Searching for consistency amidst the chaos.
Recently
Archives
Links
Visitors since 10.08.04
Sunday, October 10, 2004
Tragedy of the Commons
I rudely awoke this morning to a loud clumping sound from behind my bedroom wall. I live in an apartment complex and my bedroom shares a wall with the stairwell. Accordingly, when people run up or down the stairs, that sound gets transmitted to my wall and into my ears. Normally, this isn't a problem because the sounds that come through are so muted that I can just sleep through them. This morning's sounds were akin to someone throwing a tennis ball against the wall - over and over again.
After about 20 clumps, I decided to investigate. I wanted to see what nincompoop was waking me up at 9:00 A.M. on a Sunday morning. Come to find out, it's two people. Both are of the female variety and one is dragging her suitcase down the stairs. The suitcase was a little bigger than the largest allowed for carrying on a flight. I'm guessing that it weighed somewhere in the neighborhood of forty pounds. Roll clump ... roll clump ... roll clump. You get the idea. I restrained from bitching them out - what good would it do? But I'm fairly confident that that woman singlehandedly woke at least eight people up. Why? Was she lazy? Did she not care? Or did she just not think about it.
I think it was the last one mostly.
There's an economic theory known as the "Tragedy of the Commons". The gist of the theory is that whenever property is free for use by the public, it will get used until there is nothing left of any particular value. Public city parks are consumed by homeless people. Skateboarders "grind" on marble structures until their aesthetic features are replaced by scars. People litter. Companies pollute. The entire idea is based upon a simple notion we are all familiar with: cost and benefit.
Whenever the costs and benefits are separated, which is to say that those who reap the benefits do not bear the costs, problems inevitably ensue.
My unintentional alarm clock this morning is just another example. The benefit of dragging the suitcase down the stairs was that she didn't have to strain herself by carrying it. The cost was waking up an untold number of people.
You might not have thought about things in this context before. As such, before you throw the theory out as some economic bullshit, I suggest you try it out for a few days. See if it doesn't explain so many of the problems in our society - the recklessness and irresponsibility of human beings.
Cost and benefit.
- posted by autodogmatic.com @ 10:02 AM 3 comments
Comments:
<< Home
cost and benefit.
makes sense to me...mostly. it is true that people who pay the cost for something are more likely to preserve it's intended state than those who do not. however, as i see it, the rule is anything but a hard and fast one. do homeless people use public parks? yep. do skateboarders destroy and deface property? yep. do companies and individuals pollute? absolutely. do all three of these destructive forces bear no cost of their destruction? nope.
to me, the problem with people destroying something they don't "own" is mainly a matter of perspective. for example, there's a local botanical garden nearby where the admission is free. now, the upkeep of the garden is shouldered by the taxpayers, but anybody (whether they be actual taxpayers or not) can use the facility. the grounds are immaculate. the wildlife is plentiful. the quality of the experience is top notch. how could this be so if those who don't pay for it simply come around and rend it unto ruins? well, the fact of the matter is that people can and often do see value in preserving something that they themselves have no direct ownership of.
if we're talking dollars for donuts here then by that narrow definition i'll have to concede the point. however, in my opinion cost is much more intangible than mere pounds and pence. if the homeless person destroys a park, then he will have no where to sleep. if a skateboarder thrashes a rail to pieces, then he'll have no more place to grind. if a company pollutes the air, ground, and water then they'll have umpteen lawsuits on their hands as well as a disgruntled community who won't buy their products anymore.
if your perspective is so short sighted that you can only see the hard money line connections between you and something that you use, then frankly you need a lesson in sociology 101.
in a world where markets, air, people, beliefs, and borders are all interconnected there is no place to go where one does not bear the "cost" of ones actions. those that have been raised with blinders on to the consequences of their own actions are those that will, with reckless abandon, wreak havoc upon the people and places within their reach that they themselves have little investment in.
i've known homeless people who were extremely tidy. i've read about skateboarders who refuse to skate on private property cause they'd rather work towards a shared park. i've seen companies that have chosen less pollution in favor of a healthier environment. and, i've known ladies who have, despite the inconvenience, carried their heavy luggage down flights of stairs so as not to disturb those around them.
the cost and benefit rule is fine...it works. the problem is that many people can only see cost in terms of dollars rather than in terms of the impact of actions upon the environments in which they find themselves. money is a powerful force, but so is community. take the blinders off.
makes sense to me...mostly. it is true that people who pay the cost for something are more likely to preserve it's intended state than those who do not. however, as i see it, the rule is anything but a hard and fast one. do homeless people use public parks? yep. do skateboarders destroy and deface property? yep. do companies and individuals pollute? absolutely. do all three of these destructive forces bear no cost of their destruction? nope.
to me, the problem with people destroying something they don't "own" is mainly a matter of perspective. for example, there's a local botanical garden nearby where the admission is free. now, the upkeep of the garden is shouldered by the taxpayers, but anybody (whether they be actual taxpayers or not) can use the facility. the grounds are immaculate. the wildlife is plentiful. the quality of the experience is top notch. how could this be so if those who don't pay for it simply come around and rend it unto ruins? well, the fact of the matter is that people can and often do see value in preserving something that they themselves have no direct ownership of.
if we're talking dollars for donuts here then by that narrow definition i'll have to concede the point. however, in my opinion cost is much more intangible than mere pounds and pence. if the homeless person destroys a park, then he will have no where to sleep. if a skateboarder thrashes a rail to pieces, then he'll have no more place to grind. if a company pollutes the air, ground, and water then they'll have umpteen lawsuits on their hands as well as a disgruntled community who won't buy their products anymore.
if your perspective is so short sighted that you can only see the hard money line connections between you and something that you use, then frankly you need a lesson in sociology 101.
in a world where markets, air, people, beliefs, and borders are all interconnected there is no place to go where one does not bear the "cost" of ones actions. those that have been raised with blinders on to the consequences of their own actions are those that will, with reckless abandon, wreak havoc upon the people and places within their reach that they themselves have little investment in.
i've known homeless people who were extremely tidy. i've read about skateboarders who refuse to skate on private property cause they'd rather work towards a shared park. i've seen companies that have chosen less pollution in favor of a healthier environment. and, i've known ladies who have, despite the inconvenience, carried their heavy luggage down flights of stairs so as not to disturb those around them.
the cost and benefit rule is fine...it works. the problem is that many people can only see cost in terms of dollars rather than in terms of the impact of actions upon the environments in which they find themselves. money is a powerful force, but so is community. take the blinders off.
Perhaps some clarification is in order. Yes, people "pay" for their use of public property - i.e. if someone relies on a public space for their enjoyment but obliterate the property, their freedom to use that space will go away once they have destroyed the property. Accordingly, homeless people, companies, et cetera are going to moderate their use of public goods so as to not destroy totally any public property. If they do not, eventually the public *may* rise up against such a company or individual. That is often problematic, however, due to the cost of gathering people with like interests and then allocating the legal costs to such a group well enough so that it is worth it (for each individual) to pursue the company (Civil law suits exist to help this purpose).
You mentioned that, "the problem with people destroying something they don't 'own' is mainly a matter of perspective." You then proceed to talk about a botanical garden. I can only assume that you mean that the problem is the user's perspective. If a user of public property was enlightened enough to realize that he/she should use public property in a manner that would preserve such property, the problem would go away. I agree. However, in my experience a majority of the public does not think that way - and for good reason. Why would you change your behavior if the cost of your behavior was not associated with the action?
Yes, some enlightened folk will behave responsible with public property. It's why I put the grocery cart all the way in the parking lot receptacle - I don't want it rolling around the parking lot potentially damaging other people's property. Any trip to the grocery store will tell you that most do not think as I do. Otherwise, there wouldn't be ten to twenty grocery cards in random spots around the parking lot.
I think you agree with me, but my reading of your post insinuates that you are saying my view is "short-sighted". Perhaps it is; however, I do not think that is the case. In fact, I think that you'd agree that all individuals do not behave as though they have taken "Sociology 101". Otherwise, we would have no litter and no shopping carts floating around grocery parking lots.
You mentioned that, "the problem with people destroying something they don't 'own' is mainly a matter of perspective." You then proceed to talk about a botanical garden. I can only assume that you mean that the problem is the user's perspective. If a user of public property was enlightened enough to realize that he/she should use public property in a manner that would preserve such property, the problem would go away. I agree. However, in my experience a majority of the public does not think that way - and for good reason. Why would you change your behavior if the cost of your behavior was not associated with the action?
Yes, some enlightened folk will behave responsible with public property. It's why I put the grocery cart all the way in the parking lot receptacle - I don't want it rolling around the parking lot potentially damaging other people's property. Any trip to the grocery store will tell you that most do not think as I do. Otherwise, there wouldn't be ten to twenty grocery cards in random spots around the parking lot.
I think you agree with me, but my reading of your post insinuates that you are saying my view is "short-sighted". Perhaps it is; however, I do not think that is the case. In fact, I think that you'd agree that all individuals do not behave as though they have taken "Sociology 101". Otherwise, we would have no litter and no shopping carts floating around grocery parking lots.
Well, I'd never thought about it, but it makes sense.... When i was in the Peace Corps and peole donated stuff like clothes, I sold them for a very low amount because if people paid for it, they'd value things more.... Then I took the proceeds and donated it to the school for a light for the literacy classes and the mayor took the light home to his house.
Post a Comment
<< Home
