On Mar 1, 2019, at 9:37 PM, Damon LaBarbera wrote
A contrary view would
be like that of Adam Smith's in Wealth Of Nations. Individuals
pursuing self interest create growth, efficiency, and utility. This
is Smith's "invisible hand". "It is
not from the benevolence of the butcher, the brewer, or the baker that we
expect our dinner, but from their regard to their own interest."
From that view, better
to vote for a candidate narrowly supportive of our most valued plank,
rather than try to benevolently vote for a candidate for the greater good. In
the economy of ideas, we will be more efficient at achieving our goals.
Gregory DeClue write in response
This is in response to
A contrary view would be like that of Adam Smith's in Wealth
Of Nations. Individuals pursuing self interest create growth,
efficiency, and utility. This is Smith's "invisible hand".
"It is not from the benevolence of the butcher, the brewer, or the
baker that we expect our dinner, but from their regard to their own
interest."
Dr. DeClue wrote
“The Tragedy of the Commons argued that global
human population was on a path of unsustainable growth through the use of a
parable of over-grazing of livestock on common land (Hardin,
1968). The concept of ‘the tragedy of the
commons’ largely assumes that individuals are solely motivated by
self-interest, an assumotion increasingly at odds with insights across the
social sciences (Van Vugt, 2009). The
original article, and idea of the tragedy, has had a profound influence on
science and policy across all environmental issues. In the five decades since
its publication, a concerted scientific response by multiple disciplines,
synthesised in Elinor Ostrom
(1990), has deepened the analysis of the causes
of environmental overexploitation. Such work has documented commons dilemmas
and assembled evidence that collective action can be mobilized at various
scales to avoid tragedies in population, in overfishing, in resource
consumption, and in land degradation. Many argue, however, that global climate
change represents the ultimate Hardin-style tragedy: the global commons of the
atmosphere cannot realistically be enclosed or effectively managed, and power
asymmetries and concentrated benefits from fossil fuel use mean that
irreversible thresholds will be crossed before the costs are fully realised (Jamieson,
2014).
“Yet this pervasive framing of climate change as a commons tragedy
limits how we confront the climate challenge. Insights from two key areas of
political and behavioural sciences are expanding the potential solution space
by highlighting how climate change is a dilemma of decision-making and moral
values rather than simply a global resource – or global commons – tragedy.
First, collective decision-making is as much about managing risks to political
systems and their legitimacy, so-called second order risks, as it is about
managing the physical and material risks of climate change as documented by
science. Second, emerging psychology research demonstrates the range of moral
underpinnings that can be mobilised for effective collection action on climate
change. These insights shift emphasis away from a commons tragedy to more
complex set of governance challenges.”
This is the work for which Elinor Ostrum won the Nobel Prize in
Economic Sciences (the first woman so honored).
And here is the pamphlet that laid out the problem in 1968: https://pages.mtu.edu/~asmayer/rural_sustain/governance/Hardin%201968.pdf
Hardin’s work showed why the “invisible hand” would not protect
people and the world from anthropogenic climate disruption; Ostrum showed how
the tragedy can be averted; and Brown et al.’s work explores how psychological
research can help humans move from maladaptive to adaptive world views and
behavior patterns.
Best,
Greg
Damon
LaBarbera
Mar
4 at 7:25 PM
I think the Europeans
of the day had similarly rigorous ideas of nature. Theirs was not a safe and
cuddly natural world. Von Humboldt's contemporary writing exemplified the
unsentimentally dangerous aspect of the wild world. We are very sentimental.
Think of Goethe's depiction of the forest in Erlenkonig, or in our own day, the
depiction of the forest in the movie Witch. Nor was John Muir a particularly
sentimental person.
I mentioned in a
previous post that there is indeed much cooperation between humans, and much
altruistic behavior. But the harmony is more apparent than real. The focussed
hostility is to every other species. Exceptions exist--fondness for dogs may be
due to the role dogs played in furthering the interests of humans over other
species. The altruism amongst people, refreshing amidst so much discord,
does not alter that humans are singularly cruel and destructive to most other
species. And those species vie with us in turn, though, in a sense bringing a
knife to a gun fight. In any case, the invisible hand that guides our conquest
of the wild world yields as much destruction as do the forces of unbridled
economic greed and industry.
Alfie Kohn is
interesting reading along these lines--discussion of cooperation versus
competition in education.
Thanks
John Auerbach writes
As far as I understand this, nature has a variety of examples of
inter species cooperation, and there are numerous examples of intraspecies
competition. Certainly, as any sports fan tell you, these can easily be found
among humans. For example, Garrett Hardin’s essay about the tragedy of the
commons is about the temptation to create what economists call negative
externalities.
That said, according to the Wikipedia page on Hardin, his ideas
on how commons actually work have come under considerable critique. I have not
chased down the references to see what I think of the counter arguments.
No doubt these are strong arguments. But as far as I understand
this, however, many American mammals were hunted to extinction by Native
Americans long before Europeans, with their notions of private property and
their more exploitative attitude toward nature, arrived to hasten the
extinction process, so I suspect that managing common resources is very
difficult indeed.
That said, Hardin’s Wikipedia page also says he became an ally
of racists and white nationalists: very disturbing indeed. One can have
neomalthusian views above population control, as Hardin did, and not become a
racist or a white nationalist, but this appears to have been Hardin’s
trajectory in life.
John S. Auerbach, PhD
John S. Auerbach, PhD
Sent from my iPhone
Damon LaBarbera
"The concept of ‘the tragedy
of the commons’ largely assumes that individuals are solely motivated by
self-interest, an assumotion increasingly at odds with insights across the social sciences (Van
Vugt, 2009). "
No
doubt there is much cooperation between people and groups. However, consider
that competition occurs between species rather than between humans. E.O.
Wilson, amongst others I am sure, makes this point repeatedly. We are ruthless
with other animals. Across species, Hardin's argument works.
As you
note, collective action might be useful to mobilize resources to combat climate
change. My perception is that change has to primarily occur at an individual
level--some heightened awareness. Perhaps one good of marijuana
legalization is that it may bring some into a closer connection with nature.
(See Double Rainbow video on YouTube)
Question:
Are Garrett Hardin's ideas aging well? I think he would run afoul of current
controversies on immigration.
Thanks,
Damon
John Auerbach
Agreed
on Garrett Hardin's Tragedy of the Commons. I had not wanted to trot out
that particular reference, just because I thought it was too hard to explain
briefly, although it is an entirely appropriate reference for the limitations
of the Invisible Hand.
Gregory DeClue, Ph.D., ABPP (forensic)
16443 Winburn Place
Sarasota, FL 34240-9228
phone 941-951-6674
gregdeclue@me.com
http://gregdeclue.myakkatech.com
16443 Winburn Place
Sarasota, FL 34240-9228
phone 941-951-6674
gregdeclue@me.com
http://gregdeclue.myakkatech.com
I neglected to provide any examples of this part.
Third, if there’s anyone you’re unsure about, explore the
record, including recordings, of how they respond when asked whether they
support the general outline included in The Green New Deal.
Here you go:
Greg
It is for me, Steve.
I have three broad suggestions for
operationalizing it.
One is my agreement with how Jim
Hightower phrases it: Everybody’s better off when everybody’s better off.
(Would this person’s policies tend to increase, or decrease, income
inequality and wealth inequality. We don’t have to all be equal, of
course, but the more disparity there is the less stable I expect the country to
be.)
A second is: We only have one
planet. I would not support any politician whose policies would not
include very ambitious plans to drastically change policies and practices that
are on track to alter this planet from the type of planet that humans and other
living creatures have adapted to thrive on.
Third, if there’s anyone you’re unsure
about, explore the record, including recordings, of how they respond when asked
whether they support the general outline included in The Green New Deal.
Obviously, different people will value
different things. Some people may prefer greater, rather than lesser,
disparity in income and wealth. And some people don’t care whether the
planet degrades over the coming decades and centuries. But for those who,
like me, want people and the planet to thrive over the coming decades and
centuries, it’s really not hard to decide which politicians are with us and
which are not.
Best,
Greg
Gregory DeClue, Ph.D., ABPP (forensic)
16443 Winburn Place
Sarasota, FL 34240-9228
phone 941-951-6674
gregdeclue@me.com
http://gregdeclue.myakkatech.com
16443 Winburn Place
Sarasota, FL 34240-9228
phone 941-951-6674
gregdeclue@me.com
http://gregdeclue.myakkatech.com
On Feb 27, 2019, at 2:28 PM, Stephen
Bloomfield <drstevebloomfield@GMAIL.COM>
wrote:
On Mar 2, 2019, at 6:01 PM, John Auerbach <00000224c9c1aebb-dmarc-request@lists.apapractice.org> wrote:
I think I
will note that there might be some limitations to Adam Smith’s “invisible
hand.” Mind you, I have never read The Wealth of Nations, and
indeed very few people have, even economists, because it is a sprawling,
800-page work, so I can have any opinion I like. Still, it is unlikely
that a world of entirely self-interested persons will necessarily or even most
of the time produce the best possible outcome. It would be perverse, for
example, to claim that all of us were in a helping profession solely for the
money. Mind you, I am not saying that no self-interest is involved,
otherwise we would not be seeking payment for our work, but (a) there are far
more lucrative employments in the universe and (b) it starts to stretch the
concept of “self-interest” beyond all recognition to say that the only or main
reason any of us desire to help others is that so doing serves our individual
interests (e.g., for recognition by others, for self-approval, etc.).
Additionally, there are numerous examples in nature of nonhuman animals
engaging altruistic behavior that would not be predicted by simple
self-interest theories (e.g., inclusive fitness, reciprocal altruism).
Mainly, however, my view is shaped by the great theorists Peter and
Gordon (actually, by John and Paul, who were the writers of the song), who
famously said, “I don’t care what they say/I won’t stay in a world without
love.” Okay, maybe it’s not my most rigorous comment, but I think a world
governed only by self-interest and not also by connections to others is
ultimately a world of either schizoid isolation or unbridled rapacity.
Either way, much though I am, or can be, as self-interested as the next
person is, I am not interested in political candidates who do not share my
values of justice, equality, connection to others, and protection of the only
planet that has so far proved capable of being our home. I am not saying
that I do not also value individual freedom, or liberty, because I most
assuredly do; I am just saying that my freedom, liberty, and personhood exist
in the context of those things for everyone else and, per Hegel, cannot exist
unless recognized by everyone else.
On Mar 1,
2019, at 9:37 PM, Damon LaBarbera <00000773cca468bb-dmarc-request@LISTS.APAPRACTICE.ORG>
wrote:
A contrary view would be like that of Adam Smith's
in Wealth Of Nations. Individuals pursuing self
interest create growth, efficiency, and utility. This is Smith's
"invisible hand". "It is
not from the benevolence of the butcher, the brewer, or the baker that we
expect our dinner, but from their regard to their own interest."
From that view, better to vote for a
candidate narrowly supportive of our most valued plank, rather than try to
benevolently vote for a candidate for the greater good. In the economy of
ideas, we will be more efficient at achieving our goals.
On
Friday, March 1, 2019, 1:22:45 PM CST, Gregory DeClue <gregdeclue@MAILMT.COM> wrote:
I neglected to provide any
examples of this part.
Third, if there’s anyone you’re
unsure about, explore the record, including recordings, of how they respond
when asked whether they support the general outline included in The Green New
Deal.
Here you go:
Greg
On Feb 27, 2019, at 3:43 PM,
Gregory DeClue <gregdeclue@mailmt.com> wrote:
It is for me, Steve.
I have three broad suggestions
for operationalizing it.
One is my agreement with how Jim
Hightower phrases it: Everybody’s better off when everybody’s better off.
(Would this person’s policies tend to increase, or decrease, income
inequality and wealth inequality. We don’t have to all be equal, of
course, but the more disparity there is the less stable I expect the country to
be.)
A second is: We only have
one planet. I would not support any politician whose policies would not
include very ambitious plans to drastically change policies and practices that are
on track to alter this planet from the type of planet that humans and other
living creatures have adapted to thrive on.
Third, if there’s anyone you’re
unsure about, explore the record, including recordings, of how they respond
when asked whether they support the general outline included in The Green New
Deal.
Obviously, different people will
value different things. Some people may prefer greater, rather than
lesser, disparity in income and wealth. And some people don’t care
whether the planet degrades over the coming decades and centuries. But
for those who, like me, want people and the planet to thrive over the coming
decades and centuries, it’s really not hard to decide which politicians are
with us and which are not.
Best,
Greg
