supersquirrel
@supersquirrel@sopuli.xyz
- Comment on Borders 2 weeks ago:
Not a hard bar to clear.
- Comment on Not a good sign 2 weeks ago:
I see what you are saying but my argument is that in real world systems the vast majority of the time it is in the individual’s self interest to enrich and defend a shared wealth/commons.
The idea that it isn’t is inherently a belief not a finding of science and it has been imposed in us for political reasons.
You can create narrow conditions where the self interests of the individual existentially diverge from the interests of the group, I don’t dispute that… rather I think Capitalism is monomanically obsessed with creating these systems artificially and through violence and imposed collapse.
I am fumbling at things Naomi Klein has already more brilliantly expressed.
- Comment on Not a good sign 2 weeks ago:
The only reason “shit just works” for y’all is that noble hole…
- Comment on Not a good sign 2 weeks ago:
I think you are overselling it’s incorrectness and so horseshoeing back around to being like the people who oversell it’s truthfulness.
I am not.
Do you have direct evidence or an argument for why the tragedy of the commons isn’t the most likely outcome if the circumstances just so happen to match the assumptions Hardin made?
Here you go
boingboing.net/2019/03/07/scientific-fraud.html
Even before Hardin’s ‘The Tragedy of the Commons’ was published, however, the young political scientist Elinor Ostrom had proven him wrong. While Hardin speculated that the tragedy of the commons could be avoided only through total privatisation or total government control, Ostrom had witnessed groundwater users near her native Los Angeles hammer out a system for sharing their coveted resource. Over the next several decades, as a professor at Indiana University Bloomington, she studied collaborative management systems developed by cattle herders in Switzerland, forest dwellers in Japan, and irrigators in the Philippines. These communities had found ways of both preserving a shared resource – pasture, trees, water – and providing their members with a living. Some had been deftly avoiding the tragedy of the commons for centuries; Ostrom was simply one of the first scientists to pay close attention to their traditions, and analyse how and why they worked.
The features of successful systems, Ostrom and her colleagues found, include clear boundaries (the ‘community’ doing the managing must be well-defined); reliable monitoring of the shared resource; a reasonable balance of costs and benefits for participants; a predictable process for the fast and fair resolution of conflicts; an escalating series of punishments for cheaters; and good relationships between the community and other layers of authority, from household heads to international institutions.
aeon.co/…/the-tragedy-of-the-commons-is-a-false-a…
news.osu.edu/the-tragedy-of-the-commons--minus-th…
news.cnrs.fr/…/debunking-the-tragedy-of-the-commo…
landscapewanderer.link/tragedy/
- Comment on Not a good sign 2 weeks ago:
There is no scarcity of resources for the bears because here bears use a form of violent authoritarianism to ensure resource (salmon in your example) availability for themselves. A dominate bear will kill weaker bears to ensure food, mates, and territory are established. In that sense, it mirrors the human reaction. Again, that points away from a non-violent benevolent society of a workable shared commons.
Are you an expert on bear behavior? How do you know this? How do you explain Bears co-existing nearby while feeding on Salmon without killing one another?
You seem to be absolutely convinced the lens you see reality with is not a lens but reality itself and you are wrong.
- Comment on Not a good sign 2 weeks ago:
Do you have a human society to point to where your proposal exists successfully already?
Every single human society in history where a commons was maintained via a system other than centralized authoritarian violence?
In other words, every society that isn’t ruled by an oppressive, authoritarian regime and that has some shared wealth whether it be in public spaces, public knowledge, public utilities, public education or other forms of public shared resource.
In the natural world it is very difficult to find ecosystems that function purely on a scarcity mechanism. If one considers the function of a predator in an ecosystem, it is precisely to stabilize the ecosystem so it can absorb large inputs of excess resources without the system collapsing. If one considers the basic function of herbivores in ecosystems it is the same, to stabilize the growth of plants so that abrupt periods of resource abundance and opportunity don’t destabilize the forest.
The only system that functions under the axiom that you suggest, which is that scarcity is a necessary obstacle to tackle before systems can stabilize, are ecosystems dominated by invasive species. This is in fact why invasive species collapse ecosystems.
Which is all to say, there are systems that cannot handle abundance as a temporary state and not a final destination never to be reached, but they are systems of cancer. All the dynamically stable systems we can point to whether they in the natural world or in human societies all feature some degree of scarcity, some degree of abundance and yet still manage to develop a shared commons of wealth.
For example, if you watch how Grizzly Bears eat Salmon, they do a shit job of it. They often become distracted in the process of eating a Salmon and just drop it leaving an only half eaten Salmon carcass on the ground wherever they happened to be. The way you understand how scarcity MUST impact systems cannot explain this blatant inefficiency in a natural ecosystem, individuals in nature are supposed to use EVERYTHING they can right? Evolution selects for efficiency right?.. Except it didn’t because it turns out the Grizzly Bears discarding the Salmon ends up transferring a massive amount of nutrients from the Ocean to the Forest.
You cannot understand the essential aspects of the above example of Grizzly Bears, Salmon and Forests under the mindset that you are approaching this problem from.
- Comment on Not a good sign 2 weeks ago:
I would imagine a system you’re suggesting would first have to eliminate scarcity of resources.
Provide evidence for this claim.
I understand this has been established as our cultural intuition but it is a near axiomatic assumption that upon examination has very little evidence to support it, whether we look to the natural world or to human societies.
- Comment on Not a good sign 2 weeks ago:
Oh definitely, my issue with the concept of the Tragedy Of The Commons is not that shared wealth is not vulnerable but rather that the idea that humans innately cannot function in an environment while preserving and growing a shared commons without some kind of system of authoritarian control and violence actively preserving that shared commons is a deeply political, problematic and scientifically incorrect way of understanding people.
- Comment on Not a good sign 2 weeks ago:
Yes, how disturbing is it that the dropping of the nuclear bombs on Japan will be most useful to historians not as a hyperbolic tragedy that stood alone but as a way to explain the much broader mass slaughter of humans that the 20th century perpetrated and locked in for thousands of years?
- Comment on Not a good sign 2 weeks ago:
I am uninterested in comparing the moral qualities of generations. Humans are humans.
I am interested in the scale of the violence done by these generations against the earth as it will never be able to be surpassed without fully annihilating the human race.
800 years from now no one is going to care how sorry everyone was now about the damage they have done, what matters is the impact.
- Comment on Not a good sign 2 weeks ago:
when the oceans start consuming the big coastal cities, only then will it become a priority
Miami begs to differ lol, not that I can blame Miami, they are fucked anyways since everything is built on limestone which is very soluble to water… but I wish they would do their whole “stick their head in the sand” thing in a way that was less destructive to the rest of us.
- Comment on Not a good sign 2 weeks ago:
The betrayal of generations from the 20th century will be remembered for thousands of years.
That is not hyperbole.
- Comment on Global Spelling Bee 2 weeks ago:
Yes but only in a watered down way.
- Comment on Theories on Theories 2 weeks ago:
I think a major casualty of the war on science funded primarily by fossil fuel interests has been that the kneejerk pro-science response has become a lazy appeal to authority.
People say “99% of scientists all agree listen to them you are not worthy of having an opinion on this!” and while it is true, it also sends an undermining message to the interests of science.
Science is the practice of skepticism not of finding facts. Facts are the inevitable residue of science after science has subjected a theory to extended and diverse torturous inquisition.
I wish people defended science by saying it isn’t a set of Correct Facts but a system of Skepticism that has thoroughly examined a shared body of knowledge and that you should assume that if the more fantastic sounding theories contained within that arena of Skeptical Melee haven’t been dismantled that you can probably trust that they are real as fantastic as they sound.
This when you shortens it sounds like an appeal to authority where the scientists are given undue authority but it is not the same thing. What matters is the environment of genuine skepticism that scientific theories and “facts” are subjected to in order to establish their validity that matters not the theories and facts themselves.
- Comment on Theories on Theories 2 weeks ago:
Basic foundational “observations” by Economics aren’t based on the Scientific Method.
I wish the Scientific Method didn’t have “Method” in the name because while it is a sensible name it also is misleading.
Science is method agnostic, that is a necessary and sometimes brutal aspect to scientific progress, a new promising method may uncover other methods and theories that totally pull the rug out from under old theories.
Economics, because it began and is sustained for the most part as a system of methods searching for justification for their continuation, is largely incapable of undergoing these necessary “method resets” that come periodically in any scientific discipline.
Thus no matter if locally good science is being done in economics it is undermined by the uncomfortable need to preserve the survival of the foundatinal contextualizing methods and axioms they invoke implicitly from the truth uncovered, a vice that plagues any human endeavor consciously and subconsciously and not only keeps Economics from being a real science it also largely sucks the oxygen out of the room for actually scientifically rigorous study of these phenomena.
- Comment on Weeeeazels 2 weeks ago:
It honestly looks wild, if you have never watched a video of it you should it is hilarious.
- Comment on Theories on Theories 2 weeks ago:
Economics: Our findings our just as rigorous as these other sciences we swear!
- Comment on Europemaxxing 2 weeks ago:
I didn’t know everyone planted their soccer balls this early in the spring!
- Comment on Europemaxxing 2 weeks ago:
Where does the soccer part come in?
- Comment on Broad presence of ferromagnetism in bees and relationship to phylogeny, natural history, and sociality 2 weeks ago:
Im sorry I meant to send those out last week! I will get on it.
- Comment on Exclusive: Microsoft To Shift GitHub Copilot Users To Token-Based Billing, Tighten Rate Limits 2 weeks ago:
AI is so dumb but at least we have Ed Zitron.
- Broad presence of ferromagnetism in bees and relationship to phylogeny, natural history, and socialitywww.science.org ↗Submitted 2 weeks ago to [deleted] | 2 comments
- Submitted 2 weeks ago to [deleted] | 1 comment
- Submitted 2 weeks ago to [deleted] | 4 comments
- Comment on Bluetooth tracker hidden in a postcard and mailed to a warship exposed its location — $5 gadget put a $585 million Dutch ship at risk for 24 hours 3 weeks ago:
I propose a solution. Invest in unmanned surface vehicles to carry duplicates of mail and require every piece of mail sent to sailors to have a duplicate of which randomly is selected the actual copy of mail to send to the real navy ship. Collect duplicates of the mail and send it on unmanned surface vehicles to sail around and pretend to be navy ships while gathering surveillance data.
- Comment on today's massive sunspot looks like a dancing gorilla cmv 3 weeks ago:
APE OUT Of Solar System
- Submitted 3 weeks ago to australianpolitics@aussie.zone | 0 comments
- Submitted 3 weeks ago to australianpolitics@aussie.zone | 0 comments
- Comment on NHS Staff Told ‘Stop Criticising Palantir or Lose Your Job’ 3 weeks ago:
It is impressive how the UK makes the US look free in comparison in some metrics.
- Comment on Trump says US Navy will begin Strait of Hormuz blockade after failed talks 4 weeks ago:
True, I think there is a good chance Netanyahu will use nuclear weapons especially if the US genuinely tries to end the Iran War.