People who don't like to think or be told they're wrong are convinced their stupidity is equal or greater than facts and logic.

"oh so I'll be 80ish when the consequences start to happen? Drill Baby Drill!!" - oil executives etc.

I think you are overselling it's incorrectness and so horseshoeing back around to being like the people who oversell it's truthfulness. Yes, the tragedy of the commons is misleading if taken in isolation, but something being misleading does not automatically make it scientifically incorrect. 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?

They burned coal like crazy in 19th century, killed all the whales, soaked everything in mercury, genocide was the name of the game.

Not just one..

I’m also like this. The one stupid annoying detail just getting bigger and bigger on the screen and everything else fading away.

easy, google

wet bulb temps not supportive of human life

everything else short of the cold war nuke apoc is lol and at least that had the option of not happening

we’re already in a positive feedback loop

If you live in Russia or Canada, global warming is a gift from God that will convert useless tundra into a fertile paradise. Everything is relative.

last century was where all the bio, stem people got jobs, 2000s, much more difficult since the turn of the century, made worse by job sites.

now they ensured that only middle income gets taxed forever and heavily too.

Very good point. It is a noble hole.

TBF the dropping of the bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki was immediately preceded by far larger slaughters of humanity using more conventional methods, a fact which somewhat minimizes their significance. I'm referring mainly to the Holocaust and the Japanese genocide in China, but even the US firebombing of Tokyo in early 1945 exceeded the death tolls of the atomic bombings.

The real significance of the term "tragedy of the commons" was that it was part of a campaign of PR bullshit used to justify Enclosure, where wealthy elites seized common land as their private property, land that had in fact been used and managed effectively as a public resource for centuries prior.

Let's see about that paradise when the bacteria and other bad stuff in the permafrost gets unfrozen.

Let's also see how people currently living in those areas feel about the "paradise" when everybody else who has the means will try to go there since it's the only livable area.

Not to mention how "livable" it actually would be, with extreme weather, flooding from icecaps melting and other weather effects I have no idea about.

Don’t forget about all the methane that will be released as it warms, accelerating climate change.

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

https://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.

https://aeon.co/essays/the-tragedy-of-the-commons-is-a-false-and-dangerous-myth

https://www.scientificamerican.com/blog/voices/the-tragedy-of-the-tragedy-of-the-commons/

https://news.osu.edu/the-tragedy-of-the-commons--minus-the-tragedy/

https://news.cnrs.fr/opinions/debunking-the-tragedy-of-the-commons

https://landscapewanderer.link/tragedy/

https://discardstudies.com/2019/07/15/the-tragedy-of-the-tragedy-of-the-commons/

https://jacobin.com/2023/10/tragedy-of-the-commons-garrett-hardin-white-supremacy-enclosure-privatization-history

At this point the countries in temperate climates would seal their borders. The people living near the equator will become stuck, dependent on the the richer nations for their very survival. Once the effects of global warming began creeping up toward the United States and Europe, we will use our superior firepower to force an oil embargo on weaker nations.

It's going to be fucked up and evil, but it's unlikely to be uniformly bad for everyone. From an economic perspective, alot of people will benefit.

There's a whole lot of Canada south of the tundra. We don't need to make the north "useful" at the expense of the rest of the country.

I just used Tundra as a filler for "cold as shit" areas. The temperate region will basically move further up north from the equator.

...granted, having more valuable land isn't necessarily a good thing once you consider your neighbors.

remembered for thousands of years.

Remembered by whom? Big assumption there...

Are those generations really worse than those before it?

[...]

The people of the 20th century were not more cruel or selfish than previous ones. They were simply the first ones given the tools and ability to pollute the whole earth.

Yes, that's what makes them worse.

100%

Boomers lived through the easiest, most rewarding period of American history and immediately and repeatedly ensured that no cohort following them would ever have the same again.

As a group, they are the weakest, most selfish, and least adaptable generation in modern history.

The only reason "shit just works" for y'all is that noble hole!

The wealth of industrialized nations is only possible through exploitation of developing countries. When conditions there become literally unlivable, everything collapses and everyone loses. maybe russia could slightly benefit since they aren't doing super well as is and have a lot of land that will become pretty good. Even then, they can kiss goodbye to seafood forever, and it certainly won't be easy.

Now our advertisement overlords won't be pleased.

To be clear, I agree with you like 95% of the way, it's that last 5% that I still think you are overselling and would like you to be more careful with.

The problem is that Hardin's argument simply isn't much of a scientific one in the first place and is instead much more of a logical one. (I was being sloppy when I asked for direct evidence, so sorry about that.) Hardin made the massive assumption that people are wholly self-interested. If people are only trying to maximize their own share of the resources regardless of what it might cost others, then it is impossible to escape the competition that creates for the limited amount of resources that the commons provides. All of the examples and articles you've brought up attack that assumption and/or focus on the conclusions Hardin made based on those assumptions, but do nothing to actually disprove the fundamental argument behind the tragedy of the commons.

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 on us through cultural means 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.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Shock_Doctrine

The worst thing about this treason, is that we hope someone can help us do better while we solve the cognitive dissonance by solving everything through techonlogy, even politics. And when we advance through life, we end up more conservative because we have debts for housing, a comfortable lifestyle and it is hard to give up.

It really isn't hard to give up, people are forced to all the time and do fine. As I said, STEM industries and their respective academic institutions attract and reward people who wouldn't give it up. They're already liberals by merit of tolerating the obvious immorality of that system, and so material luxury is particularly effective at disarming whatever middling resistance they may have.

While your sentiment is in the right place, trees are not a one size fits all solution. There's a variety of ecosystems on this planet, and not all are densely packed forest. Instead of everybody just planting a tree, it's important to think about what kind of tree and if a tree would be beneficial at all. Sometimes planting a native grass would be a lot more beneficial in a specific context.

One other thing is that the places where pine beetles are the most destructive are monocrop pine forests. If you have diversity in your forests, it makes them more resillent to this kind of thing.

It should be every human's role to learn about how their local ecosystem works and how to exist within it in a reciprocal way.

Normalize downvoting censor slop

If you don't take into account the fact it will also convert a fertile paradise of southern parts of country into a hot hell. I don't think even ex-tundra will really be stable for long at that point

It takes a long bloody time to build up topsoil. Ex-tundra will shit for agriculture for decades at best and centuries without borderline terraforming

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kSgDdHRs_xY%3Ft%3D1027s