elsewhere
too.

The best measure of all seems to be education. Again, for example, better
educated people are likey to have very few children. However, education takes
longer time, even generations, especially the kind to improve human nature.

The "tragedy" in the Chinese examples is the selection of sons rather than
daughters.  The parents prefer sons for traditional reasons, but with lots
of sons being born, and few daughters, those sons may have a hard time finding
wives.  If parents of sons were penalized, then that would be a corrective.
However, I think this particular example is unusually easy to deal with.  Its
going to be obvious to parents before long that your chances of grandchildren
are much better if you have a daughter.  Here the negatives show up fast
enough that people can appreciate them.  Humans are a bit smarter than
finches.  But not much.

But, unless women start having multiple husbands, wouldn't that tradition
burn itself out in the end?

I am not sure how much the imbalance between males and females in China
is exaggerated. From my limited experience, I do not see it. Perhaps this
is because I only know "intellectuals" in Chi and have not been to 
really remote places there. In cities, at least, even if there are people
prefer boys, I haven't heard any killing of infant girls. People are not 
*that* stupid. If such events do occur, they must be not wide spread. Or
every one will know.

Reproduction is not the mere reason people prefer sons and may not even
be a reason at all. People know that daughters are their flesh-and-blood too,
carrying no less genes than sons. The real tragedy is that the society at large
is male-dominated. Children inherit their fathers' not their mothers' last
names. So a family *name* is carried over by sons. Isn't it simple to just let
daughters to carry family names? Not so easy in a *male* dominated society,
and besides, a girl faces a more hostile world than a boy in so many other
areas of life too. From a higher perspective, letting women carry family names
is not a really good solution either. The best solution is to abandon family
names all together and to educate people that names simply do not matter,
or perhaps to impose a law that parents have to go to a name-lottery to find
whose name will be chosen to be carried by their child *by chance*.

The tradition that a wife adopts her husband's name is even more ridiculous
but is abandoned in China and is still alive in other parts of the world.
On the other hand, one should not mind using anybody's surname. Why should it
matter?

In rural parts of China, a son is someone who can work in the fields for
room and board while a daughter is a financial liability. It's quite easy
and very typical of Americans to criticize something they have no
understanding of.

  Rogue, and women CANT work in the fields for room and board too?
That is no excuse.  It all has to do with chinese tradition and 
philosophies.  They are taught from generatons before them that to
have no male children is a curse on the family, a dishonor that
is carried on.  Its very complex.  It isnt just the name that a
male heir would carry, it is the spirits of his family in a sense.
I dont claim to understand chinese theology, but they are a very
devout people and no modern re-education is going to change that

  I didn't view the above as criticisms so much as analysis.
The *cause* of the imbalance is understandable given the cultural
history and circumstances, but the effect it's having and will
continue to have is unfortunate, from an insider's or outsider's
perspective.
 
  My understanding (ok, from PBS mostly) is that in rural parts
of China, women don't just sit around watching soaps all day;
they work the field some, cook, clean, sew, and child-rear;
sounds like everyone earns their keep!  But investment-wise,
they do represent a liability to the parents, at least for now.

I want to thank Rane and Jan for putting a name to this idea.
From observing various aspects of humans and cultures, I had figured out
this phenomenon, but had never been able to put a name to it, or properly
express the concept.

As Rob pointed out, it is the basis on why I have always argued that we 
*must* have some form of control and cost on access of Grex over the Internet.
Otherwise, just like Jan's bridge, no matter how big the pipe, it will always
fill up and no one will be better off.

The expression "Tragedy of the Commons" is attributable to a person
named Harden - Jan and I can't take credit for it. He wrote first an
article with that title, and later a book. I don't have the citations
readily at hand, but a mirlyn search should find the book.

Well, I didn't mean you *invented* it Rane, I just meant that you infomred
err, provided me with a common name and a lucid explanation of it.

#13: So let me get this straight. You are a white boy, you admit you don't
     understand Chinese "theology", and you are telling me I am wrong and
     there is no real-world reason for wanting sons instead of daughters?

The solution to the Tragedy is to make the commons so Gow-awfully big that
it *can't* be swamped. In the case of the bridge, the solution is to make it
wide enough to carry *all* the traffic in the area, and|or increase the
speed of the traffic going over it. (m' = Ro A V.). In the case of Internet
access, the solution is to make the available bandwith so huge that everyone
in the world can be on it at the same time.

This latter one should be possible. A laser beam of 600 nanomaters wavelength
in air, and travelling through a fiberoptic cable, has a frequency of 500
*Terahertz*. Assuming 100 waves are needed to form a bit, it should be
possible to pump 5 *trillion* bits per second through the cable. This is
enough to give everyone on the planet an effective 1000 baud connection. And
a *lot* of fiberoptic cables can be bundled together.

As for china, a number of solutions come to mind, that I would be surprised
if the government couldn't impose them, since I thought it was the government
that was running the show.

The most obvious would be to declare equal rights for women - that is, they
get to inherit just as sons do, get the family name, and everything else.

Another means depends on China having a tech level high enough for pre-
conception gender control, so there might be problems implimenting it. But
it would satisfy the family honor bit. Allow each family to have a second kid
under the following conditions:

1. The first kid has to be female, and
2. Gender selection *must* have been attempted in generating the firstborn.

This would produce enough females so that there would be a reasonable gene
pool next generation, yet allow every family to have a son.

As to girl/guy ratios, declare Gang Bangs and polyandry to be valid marriage
forms. (Again, the government calls the shots, do they not?)

And how do you wave your magic wand and solve the problem when the "commons"
is a natural resource that's been depleted? Bring down the finger of god and
invent more fish?

Uh, I don't think there exist laser diodes which can be modulated at 5000GHz.
Just because you have 500THz to play with doesn't mean you can modulate (and
decode) a signal that fast.

Besides that, can you imagine the terminal server it would take to handle
that? ;)
Seriously, expanding the link *will* help -- eventually, we'll be back to
about the same performance level we were at to begin with, yes, but *many*
more people will be enjoying Grex.  Speed isn't the only measure of
performance here.

It seems to me that the whole "tragedy of the commons" simply boils
down to the classic inidividualism-collectivism argument. IN the case
of china, people are unduly influenced by cultural stigma, which is 
society's way of curtailing individual action. Religion is the same
thing. 

As in case with the examples above, it is not always cut-and-dry
situations. Individual freedome must be curtailed to some extent
in any society so that the aggregate of individuals cna benefit.

The only way, i beleive, a human can be truly happy is through
his/her own freedome fo choice. 

Which thereby fuels the Tragedy of the Commons.

The "solution" to the tragedy of the commons is to force people using 
community resources to pay the true costs of same.  In the traffic
example, you impose a toll on the bridge to pay for the costs of 
building and maintaining the bridge, the pollution costs of operating
private vehicles, and maybe use it to subsidize the train so it can
provide service comperable to what it would have if the bridge were not
there.  Freeways ain't free.

In the case of the Internet link, it's a bit harder.  The purpose of
Grex is unique, because more people using grex is in and of itself a
"good thing" (I think, unless they're jerks or something.)

"Unless they're jerks or something"

Unfortunately, that's becoming all too common a tragedy around here. :-)

...a phenomenon which wouldn't happen to have anything to do with the
increasing egocentricism of the average American....

What's wrong with the ego?

Re #25: how would you apply your suggested solution to the population
tragedy?

Re 28: Anytime an individual's ego overruns hir sense of social responsibility,
there's a problem.

And that happens 95% of the time for practically everyone.

And since social/legal/political changes in an unlimited democracy are made
at the behest of "practically everyone"....

re #30: I odnt beleive that individuals should live their lives
for the sake of others. Maybe its the Rand in me.

Parenting would go out the window, if that were widely accepted. Did
you have parents that cared for you, orwell?

Compassion is not a virtue that objectivism condemns. Actually, the
conerstone of the entire philsophy is for humans to have basic respect
for one another's lives, freedom, and property. 

I.E. If a true follower of obejctivsm saw someone in peril, it would be
his/her duty to try to help the person (i.e, gunshot wound, traffic
accident, etc.)

Objectivism in many ways is alot more compassionate than socialism
or any of the similar philsophies. They treat humans as less-than-human
by forcefully trying to communalize an indiviudal's life. Socialsm
doesnt trust the individual to own proprty or to have freedom. It
treats people liek children, instead of RESPECTING them

This response has been erased.

I agree with Valerie - at least until I get to be part of the 
elite. 

Well, Val, those peopel that run into are the ones that give the 
philosophy a bad name. They pervert the true meanings for their own
slefish gain. These people are actually the antithesis of the
ideal followers of objectivsm.
/.

Re #29: It would depend specifically what communally-owned resource
was being threatened by overpopulation.

- Backtalk version 1.3.30 - Copyright 1996-2006, Jan Wolter and Steve Weiss