Free rider
Before I get to agreeing with the author I would like to say exactly how poorly his first point was made. How in what world in order to survive do we need to minimize our work energy output? or even to reach the optimal level of sustainability... That was just stupid... and you know what.. I think that every time I read this.
Anyways...
Yeah...
Uhm...
So...
This tragedy of the commons is also known as the free rider clause in political science. I have been in an environmental ethics course or two.. fun stuff..
So back to the assignment. I don't know how the internet can be a polluted public good. As a matter of fact I see people putting into the internet to improve it and there are no public regulations set on content. At the same time a flourishing porn industry is made all the better because of the internet but is that even like pollution? Who does it hurt? The people who wanted Big @#$@ and White @#%@% for a domain name? What would their intentions be if it wasn't for porn?
I don’t like letterers. I don't like that corporations don't have stricter regulations on them forcing them to take into the account the cost of cleanup of the environment. But then again I hate environmentalists... not in an I hate you people type of way... but for the most part their arguments can be easily deconstructed... I don’t believe in global warming. It isn't that I support this free rider behavior. I don't litter though the cost to me is greater slightly to through it away economically speaking... I myself regardless of whatever anyone else does act on principals that if I did not follow them I would let myself down. If everyone acted as such I do not think this would be such a problem. Politicians do not seem to follow this code. But imagine if they did. How much more responsible do you think they would be?
posted by Magnus UW @ 11:31 PM
1 comments
1 Comments:
Interesting, Mag. . . you are calling for what I like to refer to as responsible anarchy - almost an intuitive sense of knowing what the right thing is for people in all situations - somehow, you've been raised with an ethical outlook that leads you to do "what is right." Well, more power to you and, yes, I wish most people would operate that way, too.
As to the tragedy of the commons, I still say that Hardin's anti-green revolution has been proven wrong - partially because of the pervasive pestilence of rampant HIV in Africa and other so-called 'third world' countries. So, to attempt to apply the same analogy to the Internet - well, it's something like what all the guys developing computers in the '50s thought: Computers would forever be larger and more expensive to operate - because that was their world view of what a computer was to become. They had no concept of a small personal computer.
I'm afraid we don't know what we don't know - Nokia is now postulating that within the decade a wireless phone will have a memory chip that can hold all of the world's recorded music to date. Now THAT's something to ponder. . . if memory increases in capacity and reduces in size to that degree, what IS the tragedy here. . .?
For phone fun, check this out. . .http://www.kuow.org/defaultProgram.asp?ID=11870
Post a Comment
<< Home