Copy Link
Add to Bookmark
Report
Netizens-Digest Volume 1 Number 501
Netizens-Digest Wednesday, April 16 2003 Volume 01 : Number 501
Netizens Association Discussion List Digest
In this issue:
[netz] "The Tragedy of The Commons"
Re: [netz] "The Tragedy of The Commons"
Re: [netz] "The Tragedy of The Commons"
[netz] Malthus was wrong (was) "The Tragedy of The Commons"
Re: [netz] Malthus was wrong (was) "The Tragedy of The Commons"
Re: [netz] Malthus was wrong (was) "The Tragedy of The Commons"
Re: [netz] Malthus was wrong (was) "The Tragedy of The Commons"
Re: [netz] Malthus was wrong (was) "The Tragedy of The Commons"
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Wed, 16 Apr 2003 08:51:13 -0400
From: Luis De Quesada <lgd1@columbia.edu>
Subject: [netz] "The Tragedy of The Commons"
Hello: One of the things that concern me about this article by Hardin is
that it seems to spouse some sort of population control: "A finite world
can support only a finite population; therefore, population growth must
eventually equal zero". Even though one cannot ignore population growth
such as in places like China, India, etc. I think this is a dangerous
concept by Hardin. I think he has provided people like Milosevic and
others with valid justification for their actions. Also particularly
troubling is "freedom in a commons brings ruin to all", is something
that Sadam Hussein and other tyrants, including some in embryo here,
love to hear.
Even though I realize that this article produces some challenging and
interesting concepts, it can provide tyrants with excuses to justify
their awful ways.
Luis de Quesada
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 16 Apr 2003 10:34:48 -0400
From: Mark Lindeman <lindeman@bard.edu>
Subject: Re: [netz] "The Tragedy of The Commons"
Lou,
>Hello: One of the things that concern me about this article by Hardin is
>that it seems to spouse some sort of population control: "A finite world
>can support only a finite population; therefore, population growth must
>eventually equal zero". [...]
>
Yes, you've put your finger on one of the chief reasons why this essay
remains controversial. (Two, in fact, with your reference to "freedom
in a commons brings ruin to all.") Critics of the environmental
movement often point to Hardin (and Paul Ehrlich's book _The Population
Bomb_) to argue that the movement is racist, people-hating, and/or
authoritarian.
Mark
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 16 Apr 2003 10:17:01 -0400
From: Luis De Quesada <lgd1@columbia.edu>
Subject: Re: [netz] "The Tragedy of The Commons"
Hello Mark: Thank you for your encouraging words. Now I am certain I'm on the
right track. I am a believer in the human race and I think we will find ways
to conquer whatever challenges affect us in effective ways that are also
humane and I pray that this great nation of ours will always be a leader in
implementing them, no matter what our present and future shortcomings might
be.
Take care,
Luis
Mark Lindeman wrote:
> Lou,
>
> >Hello: One of the things that concern me about this article by Hardin is
> >that it seems to spouse some sort of population control: "A finite world
> >can support only a finite population; therefore, population growth must
> >eventually equal zero". [...]
> >
> Yes, you've put your finger on one of the chief reasons why this essay
> remains controversial. (Two, in fact, with your reference to "freedom
> in a commons brings ruin to all.") Critics of the environmental
> movement often point to Hardin (and Paul Ehrlich's book _The Population
> Bomb_) to argue that the movement is racist, people-hating, and/or
> authoritarian.
>
> Mark
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 16 Apr 2003 12:42:45 -0400
From: "Howard C. Berkowitz" <hcb@gettcomm.com>
Subject: [netz] Malthus was wrong (was) "The Tragedy of The Commons"
At 10:17 AM -0400 4/16/03, Luis De Quesada wrote:
>Hello Mark: Thank you for your encouraging words. Now I am certain I'm on the
>right track. I am a believer in the human race and I think we will find ways
>to conquer whatever challenges affect us in effective ways that are also
>humane and I pray that this great nation of ours will always be a leader in
>implementing them, no matter what our present and future shortcomings might
>be.
>Take care,
>Luis
>
>Mark Lindeman wrote:
>
>> Lou,
>>
>> >Hello: One of the things that concern me about this article by Hardin is
>> >that it seems to spouse some sort of population control: "A finite world
>> >can support only a finite population; therefore, population growth must
>> >eventually equal zero". [...]
>> >
>> Yes, you've put your finger on one of the chief reasons why this essay
>> remains controversial. (Two, in fact, with your reference to "freedom
>> in a commons brings ruin to all.") Critics of the environmental
>> movement often point to Hardin (and Paul Ehrlich's book _The Population
>> Bomb_) to argue that the movement is racist, people-hating, and/or
>> authoritarian.
>>
>> Mark
We know that one dismal prophet of population collapse, Malthus, was
wrong in that he did not consider technological improvements in
agriculture, agricultural distribution, etc.
We are by no means suggesting anything as extreme as population
control for the Internet and Netizens. Nevertheless, when we are
dealing with relatively short-term issues such as lessening the
digital divide, we are going to have to deal with some resource
scarcity. We also can't rely on end users voluntarily limiting their
resource consumption so more people can get access to the finite
resources.
I keep coming back to saying that yes, it is good to have hope in the
human race and the human race will find solutions. My concern is
finding implementable solutions in a short time frame, and finding
such solutions always requires compromise and balancing resources,
price, cost and consumption.
Personal, subjective, and emotional response: I want to find problem
solutions, and general statements about the goodness of man, without
economic and engineering detail, don't help me move in that
direction. I urge Netizens to offer proposals for such detail.
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 16 Apr 2003 12:55:37 -0400
From: Luis De Quesada <lgd1@columbia.edu>
Subject: Re: [netz] Malthus was wrong (was) "The Tragedy of The Commons"
Hello Howard: I am relieved that you recognize that Malthus was wrong, because he
did not consider improvements in agricultural technology. But you have valid
concerns in finding implementable solutions to the problems facing the net. I have
no educated answer to give you right now, but I think it would be helpful to read
what Michael Hauben wrote regarding these problems.
Take care,
Luis
"Howard C. Berkowitz" wrote:
> At 10:17 AM -0400 4/16/03, Luis De Quesada wrote:
> >Hello Mark: Thank you for your encouraging words. Now I am certain I'm on the
> >right track. I am a believer in the human race and I think we will find ways
> >to conquer whatever challenges affect us in effective ways that are also
> >humane and I pray that this great nation of ours will always be a leader in
> >implementing them, no matter what our present and future shortcomings might
> >be.
> >Take care,
> >Luis
> >
> >Mark Lindeman wrote:
> >
> >> Lou,
> >>
> >> >Hello: One of the things that concern me about this article by Hardin is
> >> >that it seems to spouse some sort of population control: "A finite world
> >> >can support only a finite population; therefore, population growth must
> >> >eventually equal zero". [...]
> >> >
> >> Yes, you've put your finger on one of the chief reasons why this essay
> >> remains controversial. (Two, in fact, with your reference to "freedom
> >> in a commons brings ruin to all.") Critics of the environmental
> >> movement often point to Hardin (and Paul Ehrlich's book _The Population
> >> Bomb_) to argue that the movement is racist, people-hating, and/or
> >> authoritarian.
> >>
> >> Mark
>
> We know that one dismal prophet of population collapse, Malthus, was
> wrong in that he did not consider technological improvements in
> agriculture, agricultural distribution, etc.
>
> We are by no means suggesting anything as extreme as population
> control for the Internet and Netizens. Nevertheless, when we are
> dealing with relatively short-term issues such as lessening the
> digital divide, we are going to have to deal with some resource
> scarcity. We also can't rely on end users voluntarily limiting their
> resource consumption so more people can get access to the finite
> resources.
>
> I keep coming back to saying that yes, it is good to have hope in the
> human race and the human race will find solutions. My concern is
> finding implementable solutions in a short time frame, and finding
> such solutions always requires compromise and balancing resources,
> price, cost and consumption.
>
> Personal, subjective, and emotional response: I want to find problem
> solutions, and general statements about the goodness of man, without
> economic and engineering detail, don't help me move in that
> direction. I urge Netizens to offer proposals for such detail.
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 16 Apr 2003 14:02:26 -0400
From: "Howard C. Berkowitz" <hcb@gettcomm.com>
Subject: Re: [netz] Malthus was wrong (was) "The Tragedy of The Commons"
>Hello Howard: I am relieved that you recognize that Malthus was
>wrong, because he
>did not consider improvements in agricultural technology. But you have valid
>concerns in finding implementable solutions to the problems facing
>the net. I have
>no educated answer to give you right now, but I think it would be
>helpful to read
>what Michael Hauben wrote regarding these problems.
>Take care,
>Luis
Luis, I have read what Michael has said. They are useful as broad
policy goals, but they aren't at the level of detail to propose
solutions that are both feasible engineering and can be funded within
existing financial systems. I see creating that next level of detail
as the logical progression built on Michael's work, but all the
answers are not contained in Michael's writing. Otherwise, why have a
list with the presumed goal of finding solutions for Netizens?
I have been posting quite a number of things that I see as starting
points for substantive discussion, but I sometimes get responses that
just say "go back and read what Michael wrote." I just don't find
that sufficient to make progress. New thought, complementing
Michael's, not contradicting him, remains necessary.
>
>"Howard C. Berkowitz" wrote:
>
>> At 10:17 AM -0400 4/16/03, Luis De Quesada wrote:
>> >Hello Mark: Thank you for your encouraging words. Now I am
>>certain I'm on the
>> >right track. I am a believer in the human race and I think we
>>will find ways
>> >to conquer whatever challenges affect us in effective ways that are also
>> >humane and I pray that this great nation of ours will always be a leader in
>> >implementing them, no matter what our present and future shortcomings might
>> >be.
>> >Take care,
>> >Luis
>> >
>> >Mark Lindeman wrote:
>> >
>> >> Lou,
>> >>
>> >> >Hello: One of the things that concern me about this article
>>by Hardin is
>> >> >that it seems to spouse some sort of population control: "A
>>finite world
>> >> >can support only a finite population; therefore, population growth must
>> >> >eventually equal zero". [...]
>> >> >
>> >> Yes, you've put your finger on one of the chief reasons why this essay
>> >> remains controversial. (Two, in fact, with your reference to "freedom
>> >> in a commons brings ruin to all.") Critics of the environmental
>> >> movement often point to Hardin (and Paul Ehrlich's book _The Population
>> >> Bomb_) to argue that the movement is racist, people-hating, and/or
>> >> authoritarian.
>> >>
>> >> Mark
>>
>> We know that one dismal prophet of population collapse, Malthus, was
>> wrong in that he did not consider technological improvements in
>> agriculture, agricultural distribution, etc.
>>
>> We are by no means suggesting anything as extreme as population
>> control for the Internet and Netizens. Nevertheless, when we are
>> dealing with relatively short-term issues such as lessening the
>> digital divide, we are going to have to deal with some resource
>> scarcity. We also can't rely on end users voluntarily limiting their
>> resource consumption so more people can get access to the finite
>> resources.
>>
>> I keep coming back to saying that yes, it is good to have hope in the
>> human race and the human race will find solutions. My concern is
>> finding implementable solutions in a short time frame, and finding
>> such solutions always requires compromise and balancing resources,
>> price, cost and consumption.
>>
>> Personal, subjective, and emotional response: I want to find problem
>> solutions, and general statements about the goodness of man, without
>> economic and engineering detail, don't help me move in that
>> direction. I urge Netizens to offer proposals for such detail.
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 16 Apr 2003 14:41:23 -0400
From: Luis De Quesada <lgd1@columbia.edu>
Subject: Re: [netz] Malthus was wrong (was) "The Tragedy of The Commons"
Hello Howard: I see exactly what you mean and you are right in trying to find
solutions that are feasible and implementable. This means a lot of research must be
done and perhaps good ideas and answers can be found in the works of others. I
noticed that you have written a few books about similar subjects. You recently made
a very good analysis for me about cable tv, it covered some of the basics in
maintenance costs of cable and other interesting data. To be honest with you I don't
think we're going to find fast solutions to these problems. I think the road ahead
is longer than expected to make the case against the privatization of the
infrastructure of the internet? I hope I'm using the correct terminology. It may
very well be that total privatization is unavoidable?
But I have to confess that everytime I see my cable tv bill I can't help but
remember the times when TV was almost free, you still had to pay for the
electricity, though.
Through research and discussion we maybe be able to find viable solutions for these
problems.I think the struggle is well worth it so we can save ourselves and our
fellow man from paying one yet another bill, for something that was virtually free
or low cost?
Take care,
Luis
"Howard C. Berkowitz" wrote:
> >Hello Howard: I am relieved that you recognize that Malthus was
> >wrong, because he
> >did not consider improvements in agricultural technology. But you have valid
> >concerns in finding implementable solutions to the problems facing
> >the net. I have
> >no educated answer to give you right now, but I think it would be
> >helpful to read
> >what Michael Hauben wrote regarding these problems.
> >Take care,
> >Luis
>
> Luis, I have read what Michael has said. They are useful as broad
> policy goals, but they aren't at the level of detail to propose
> solutions that are both feasible engineering and can be funded within
> existing financial systems. I see creating that next level of detail
> as the logical progression built on Michael's work, but all the
> answers are not contained in Michael's writing. Otherwise, why have a
> list with the presumed goal of finding solutions for Netizens?
>
> I have been posting quite a number of things that I see as starting
> points for substantive discussion, but I sometimes get responses that
> just say "go back and read what Michael wrote." I just don't find
> that sufficient to make progress. New thought, complementing
> Michael's, not contradicting him, remains necessary.
>
> >
> >"Howard C. Berkowitz" wrote:
> >
> >> At 10:17 AM -0400 4/16/03, Luis De Quesada wrote:
> >> >Hello Mark: Thank you for your encouraging words. Now I am
> >>certain I'm on the
> >> >right track. I am a believer in the human race and I think we
> >>will find ways
> >> >to conquer whatever challenges affect us in effective ways that are also
> >> >humane and I pray that this great nation of ours will always be a leader in
> >> >implementing them, no matter what our present and future shortcomings might
> >> >be.
> >> >Take care,
> >> >Luis
> >> >
> >> >Mark Lindeman wrote:
> >> >
> >> >> Lou,
> >> >>
> >> >> >Hello: One of the things that concern me about this article
> >>by Hardin is
> >> >> >that it seems to spouse some sort of population control: "A
> >>finite world
> >> >> >can support only a finite population; therefore, population growth must
> >> >> >eventually equal zero". [...]
> >> >> >
> >> >> Yes, you've put your finger on one of the chief reasons why this essay
> >> >> remains controversial. (Two, in fact, with your reference to "freedom
> >> >> in a commons brings ruin to all.") Critics of the environmental
> >> >> movement often point to Hardin (and Paul Ehrlich's book _The Population
> >> >> Bomb_) to argue that the movement is racist, people-hating, and/or
> >> >> authoritarian.
> >> >>
> >> >> Mark
> >>
> >> We know that one dismal prophet of population collapse, Malthus, was
> >> wrong in that he did not consider technological improvements in
> >> agriculture, agricultural distribution, etc.
> >>
> >> We are by no means suggesting anything as extreme as population
> >> control for the Internet and Netizens. Nevertheless, when we are
> >> dealing with relatively short-term issues such as lessening the
> >> digital divide, we are going to have to deal with some resource
> >> scarcity. We also can't rely on end users voluntarily limiting their
> >> resource consumption so more people can get access to the finite
> >> resources.
> >>
> >> I keep coming back to saying that yes, it is good to have hope in the
> >> human race and the human race will find solutions. My concern is
> >> finding implementable solutions in a short time frame, and finding
> >> such solutions always requires compromise and balancing resources,
> >> price, cost and consumption.
> >>
> >> Personal, subjective, and emotional response: I want to find problem
> >> solutions, and general statements about the goodness of man, without
> >> economic and engineering detail, don't help me move in that
> >> direction. I urge Netizens to offer proposals for such detail.
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 16 Apr 2003 16:01:33 -0400
From: "Howard C. Berkowitz" <hcb@gettcomm.com>
Subject: Re: [netz] Malthus was wrong (was) "The Tragedy of The Commons"
>Hello Howard: I see exactly what you mean and you are right in trying to find
>solutions that are feasible and implementable. This means a lot of
>research must be
>done and perhaps good ideas and answers can be found in the works of others. I
>noticed that you have written a few books about similar subjects.
>You recently made
>a very good analysis for me about cable tv, it covered some of the basics in
>maintenance costs of cable and other interesting data. To be honest
>with you I don't
>think we're going to find fast solutions to these problems. I think
>the road ahead
>is longer than expected to make the case against the privatization of the
>infrastructure of the internet? I hope I'm using the correct
>terminology. It may
>very well be that total privatization is unavoidable?
Let me rephrase -- I think it's less that privatization isn't
unavoidable -- it already has taken place. Broadcast TV and radio are
special cases.
>But I have to confess that everytime I see my cable tv bill I can't help but
>remember the times when TV was almost free, you still had to pay for the
>electricity, though.
Oh, believe me, I know what you are saying when I see my cable bill.
The reality is, however, that the original radio and TV broadcasters
didn't have to pay for what we now consider an immense subsidy, use
of the radio frequency spectrum.
Now, I have the flexibility to do so, but I have telephone, cable,
and cellular service now, and may again be adding DSL. I will shift
services for the best deal.
I hesitate to call most broadcasters noncommercial, because the
majors are all advertising-supported.
I'd suggest that when we look at infrastructure, we move wireless TV
and radio off to the side as very special cases, which do not
necessarily make good use of a public resource. Cable does offer
more options that wireless broadcast could never implement. When I
last looked, we had four local-access "community" channels on our
cable system, plus county government information/education, plus some
channels used by the schools. Broadcast doesn't support enough
channels to make that remotely economically attractive to the
broadcaster.
With the push toward high-definition TV, not necessarily a push that
I consider more than a solution in search of a problem, traditional
cable TV networks become obsolete. The copper coaxial cable they use
simply can't carry the bandwidth of HDTV, and must eventually be
replaced by optical fiber. The bandwidth available on fiber is such
that telephone and computer data services essentially can ride free.
But having the opportunity to have cross-subsidization by cable
carriers obviously doesn't apply to less-developed countries. It's
still fair to say, however, that it actually can be cheaper to put in
broadband infrastructure when you are dealing with new installations
or completely ripping out the old. Practical example: traditional
telephone systems need to have some kind of signal boosting or
conditioning equipment every 4000 to 6000 feet. This equipment needs
electrical power, a manhole and workspace if it's underground, etc.
In contrast, fiber can easily run tens or even hundreds of kilometers
with no intermediate equipment. This makes it much cheaper. Other
forms of fiber, incidentally, can run 4000 kilometers or more without
intermediate equipment. We are at a stage that only the longer
transoceanic cables need to have expensive and hard-to-maintain
underwater electronics.
>Through research and discussion we maybe be able to find viable
>solutions for these
>problems.I think the struggle is well worth it so we can save
>ourselves and our
>fellow man from paying one yet another bill, for something that was
>virtually free
>or low cost?
>Take care,
>Luis
------------------------------
End of Netizens-Digest V1 #501
******************************
