http://www.rosemarierowley.ie/the-tragedy-of-the-commons-public-and-private-and-the-culture-of-waste Poet & Author Fri, 16 Apr 2010 20:21:29 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.9.2 hourly 1 http://www.rosemarierowley.ie/the-tragedy-of-the-commons-public-and-private-and-the-culture-of-waste/comment-page-1#comment-44 Barry Dennis Sun, 01 Jun 2008 22:01:45 +0000 http://www.rosemarierowley.ie/?p=11#comment-44 I share your belief, as I interpret it, of the commonality of human ownership of the world's air and water. I differ, however in the collective view of ownership of property. However, property ownership, if we state that it is right offered by our collective, carries with it necessary responsibilities for it's use, replenishment, "Zero sum" assumption of the results of a human activity, whether mining, farming, real estate development, including housing. Assume that we all start out naked; everything we add to the system, our personal "footprint", or take away, must be considered Zero Sum in that our collective society's health now and in the future, requires it. Economists could relatively agree on the "birth cost" of a new human, and create a license therefore. Such license, like a Carbon Allowance Grant" would assist in determining whether the use of resources can be managed, what it will cost, and how it is to be paid for. We are not far away from the Malthusian "tipping point" of too much population competing for too few resources. This is why I differ with you on the capitalism part of the consideration of resources. There is a pathway which will allow the use of resources at some cost equilibrium, but that path is one of population control. Without it we are allowing nature to set a course of starvation, disease, "die off" and species "crash" from which many will not recover. Teaching food sufficiency to each and eery country and citizen are necessary; teaching and practicing 100 percent recycling, end-to-end is a necessity; even more, highest value recycling must be the target. It is possible that things like trash to energy projects are the lowest possible use of resources, where otherwise end-to-end recycling might add more to the equation. Studies are being considered which will determine for copper, say, the resource recovery cost level which justifies end-to-end recycling. Even beyond that calculation is the one which determines that so additional sources of copper are available at any price, therefore what is the lowest-cost substitute for a particular usage. Which leads to the final equation; what is the highest value usage of any one particular resource? If oil is use for gasoline, but has a higher value in lubrication, shouldn't we "save" oil production for that highest value usage? And so on. Keep up your thoughtful analysis of the human condition; however I hope you also keep in mind the potential alternatives to the disasters that we may see without a total species commitment to our survival, and the use of human ingenuity to solve problems, which we ourselves create. The Future of Capitalism, my own construct, deals with marshalling the creative good of entrepreneurial endeavor to analyze, design, create and manage the processes of industrialization, society and commercialization to achieve solutions for us all. Our society shouldn't be run by environmental economists, but they should definitely play the leading advisory role. I share your belief, as I interpret it, of the commonality of human ownership of the world’s air and water. I differ, however in the collective view of ownership of property. However, property ownership, if we state that it is right offered by our collective, carries with it necessary responsibilities for it’s use, replenishment, “Zero sum” assumption of the results of a human activity, whether mining, farming, real estate development, including housing. Assume that we all start out naked; everything we add to the system, our personal “footprint”, or take away, must be considered Zero Sum in that our collective society’s health now and in the future, requires it.
Economists could relatively agree on the “birth cost” of a new human, and create a license therefore. Such license, like a Carbon Allowance Grant” would assist in determining whether the use of resources can be managed, what it will cost, and how it is to be paid for.
We are not far away from the Malthusian “tipping point” of too much population competing for too few resources.
This is why I differ with you on the capitalism part of the consideration of resources. There is a pathway which will allow the use of resources at some cost equilibrium, but that path is one of population control. Without it we are allowing nature to set a course of starvation, disease, “die off” and species “crash” from which many will not recover.
Teaching food sufficiency to each and eery country and citizen are necessary; teaching and practicing 100 percent recycling, end-to-end is a necessity; even more, highest value recycling must be the target. It is possible that things like trash to energy projects are the lowest possible use of resources, where otherwise end-to-end recycling might add more to the equation.
Studies are being considered which will determine for copper, say, the resource recovery cost level which justifies end-to-end recycling. Even beyond that calculation is the one which determines that so additional sources of copper are available at any price, therefore what is the lowest-cost substitute for a particular usage.
Which leads to the final equation; what is the highest value usage of any one particular resource? If oil is use for gasoline, but has a higher value in lubrication, shouldn’t
we “save” oil production for that highest value usage?
And so on.
Keep up your thoughtful analysis of the human condition; however I hope you also keep in mind the potential alternatives to the disasters that we may see without a total species commitment to our survival, and the use of human ingenuity to solve problems, which we ourselves create.
The Future of Capitalism, my own construct, deals with marshalling the creative good of entrepreneurial endeavor to analyze, design, create and manage the processes of industrialization, society and commercialization to achieve solutions for us all.
Our society shouldn’t be run by environmental economists, but they should definitely play the leading advisory role.

]]>