The Fisherman
-
- Posts: 223
- Joined: June 9th, 2021, 12:39 am
The Fisherman
Country Variation: Let us say, you are the ruler of this country of fisherman. Your country has gotten extremely wealthy off the fish caught in your lake and you take steps to curb the number of fishers in your country to prevent overfishing. Now, however, several other countries bordering the same lake begin to fish on their sides of the lake. These countries are poorer than your own and are attempting to use fishing to boost their economies the same way you had done. Regardless, if every country is fishing at their normal levels, the lake will eventually run out of fish. This is especially problematic, because your nation already halved the fish supply from several years of overfishing. Do you as the wealthy nation have a moral obligation to curb the amount you fish in greater proportion to the others? Do you have a right to prevent the other countries from overfishing your common lake as the wealthy nation who already halved the fish population?
- LuckyR
- Moderator
- Posts: 7935
- Joined: January 18th, 2015, 1:16 am
Re: The Fisherman
Interesting questions. The correct answer to first one is made plain by rewording the question thusly: if you are a fisherman and you have magical powers to predict the future and you know your lake will run out of fish soon, what do you do?WanderingGaze22 wrote: ↑December 12th, 2021, 3:01 am Your nation has a large lake filled with fish. This lake can support 900 fisherman. However, there is 1000 fisherman. If the lake is overfished, then all the fish may die out over the next few decades. You are a fisherman by trade and do not have a great deal of political power. Nor do you have a lot of other marketable skills. Plus you have a large family to feed. There is no organized effort to address this problem, and few, if any, fishers you know are curbing the amount of fish they are catching. Should you, as an individual, catch less fish at the cost of your family income? Or should you, as an individual, catch as many fish as you can to feed your family for as long as you are able?
Country Variation: Let us say, you are the ruler of this country of fisherman. Your country has gotten extremely wealthy off the fish caught in your lake and you take steps to curb the number of fishers in your country to prevent overfishing. Now, however, several other countries bordering the same lake begin to fish on their sides of the lake. These countries are poorer than your own and are attempting to use fishing to boost their economies the same way you had done. Regardless, if every country is fishing at their normal levels, the lake will eventually run out of fish. This is especially problematic, because your nation already halved the fish supply from several years of overfishing. Do you as the wealthy nation have a moral obligation to curb the amount you fish in greater proportion to the others? Do you have a right to prevent the other countries from overfishing your common lake as the wealthy nation who already halved the fish population?
The second question is much more nuanced. The best option is to diplomatically enter into an agreement with the other two countries to come up with fishing limits for each country to be able to sustain the fish population. The wealthy country can afford to fish less than your otherwise equitable share of the agreed upon limit.
- Sy Borg
- Site Admin
- Posts: 14995
- Joined: December 16th, 2013, 9:05 pm
Re: The Fisherman
https://www.investopedia.com/terms/t/tr ... ommons.aspThe tragedy of the commons is an economics problem in which every individual has an incentive to consume a resource, but at the expense of every other individual -- with no way to exclude anyone from consuming. Initially it was formulated by asking what would happen if every shepherd, acting in their own self-interest, allowed their flock to graze on the common field. If everybody does act in their apparent own best interest, it results in harmful over-consumption (all the grass is eaten, to the detriment of everyone)
The problem can also result in under investment (since who is going to pay to plant new seed?), and ultimately total depletion of the resource. As the demand for the resource overwhelms the supply, every individual who consumes an additional unit directly harms others -- and themselves too -- who can no longer enjoy the benefits. Generally, the resource of interest is easily available to all individuals without barriers (i.e. the "commons").
In game theory, cooperative strategies are ineffective in a population of non-cooperators. An individual person, company or country that makes a lone ethical stand is a person, company or a country at a disadvantage. A posse lead by at least one power player is needed to make a difference.
Interesting information about game theory here, thought it's fairly long: https://www.quantamagazine.org/game-the ... -20150212/
-
- Moderator
- Posts: 6105
- Joined: September 11th, 2016, 2:11 pm
Re: The Fisherman
Judges 14:14: "Out of the eater, something to eat; out of the strong, something sweet."Sy Borg wrote: ↑December 12th, 2021, 4:07 am Tragedy of the commons.
https://www.investopedia.com/terms/t/tr ... ommons.aspThe tragedy of the commons is an economics problem in which every individual has an incentive to consume a resource, but at the expense of every other individual -- with no way to exclude anyone from consuming. Initially it was formulated by asking what would happen if every shepherd, acting in their own self-interest, allowed their flock to graze on the common field. If everybody does act in their apparent own best interest, it results in harmful over-consumption (all the grass is eaten, to the detriment of everyone)
The problem can also result in under investment (since who is going to pay to plant new seed?), and ultimately total depletion of the resource. As the demand for the resource overwhelms the supply, every individual who consumes an additional unit directly harms others -- and themselves too -- who can no longer enjoy the benefits. Generally, the resource of interest is easily available to all individuals without barriers (i.e. the "commons").
In game theory, cooperative strategies are ineffective in a population of non-cooperators. An individual person, company or country that makes a lone ethical stand is a person, company or a country at a disadvantage. A posse lead by at least one power player is needed to make a difference.
Interesting information about game theory here, thought it's fairly long: https://www.quantamagazine.org/game-the ... -20150212/
Only people in positions of power can help other people. If democracy among the warring factions is impossible we hope the strong leader will be knowledgable and altruistic. Time for noblesse oblige.
-
- Posts: 1133
- Joined: October 23rd, 2019, 4:48 pm
Re: The Fisherman
Non-cooperators are not heard of in game theory. Please quote for my enlightenment.Sy Borg wrote: ↑December 12th, 2021, 4:07 am
In game theory, cooperative strategies are ineffective in a population of non-cooperators. An individual person, company or country that makes a lone ethical stand is a person, company or a country at a disadvantage. A posse lead by at least one power player is needed to make a difference.
Interesting information about game theory here, thought it's fairly long: https://www.quantamagazine.org/game-the ... -20150212/
The problem of the commons is an application in static game of complete information. Nash Equilibrium may be reached to answer the titled question.
-
- Posts: 223
- Joined: June 9th, 2021, 12:39 am
Re: The Fisherman
Not bad, but many countries have a track record of non-cooperation. What must be done to enforce a way to maintain the fish population? Should the declaration of the fishing limits be with harsh punishment or environmental awareness?LuckyR wrote: ↑December 12th, 2021, 3:45 am
Interesting questions. The correct answer to first one is made plain by rewording the question thusly: if you are a fisherman and you have magical powers to predict the future and you know your lake will run out of fish soon, what do you do?
The second question is much more nuanced. The best option is to diplomatically enter into an agreement with the other two countries to come up with fishing limits for each country to be able to sustain the fish population. The wealthy country can afford to fish less than your otherwise equitable share of the agreed upon limit.
- Sy Borg
- Site Admin
- Posts: 14995
- Joined: December 16th, 2013, 9:05 pm
Re: The Fisherman
A standard game used in game theory is Prisoners' Dilemma.gad-fly wrote: ↑December 12th, 2021, 1:00 pmNon-cooperators are not heard of in game theory. Please quote for my enlightenment.Sy Borg wrote: ↑December 12th, 2021, 4:07 am
In game theory, cooperative strategies are ineffective in a population of non-cooperators. An individual person, company or country that makes a lone ethical stand is a person, company or a country at a disadvantage. A posse lead by at least one power player is needed to make a difference.
Interesting information about game theory here, thought it's fairly long: https://www.quantamagazine.org/game-the ... -20150212/
The problem of the commons is an application in static game of complete information. Nash Equilibrium may be reached to answer the titled question.
Tanya and Cinque have been arrested for robbing the Hibernia Savings Bank and placed in separate isolation cells. Both care much more about their personal freedom than about the welfare of their accomplice.
A clever prosecutor makes the following offer to each: “You may choose to confess or remain silent.
If you confess and your accomplice remains silent I will drop all charges against you and use your testimony to ensure that your accomplice does serious time.
Likewise, if your accomplice confesses while you remain silent, they will go free while you do the time.
If you both confess I get two convictions, but I'll see to it that you both get early parole.
If you both remain silent, I'll have to settle for token sentences on firearms possession charges. If you wish to confess, you must leave a note with the jailer before my return tomorrow morning.”
The “dilemma” faced by the prisoners here is that, whatever the other does, each is better off confessing than remaining silent. But the outcome obtained when both confess is worse for each than the outcome they would have obtained had both remained silent.
A common view is that the puzzle illustrates a conflict between individual and group rationality. A group whose members pursue rational self-interest may all end up worse off than a group whose members act contrary to rational self-interest.
More generally, if the payoffs are not assumed to represent self-interest, a group whose members rationally pursue any goals may all meet less success than if they had not rationally pursued their goals individually.
A closely related view is that the prisoner's dilemma game and its multi-player generalizations model familiar situations in which it is difficult to get rational, selfish agents to cooperate for their common good.
- LuckyR
- Moderator
- Posts: 7935
- Joined: January 18th, 2015, 1:16 am
Re: The Fisherman
Basically the only way future generations will be able to fish is for the lake to be fished sustainably. If the other countries don't buy that argument, the fish will die out regardless of what your country does, so you could catch every single fish today, it doesn't matter, the fish will die out sooner or later.WanderingGaze22 wrote: ↑December 13th, 2021, 2:51 amNot bad, but many countries have a track record of non-cooperation. What must be done to enforce a way to maintain the fish population? Should the declaration of the fishing limits be with harsh punishment or environmental awareness?LuckyR wrote: ↑December 12th, 2021, 3:45 am
Interesting questions. The correct answer to the first one is made plain by rewording the question thusly: if you are a fisherman and you have magical powers to predict the future and you know your lake will run out of fish soon, what do you do?
The second question is much more nuanced. The best option is to diplomatically enter into an agreement with the other two countries to come up with fishing limits for each country to be able to sustain the fish population. The wealthy country can afford to fish less than your otherwise equitable share of the agreed upon limit.
-
- Posts: 223
- Joined: June 9th, 2021, 12:39 am
Re: The Fisherman
LuckyR wrote: ↑December 13th, 2021, 5:12 am Basically the only way future generations will be able to fish is for the lake to be fished sustainably. If the other countries don't buy that argument, the fish will die out regardless of what your country does, so you could catch every single fish today, it doesn't matter, the fish will die out sooner or later.
You have a point. With all the attempts made to repopulate animal species, you would think there is a way to gather saltwater fish, adapt them to a freshwater environment and maintain the population that way.
- Robert66
- Posts: 521
- Joined: April 20th, 2014, 5:13 pm
Re: The Fisherman
'Ostrom’s work was based on the principle that common resources are well managed by those communities that benefit the most from them and that their regulation should be addressed at the local level, through the farmers, communities, local authorities and NGOs. Her work showed the importance of different institutions working together, a concept echoed at Rio+20 as a necessary component in achieving sustainable development.
Ostrom’s work challenged Hardin’s approach to the “Tragedy of the Commons”, arguing that individuals and communities could manage their own collective resources. Her field research in Maine, Indonesia, Nepal and Kenya led to the development of a set of design principles which have supported effective mobilization for local management of common pool resources (CPR) in a variety of areas.
She argued that common resources are well managed when those who benefit from them the most are in close proximity to that resource. For her, the tragedy occurred when external groups exerted their power (politically, economically or socially) to gain a personal [*] advantage.[/b] She was greatly supportive of the “bottom up” approach to issues; government intervention could not be effective unless supported by individuals and communities.'
[/i]
https://wle.cgiar.org/news/elinor-ostro ... s%E2%80%9D
[Note: I believe 'personal' is the wrong word to use here - 'national' would be more appropriate.]
-
- Moderator
- Posts: 6105
- Joined: September 11th, 2016, 2:11 pm
Re: The Fisherman
What is the best way for individuals to amalgamate into special interest groups, if the tradition is absent ?Robert66 wrote: ↑December 14th, 2021, 3:48 am Or, to expand our thinking about this problem, we could read the work of Elinor Ostrom, rather than take Hardin's concept of the 'Tragedy of the Commons' as read.
'Ostrom’s work was based on the principle that common resources are well managed by those communities that benefit the most from them and that their regulation should be addressed at the local level, through the farmers, communities, local authorities and NGOs. Her work showed the importance of different institutions working together, a concept echoed at Rio+20 as a necessary component in achieving sustainable development.
Ostrom’s work challenged Hardin’s approach to the “Tragedy of the Commons”, arguing that individuals and communities could manage their own collective resources. Her field research in Maine, Indonesia, Nepal and Kenya led to the development of a set of design principles which have supported effective mobilization for local management of common pool resources (CPR) in a variety of areas.
She argued that common resources are well managed when those who benefit from them the most are in close proximity to that resource. For her, the tragedy occurred when external groups exerted their power (politically, economically or socially) to gain a personal [*] advantage.[/b] She was greatly supportive of the “bottom up” approach to issues; government intervention could not be effective unless supported by individuals and communities.'
[/i]
https://wle.cgiar.org/news/elinor-ostro ... s%E2%80%9D
[Note: I believe 'personal' is the wrong word to use here - 'national' would be more appropriate.]
- Sy Borg
- Site Admin
- Posts: 14995
- Joined: December 16th, 2013, 9:05 pm
Re: The Fisherman
The planet's dominant ape species is very good at bonding over the "sacrifices" made by prey species and food plants. That's how they progressed from caves and grass huts to skyscrapers and the ISS, despite history being littered with corrupt, incompetent and demented leaders.
However, group size matters. For instance, chimps tend to form groups no larger than 100. When the group exceeds this number, it starts to splinter, with certain in-group chimps being treated as outsiders, ie. discriminated against. Factions will form and the group will splinter. Humans manage to maintain connections with larger numbers, but we are animals and we too have our thresholds.
So we can expect war, be it cyber or physical, with such a drastically overpopulated and unsustainable population. For perspective, consider population number for great apes:
Ourangutan ...230,000
Gorillas ....... 320,000
Bonobos .......<20,000
Chimps ......< 300,000
Humans 7,913,389,000
- Robert66
- Posts: 521
- Joined: April 20th, 2014, 5:13 pm
Re: The Fisherman
I can only guess at what you mean by 'if the tradition is absent', so could you please expand on that?
I offer these thoughts for consideration (with apologies to Elinor Ostrom - RIP - it is more than 5 years since I studied her work, and I don't have time to spare now to do more than put down what I recall of her findings, and add a few thoughts of my own. The quote I used in my previous post is a good summation I think, but I would urge anyone unfamiliar with E. Ostrom to study her Nobel Prize-winning work.)
Assuming that communities, particularly first nations peoples existing within shared territories, relying on common resources, are incapable of managing those resources (hence the popular idea of "Tragedy of the commons") is in fact white mansplaining writ large. Elinor Ostrom challenged this assumption. She found that communities sharing common pool resources did manage them effectively.
Think about some of these resources - the softwood forests of North America, the fisheries of South America. Think about their condition pre- and post-European settlement, before and after the rise of the nation state, and centralised government. Yes I expect some blustery blowback: "You are talking about a lost world, of small populations and vast resources") But I urge you to think further. Who would you trust to better manage a forest or fishery, even in these times of huge human populations: a national government issuing decrees from the Capital, or the people who have lived in and around that forest for millenia, and who have handed on from generation to generation the biodiversity which is currently being squandered by dog eat dog capitalism operating through willing nation states? The national governments who order local communities to no longer catch or collect this or that species of fish, or crustacean, or mollusc - the same species that have sustained them for aeons, of which they knew intimately eg when to catch, when to leave, how to protect the nursery or habitat etc - while allowing supertrawlers to vacuum the ocean floor clean and therefore dead?
Ostrom was not arguing that national government should be abolished, and nor would I. What is needed is a devolution of power, with more decision making entrusted to local communities. I use the word 'entrusted' deliberately. Large, national government certainly has a role to play, enabling and coordinating the decisions made at the local level, but the local community should have most control over the resources it relies upon.
Thinking about Australia, which has possibly the worst record of any nation in regard to management of natural resources, it is depressing to think of how much control over resources rests with the national and state governments (we have a federation of states), and how little with the local governments. Depression deepens when considering the fact that each election brings a choice of just two major parties vying for power, each of them inclined to strip nature of the resources we will someday wish we had looked after.
I am not arguing for a lost time when small tribes lived in nature as their god intended. I have spent most of my life in Australia, and have witnessed the destruction of whole swathes of forest for woodchip (at an economic LOSS, leaving aside the environmental destruction), where fish species have been overfished to the point of extinction, while Yuin (first nation) people have been jailed for collecting abalone. I have also lived in a village in France, overlooked by a hill covered in forest, a beautiful, diverse forest with a mixture of hard and soft woods. The very same woods used in the construction of barns and dwellings in that village. The community had control of the management of that forest, and unsurprisingly - since they loved their forest dearly - they looked after it to ensure it would remain beautiful and productive.
- Sy Borg
- Site Admin
- Posts: 14995
- Joined: December 16th, 2013, 9:05 pm
Re: The Fisherman
It's a tragedy for the people and the animals and plants, and valuable knowledge about how the local environment works (or worked) is lost in a carnage. Group selection is no kinder than natural selection, it seems.
- Robert66
- Posts: 521
- Joined: April 20th, 2014, 5:13 pm
Re: The Fisherman
My posts here were intended to have 2 outcomes. 1) to show how how this idea of the "Tragedy of the commons" has been weaponised by the real culprits in this tragedy against the very peoples they could learn from, and cooperate with, and 2) to illuminate the path to a better way, via devolved government of natural resources, and increased community level responsibility. I'm thinking about solutions to the huge problems we all face, accepting that we live in the modern world. Your responses while true seem needlessly negative. Do you have anything positive to add?Sy Borg wrote: ↑December 14th, 2021, 8:51 pm It doesn't matter if connected communities cooperate for the common good if they don't develop the technology to defend their way of life. The world is littered with stories of displaced indigenous societies and the subsequent damage done to the natural environments their ancestors had lived in for millennia.
It's a tragedy for the people and the animals and plants, and valuable knowledge about how the local environment works (or worked) is lost in a carnage. Group selection is no kinder than natural selection, it seems.
2023/2024 Philosophy Books of the Month
Mark Victor Hansen, Relentless: Wisdom Behind the Incomparable Chicken Soup for the Soul
by Mitzi Perdue
February 2023
Rediscovering the Wisdom of Human Nature: How Civilization Destroys Happiness
by Chet Shupe
March 2023