Bell sums up the idea best when he talks about a plot of land owned by an entire village where everyone's sheep are allowed to graze. The idea is that a farmer realizes he can increase his flock, while at the same time every other farmer also realizes he or she can increase his or her flock. All the farmers increase their flock, there is not enough grass, the resources dry up, sheep die, and the farmers all wind up with less than they had to start with. As Bell states, "We do not act in our own interests when we act in our own interests".
The Tragedy of the Commons is not an idea that has no implications elsewhere. Bell describes a term called The Dialogue of Solidarities. The basic idea is that "sentimental commitments" can lead to a promotion of interests, even if the parties involved do not know that such a phenomenon is occurring. That flies right in the face of the "rational actor model" discussed in The Tragedy of the Commons. Sentiments can possibly promote interests, but do not reduce them. In basic terms it is the idea that people can have sentimentality towards one another and develop trust that each party will do what is necessary to satisfy the interests of each other.
The question then becomes, can we just have a dialogue of solidarities with other people? The answer is no. There are things besides other people that have interests and have a connection with interests of our own. Copy and paste the link since Youtube has decided it does not want anyone to see this video apparently:http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=6vr48K3AeTc
The basic idea is that we rely on trees to breath and control the climate, and the trees rely on us to not destroy their natural habitats. There is a Dialogue of Solidarity between humanity and trees, the speaking part just lies exclusively with the human side.
No comments:
Post a Comment