Quotessence
Home / Quotes / Quote by Wikipedia Contributors

Quote by Wikipedia Contributors

“Wikipedia: Tragedy of the commons In economic science, the tragedy of the commons is a situation in which individual users, who have open access to a resource unhampered by shared social structures or formal rules that govern access and use, act independently according to their own self-interest and, contrary to the common good of all users, cause depletion of the resource through their uncoordinated action. The concept originated in an essay written in 1833 by the British economist William Forster Lloyd, who used a hypothetical example of the effects of unregulated grazing on common land (also known as a "common") in Great Britain and Ireland. The concept became widely known as the "tragedy of the commons" over a century later after an article written by Garrett Hardin in 1968.”

Quote by Wikipedia Contributors

Create image

Author

Wikipedia Contributors

Browse famous quotes and profile details for Wikipedia Contributors. more

You May Also Like

“Page 143: There is no use either in cherishing illusions as to the practical consequences of a system in which political power and control of economic production and distribution are irrevocably delegated to, or conferred upon, the same persons. In so far s the state absorbs and distributes a larger and larger portion of the public wealth, the leaders of the ruling class come to possess greater and greater facilities for influencing and commanding their subordinates, and more and more easily evade control by anybody.”

SocialismMarket Dominant MinorityWealty Socialists
Book:The Ruling Class
Create image

“Page 43: Natural selection is a multilevel process that operates among groups in addition to among individuals within groups. Any unit becomes endowed with the properties inherent in the word organism to the degree that it is a unit of selection. The history of life on earth has been marked by many transitions from groups of organisms to groups as organisms. Organismic groups achieve their unity with mechanisms that suppress selection within without themselves being overtly altruistic. Human evolution falls within the paradigm of multilevel selection and the major transitions of life. Moral systems provide many of the mechanisms that enable human groups to function as adaptive units.”

Evolutionary PsychologyGroup Selection
Book:Darwin's Cathedral: Evolution, Religion, and the Nature of Society
Create image

“LOVE THY NEIGHBOR The Evolution of In-Group Morality By John Hartung January 1995 Skeptic 3(4) The world's major religions espouse a moral code that includes injunctions against murder, theft, and lying — or so conventional 19th- and 20th-century Western wisdom would have it. Evidence put forth here argues that this convention is a conceit which does not apply to the West's own religious foundations. In particular, rules against murder, theft, and lying codified by the Ten Commandments were intended to apply only within a cooperating group for the purpose of enabling that group to compete successfully against other groups. In addition, this in-group morality has functioned, both historically and by express intent, to create adverse circumstances between groups by actively promoting murder, theft, and lying as tools of competition. Contemporary efforts to present Judeo-Christian in-group morality as universal morality defy the plain meaning of the texts upon which Judaism and Christianity are based. Accordingly, that effort is ultimately hopeless.”

Evolutionary PsychologyPsychology Of ReligionGroup Selection
Author:John Hartung
Create image

“Conway Zirkle and the Persistence of "Marxian Biology" in the Western Social Sciences" by J.W. Jamieson There can be no doubt that the influence of those who oppose the application of the findings of biological and genetic research to the understanding of human social behavior was greatly enhanced by the temporary fashion for "Social Darwinism" at the turn of the century, with its erroneous emphasis upon individual competition in evolution to the exclusion of group competition. Social Darwinists did not see that cooperation within the group enhanced the competitiveness of the group in its struggle for survival against other groups - and that altruism and loyalty were powerful forces for the survival of the group, race or lineage. The fact that altruism has survival value, when practiced in favor of members of the altruist's own gene pool, was not apparent to the Social Darwinists, who did not fully realize that from the evolutionary point of view it is the gene pool, the race or lineage which is important, not the individual per se. This defect in primitive Social Darwinists thinking made it easier for Marxian social philosophers to downplay the significance of biological forces to the human social system and to promote instead their own distorted concepts of direct genetic subordination to environmental forces.”

EvolutionEugenicsGroup SelectionNature Nurture
Author:J.W. Jamieson
Create image

“We can now apply our lessons from our discussion of multilevel selection: if there are two levels of selection operating on a moral rule, then the strength of the different selective pressures will be critical in determining which of the two is more influential. If cultural competition decreases or moderates, then we can expect INDIVIDUAL-level selection to be a much stronger determinant. An interesting hypothesis thus emerges: if cultural evolution is genuinely multilevel in this way, then in eras of decreased GROUP competition, public justification of a rule should be a much stronger force in a rule's selection as it is competing for individual agents' endorsement against alternative rules. On the other hand, in eras of intense inter-group competition, we should expect that rules are not well-aligned with the moral commitment of individuals, but which are selected at the group level, may predominate. This in turn, leads to another important point. In multilevel analysis, effective high-level GROUP selection inherently restraints lower-level INDIVIDUAL selection. There really is no point to invoking higher-level selection if it does not. In the evolution of cooperation literature, the point of invoking a GROUP-level selection is to restrain the success of INDIVIDUAL (selfish) agents so that within-group less adaptive, cooperative agents can thrive. A mammal can be seen as a case of GROUP-level selection, insofar as the possible strategies of individual cells are constrained by the adaptive needs of the GROUP (individual mammal). A cancer cell is precisely a part that has broken free of these restraints, and because of this threatens ultimately system collapse. We might say, in a rough and ready way, that restricting the social influence of INDIVIDUAL-level preferences (in which a rule's within group fitness is determined by its attractiveness to individuals) in order to secure system-wide functionality is precisely what GROUP selection accomplishes. If GROUP-level pressures are great, the rules will be less responsive to the aims of the INDIVIDUAL agents, and indeed significantly restricting their actions will be critical to the culture's success. When GROUP-level selection is strong, it is entirely appropriate to call a culture a 'superorganism.' In such a culture, rules will tend to be more restrictive, and public justification may be less important”

IndividualRulesGroupGroup SelectionMulti Level SelectionOrganismmorality
Book:The Open Society and Its Complexities
Create image

“Hamilton's original contribution was to realize that indirect fitness effects impact upon the purpose of adaptation. The basic condition for natural selection to favor any trait is that the individuals who carry genes for this trait are, on average, fitter than those who do not. However, the adaptations that subsequently evolve are not designed for maximizing the individual's personal fitness, but rather her inclusive fitness, i.e., the sum of all the fitness effects that she has on all of her genetic relatives, each increment or decrement being weighted by the corresponding coefficient of genetic relatedness (Hamilton 1964). In other words, the adaptive agent remains the same as in the traditional Darwinian view (i.e., the individual organism), but the adaptive agenda is changed. This idea has subsequently been formalized by Grafen (2006), who has shown the mathematical connection between the dynamics of natural selection and an optimization program in whih the individual strives to maximize her inclusive fitness, for a wide class of models, including those that allow for social interaction between relatives. Grafen A. 2006. Optimization of inclusive fitness. J Theor Biol 238: 541-563. Hamilton WD. 1964. The genetical evolution of social behaviour I & II. J Theor Biol 7: 1-52.”

Inclusive Fitness
Book:From Groups to Individuals: Evolution and Emerging Individuality
Create image