News

Yes and/but you might be interested to know these things about the “Tragedy of the Commons”:

Elinor Ostrom, awarded the Nobel Prize in Economics in 2009, fundamentally challenged the “tragedy of the commons” theory, which Garrett Hardin popularized in 1968. Hardin’s theory argued that shared resources—like grazing land or fisheries—inevitably suffer from overuse because each user, acting in self-interest, seeks to maximize personal gain. Without external regulation or privatization, Hardin claimed, such resources would degrade irreparably.

Ostrom’s work provided a different perspective based on extensive field research across diverse communities managing shared resources, such as forests in Nepal and fisheries in Turkey. Through these studies, she found that local groups often developed effective, self-governing systems to sustain and share resources equitably. Ostrom identified eight core principles, such as clear resource boundaries, community-devised rules, local monitoring, and graduated sanctions for rule violations, which contribute to sustainable communal resource management. By documenting these successful cases, she demonstrated that, under certain conditions, communities could avoid the “tragedy” without privatization or top-down control.

Ostrom’s insights reshaped economic thinking by showing that cooperation, rather than competition alone, could lead to sustainable resource use. Her findings emphasize that real-world communities often solve commons problems through trust, local knowledge, and shared governance, challenging the idea that only private ownership or government intervention can manage common resources effectively. Ostrom’s approach has since inspired policies and frameworks for resource management across environmental, urban, and even space governance contexts, as her principles underscore the potential of collective, decentralized solutions to common-pool problems.

Her work offers an empowering view of human capacity for self-organization, contradicting the inevitability of Hardin’s “tragedy” and suggesting new possibilities for addressing global commons issues like climate change and biodiversity loss. This impact has encouraged rethinking in fields ranging from political science to ecology and economics.

Sources:

• Inside Story, “The not-so-tragic commons”

• Resilience, “The Victory of the Commons”

• Space Foundation, “The Commons Solution”

Saving our dumb collective ass again. As usual in elections at least within my fucking lifetime, women and ethnic minorities prove that they understand the values of America better than the ultra-fragile white conservative men who think they own this place by virtual of sex and race.

Up here in Canada as well. Almost exactly half of men, across all age groups, say they play to vote for the Cons. Last I saw it was 20% of women voting Con. I am incredibly embarrassed at my fellow men.

Hell, we already wouldn't be here without them.

We can only hope…

My father use to send me into the voting booth with my mother to make sure she "remembered" who to vote for....no election officials ever stopped me from going in there and I was too young to understand that I was a spy. My father's not violent but I'm sure I wasn't the only child spy being used by men who were.

That sounds illegal. Domestic Abuse AND Voter Intimidation

I don't think you can blame Twitter and TikTok for that. People who like Tate's toxic masculinity incel garbage will find somewhere that feeds into their preferences.

I mean Harris and "progressive and inclusive" aren't necessarily one and the same, from the sounds of it it's Harris that should be pushing more progressive, but in the context of this election I agree they should be voting for Harris

Abuse.

Religion usually plays a part.

Accepting the fundamental differences in viewpoint and pretending it isn’t there for the sake of kids

Etc.

My partners family comes to mind. Her mother is very liberal, her dad is a weird mix of liberal beliefs polluted by religion. They just don’t talk about it, everyone knows he’s wrong, he knows he’s wrong, he won’t change his viewpoints and his wife isn’t willing to collapse their family over it.

I know someone in this circumstance, and it comes down to exactly one issue: abortion. The spouse is Roman Catholic and cannot support abortion, so despite disagreeing with most of the republican platform, they feel obligated to vote with the party that opposes it. I had the same thing crop up in 2008 with a roommate who was Greek Orthodox and in every way one of the most progressive people I knew, but they voted McCain purely on this one issue out of religious guilt.

Most people don't think that much about politics.

A woman might have a husband who's generally a good guy and doesn't talk politics.

A few days ago he comes home and someone at work had been talking about how some Trump policy would be better for their industry. Husband is going to vote for Trump.

Woman Google's Trump, sees his abominable attitude towards women, sees tiktok about cancelling partners vote, votes democrat.

It will take a while for us to get past the inertia of Boomers who have been gaslighting everyone for decades.

https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/breaking-down-gender-gap-gen-z-politics-desk-rcna177155 about the poll results they're referring to in the article. Gen Z has the biggest gender gap of all the age groups, with women for Harris by a 33 point margin, but the men about evenly split between Harris and Trump.

If you think about the new voters coming of voting age for this election, it's been 9 years since Trump rode down the escalator to kick off his campaign. So they were too young to hear about or pay attention to a lot the unsavory stuff about him back then, like the Access Hollywood tape. For some reason, many Gen Z men find him appealing, but not Gen Z women. For instance today I saw this video of two Gen Z young women hearing the Access Hollywood audio for the first time. You can see how horrified they are (as most normal people were back when it first came out).

No it's not. It's because it, like other Chinese companies, are at risk of being browbeaten by their government into providing whatever information they have on American users to use as they wish. One can easily argue what kind of risk that actually poses, but that's why they're trying to ban it. Unless you have some sort of proof....