The Lack of Necessary Resources Has Lead to the Tragedy of the Commons

Regulation of Resources is the Best Solution to 'The Tragedy of the Commons'

With the omnipresent, invariable necessity for certain goods in our world and a rapidly expanding population many resources are becoming exponentially more scarce and valuable.  Given the tremendous dependency upon these resources, such as timber, oil, fish and farmland, they are in great need of proper management.

The lack of resources and misuse of what is available is a phenomenon known as The Tragedy of the Commons.  "The Tragedy of the Commons" is an economic theory put forward by the noted American ecologist Garrett Hardin in 1968.  Hardin’s theory stated that when dealing with resources that have a common ownership among many constituents, a selfish “rational” reasoning causes one to take advantage of what is available, regardless of whether it is exceeding their fair share or not.

In Hardin's essay, he posited that individuals’ overuse of communal resources are instantly beneficial to that particular user but detrimental to the community’s long term success.  The user gets the full advantage of the extra resources while the costs are spread among the community.  This repeated action will eventually destroy the commons, dooming the livelihood of those depend on its fruit.

The reason this tragedy exists is because the lack of resources causes people to face a Prisoner's Dilemma.  This is when a person's actions depict their future, as well as all others facing the same Prisoner's Dilemma.  If everyone acts in a selfish manner then everyone gains something from their behavior but ultimately loses some because of everybody else's behavior.  If everybody acts in a selfless manner, nobody would gain anything from their actions but would not be taken from because nobody abused the resources.

As seen in a study from the University of Hamburg, actual prisoners are better at succeeding in this seemingly lose-lose situation.  56% of inmates remained silent while only 37% of students did.  This goes to show there is a way of wrongfully manipulating the system when applicable.  The only solution is to eliminate all possibilities of facing this dilemma.

As seen to the right, the different combinations of actions call for different outcome.  This is the original Prisoner's Dilemma.

There are two basic strategies for managing any limited resource:  privatization and regulation.  When considering the more effective method for allocating these resources, one must weigh each option carefully because the decision will have lasting, and in some instances profound, consequences.

Privatization entails restricting access to a resource to a designated group of members who essentially buy in to the plan.  Regulation requires people to take responsibility when dealing with shared goods through the imposition of restrictions on use and penalties for those who violate the restrictions.  Regulation differs from privatization in that the resource continues to be shared in common instead of being divided and granted to one or more owners.  Although privatization offers some benefits as a solution, and in some instances may be the preferred solution, the benefits from regulation in most instances far outweigh those of privatization.

Privatization is a Common Approach to Solving this Tragedy, Though Often Flawed

Privatizing limited resources is one way of solving the tragedy of the commons.  The argument for this practice is if people were to have ownership over the commons, they would begin to feel a sense of responsibility for those goods and resources as well as a keen appreciation for the consequences of misusing them.  In the case of farmland, for example, if a farmer allows his cows to overgraze and deplete the grass, he is the only one affected by these actions.  While his cattle are the sole reapers of the instant benefit of using more than required, he is the only farmer who will suffer the consequences of his shortsightedness.  At first glance, privatization might appear to be a sound solution to this need.

The inherent flaws to this solution are exposed upon closer examination.  When dealing with a massive, diverse terrain, a private ten acre plot in a steep, rocky region is much less valuable than a private ten acre plot in prime, lush grasslands.  In the case of this land being carved up and sold to individual contractors, inequity can arise among the contractors’ properties.

Of course, the market value (and price charged) would not be the same for each parcel, which could serve as a means to compensate those who end up with less valuable plots, but there is no real way to accurately measure the differences resulting from unique areas.  As stated by Joseph Raz, comparing different goods is impossible because goods are incommensurable.  For example, steep, mountainous land is much more valuable to an avid skier than it would be to a handicapped senior citizen, the same way a new wheelchair can be a life changing acquisition to the aforementioned senior while holding little to no value for a healthy skier.  Equity is very difficult to achieve via privatization.

Accessibility, Accountability, and Promotion of Responsible Behavior Render Regulation the Superior Solution

Regulation of the resources is, in most instances, the more effective method of curing the Tragedy of the Commons.  In many cases, such as a large fisheries, privatizing the water into smaller, private fishing zones is not always practical.  If contaminants are found in an area of the water allocated to one particular owner, that owner is now out of luck because his “fair” section of the fishing zone will be unusable for a period of time.  Also, fish are not necessarily evenly dispersed; rather, they find habitats and live in groups, or schools.  The paths traveled by schools are not necessarily orderly nor evenly spaced.  One area may have more fish than all others combined.  So, instead of selling off the water into smaller fractions of property, it is more effective and fair to regulate it.

Overfishing is a phenomenon experienced in nearly all fishing communities, simply because the lack of resources calls for obtaining as much as possible.  By prohibiting nets and other large scale capturing devices, you severely decrease the rate at which fish are caught.  Another similar regulation is limiting time at sea.  Less time at sea decreases the amount of fish captured, thus preventing the rapid depletion of fish.




Professor Green, with a specialization in economics, discusses the advantages of regulating the fishing industry.

The forestry industry presents another strong case for a regulated system for the advancement of resource optimization.  A quick depletion of trees would physically prohibit their reproduction, or at the very least impede the process of replenishment.  Rather than clearing a region, many loggers will instead use the plan of selective cutting.  By using this method, the lifespan of the forests are stretched in comparison to clear cutting.

(Green's explanation for the regulation of logging)

Clear cutting occurs when all of the trees in a region are cut down in one session.  This action allows immediate maximization of efficiency, yielding incredible instant economic benefits.  This unregulated efficiency is doomed to self destruct because of the disregard for the continued available of those resources in the long term.  It is only a matter of time until shortsighted practices such as clear cutting destroys the forest beyond repair.

Selective cutting is the practice of cutting down a certain amount of trees in an area for a certain amount of time.  This helps to ensure that the long term viability of the forest will not be compromised.  Regulating this process does not yield the instant “jackpot” effect of clear cutting; however, by selectively cutting we can spread the economic benefits over a longer period of time, eventually making up for - and far exceeding - the difference of the original earnings.  The incentive of greater long term success drives responsible and forward-thinking members of the logging industry to take the path of selective cutting.

There is a natural trade off between efficiency and equity.  In the short run, efficiency goes down for the sake of promoting equity, or conservation.  In the long run, the efficiency and value of of an intelligently regulated process will be manifested because more land remains available to harvest those valued resources.  A long term, consistent pay out demonstrates the clear advantages of a regulated efficiency rate to maximize overall, lasting success compared to a quick windfall of wealth with little promise of durable results.

The Oil Industry's Turmoil Demonstrates The Flaws of Privatization

Privatization in the oil industry offers a cautionary tale in the area of resource management.  The efficiency, or initial success, is uncontrolled, allowing those in the market to use and exploit the available resources at limitless rates.  This form of distributing goods has been historically proven to test and crumble peoples’ moral and ethical strength, leading them to act in ways detrimental to others’ well being as well as undermining society’s implied code of conduct set in place to maintain cooperation and coexistence.  The main goal of privatized systems is to obtain as much of a resource as possible in order to sell as much as possible, to achieve the ultimate goal of maximum monetary success.

In a regulated system, many of the major restrictions are geared toward slowing down the rate of gathering and using resources.  Because this is a profit driven industry, the primary motivations of business owners are financial, often conflicting with notions of conservation and sustainability.

If oil was regulated and distributed by the 
government, there would likely be a more environmentally-conscious approach to their work.  The government is charged with ensuring the long term well-being of its citizens and environment, whereas a private corporation is not.  The government would be obligated to act in a more moderate fashion because of its responsibilities and moral necessities, free of the pressures corporations and their managers often face to produce short term results.

Much of the issue of lack of resources has been expedited by misuse and exploitation of available resources.  These actions are seemingly beneficial to those who obtain the immediate benefits of their actions, but this short sighted mindset could not be more inversely effective.  As much as avoiding Prisoner’s Dilemmas can help alleviate the Tragedy of the Commons, the reality of privatizing these goods leaves individuals facing these dilemmas at a consistently high rate.  The alternative method of regulating these resources from a governmental or objective committal stand point has been proven to work more effectively than privatizing them.

listen to ‘Regulation of Resources’ on Audioboo

Playing in the NFL Has Been Proven to be Detrimental to Health

I.   Most NFL players have suffer one or more injuries throughout their career
a.    Most common injuries
a.   How long it takes to recover

II.  How injuries effect players after their careers
a.   Most harmful long term injuries 
b.   Which injuries cause which issues later in like (concussions linked to depression, etc.)
c.   How injuries have lasting effects even after 'recovering'

III.  How the NFL is changing its policies and enforcing safer rules and regulations
a.   Increase in penalties for hits
b.   NFLPA is more active in protecting current players, seeking compensation for older players who did not receive proper treatment

IV.  Conclusion
a.  Evidence of life altering injuries
b.  How NFL is becoming safer
c.   How things are still dangerous

listen to ‘Final ePortfolio Assignment Outline’ on Audioboo

Papa John’s Slogan is a Prime Example of Puffery Being Used to Enhance Marketing Success-But is it Ethical?

“Better Ingredients, Better Pizza”

Who’s to say Papa John’s does not have better pizza or use better ingredients?  And in comparison to what?  Although it is common belief that a pizza chain such as Papa John’s may not have the premiere pizza of the world, nobody can factually prove they do not.  For all we know, the creators of this chain may have true conviction in their statements about their pizza being “better” than the rest.

Puffery in Advertisements

Puffery if an exaggerated claim that is not technically misleading because it is opinionated rather than falsified.  This has become a widely popular method of marketing.  It is not likely someone will get into legal trouble for claiming something is the better than others because that is their opinion, they are not lying to the general public.  It is the public’s job to weed out what they believe may be right and what is just a strategy to bring in customers.  Claiming to make the “greatest coffee in the universe” may seem far fetched, but not technically wrong.  This is merely an opinion, which is what makes the strategy known as puffery perfectly legal.

Those who use puffery as an advertising plan hope to yield results similar to what was demonstrated by Will Ferrell in the movie Elf, as seen below.  When Buddy stumbled upon a cafe in New York City that displayed a generic “World’s Best Cup of Coffee” sign in the window, his naivety and lack of real world communication caused him to believe they actually had the world’s best cup of coffee as a matter of fact.  The reason we do not fall victim to every single sign that claims to be the best is because we have been desensitized to such ads.  It has become a struggle to find any advertising method to truly captivate an audience because we are so accustomed to seeing marketing in action everywhere we go.

Puffery Controversy

When faced with an advertisement stating something is better or the best, it is the consumers job to take those statements with a grain of salt and decide whether they agree or disagree.  On the contrary, There are many example of advertisements that are similar to puffery but cross the line into lying and deception.  One would be if a pizza company said they were the “fasted delivery service in the country” or something similar if they actually have not always been the fastest deliverers.  In this sense, it it impossible to disprove a “puffed up” claim.  Although many may think puffery is deceptive and wrong, it is in fact not false or wrongfully misleading.

So, Are They Really Better?

Although the creators of Papa John’s may believe their pizza is the best, by way of the best ingredients, what really matters is what the customers think.  So, here is the list of ingredients.  Even though supporting evidence of a puffed claim is not needed to avoid legal or ethical trouble, Papa John’s sure does give great documentation of fresh, hearty ingredients.

Although person to person results may vary, the general consensus is that Papa John’s is among the top three pizza chains in the country, along with Domino’s and Pizza Hut.  One site ranked the Top 10 Pizza Chains, with Papa John’s being number one.  This is of course a subjective views than can be argued but not disproved, but then again, so is puffery.

Why Puffery?

While puffery may seem very effective at first glance, is may be a weakness if viewed in a certain light.  Why would a company use opinion rather than facts?  Most likely because they do not have any facts or numbers worth advertising.  One alternative to making outrageous claims that cannot be proven right or wrong is by giving irrefutable evidence of success or greatness.  One example of this is the Zagat ratings and reviews.  This group has a very prestigious rating system of restaurants around the world.  Opinionated advertisements are much less credible than receiving this type of recognition.

As a seasoned marketing guru it is easy to separate the noise from the real credibility, although not everyone is able to do so.  Advertising agencies pull on certain strings of the naive and amass great success in doing so.  Eventually the general public will become more savvy to what they are being fed and many current practices will be inefficient and therefore obsolete.  How long will puffery be relevant in the marketing world?

Amateur vs. Professional News Photography

The image below is taken from patch.com, a local news station. The photo, depicting the aftermath of the recent Navy yard shooting in Washington, DC, was taken by James Cullum, an amateur editor for the Patch.  The photo was shot from a distance of several blocks, perhaps indicating the reporter's lesser stature in the news industry.  This particular photo was taken under poor conditions, including a gray sky and seemingly inclement weather. Apart from the elements outside the photographer's control, there are some apparent flaws in the image which separate it from a professional news report. One notable characteristic of this photo is its blurriness. It is one thing for a photo to be intentionally blurred in some areas to focus attention on one specific aspect, but this photo appears to be entirely out of focus:  there is no focal point. One defining characteristic of this picture is the broad camera angle and holistic view of the scene. A benefit of this perspective is the inclusivity and “big picture” effect it provides. The viewer is offered a look at the chaos and state of emergency that Washington, D.C., was experiencing at that moment. The numerous police, fire department, and emergency service vehicles surrounding the area conveys the seriousness of the situation at hand. One interesting thing to notice is the big red “X”s on all the traffic lights, restricting traffic indefinitely. Overall, this is a poor quality photograph of a news scene, despite some positive qualities. Compared to a professional photograph, this is clearly the work of an amateur. 

Compared to the first photograph, the professional photograph below was taken by Susan Walsh, a reporter for the Associated Press. The news story accompanying the photo appeared on the website csmonitor.com. Compared to the picture above, this one offers an in depth view of a particular scene during the tragedy. The viewer is able to see armed first responders up close to the Navy yard. Being a journalist for the more established AP, Walsh most likely was granted preferred access to the scene. One major difference between the two photos is the overall image quality and utilization of lighting. Despite being taken in the same poor weather conditions, the AP photo demonstrates a higher level of professionalism and quality. Another improvement from the first photograph is the clarity and use of focus. The focal point of the picture is the three people in the center of the frame. Even the areas of the photo that are blurred have greater clarity than even the clearest portion of the amateur picture. A unique benefit of being closer to the action is the intimacy and “in the moment” feel generated. Seeing the peoples’ faces, the police cars, especially the “K-9” on the window of one vehicle, truly adds a dynamic factor to the mood of the story. Despite uncooperative weather conditions and the spur-of-the-moment nature of the event, the professionalism of this photographer definitely is noticed and appreciated. 

Media Can In Fact Be Addicting

As I see my peers and even my elders engaged in their devices, it is quite apparent that social media and other internet sites are sweeping the world. But is it actually addicting?  Many signs indicate it is.  First, many students will get withdrawal like symptoms and cravings for their devices if they spend too much time away from them.  One website, Buzzfeed, has an interesting list of signs showing you are addicted to social media.  If you have the presence of mind to not let yourself become addicted, you can avoid this phenomenon.  Unfortunately, the majority of users are so indulged in their devices, they allow themselves to become addicted.  Although I believe social media is having a detrimental effect of society, especially students, I do not think there should be any rules put on technology use.  In a sense, this can help weed out those who can handle their technological use from those who cannot.  This can help show who is responsible enough to get there work done, despite the constant distractions at their finger tips.  I believe it is possible for your device(s) to be more helpful in class than distracting, but is what you make of it.  Personally, I do not use Twitter (besides for class), Instagram, and am a very rare Facebook user.  I find bringing my laptop to class helps me more than hurts me, but that is just one case of technology in the classroom.  Many students will spend a majority of their class time Tweeting, surfing the internet, and wasting time elsewhere.

Chapter 14 - Passive mediums are more effective than active mediums.

I believe a more passive medium, such as television, is more effective than a more interactive medium, such as video games.  I believe so because of the level of energy and attention required to sufficiently absorb the information delivered is much less with passive mediums.  While watching television, it is likely you will still obtain information even if you are not fully paying attention, or doing something else simultaneously.  While playing a video game, you must be fully involved in what is going on to process the information.  Whether you are watching a show with your full attention or not, the show will still go on.  With video games, you control whether or not the game continues.  The "hypodermic needle" theory heavily supports this argument.  If someone is watching television, somewhat paying attention, somewhat glazed over, they are less likely to refute what is being stated.  The information will be processed but not question.  This is similar to how you may be subliminally influenced by a message you do not fully recognize and have the ability to refute.  Another example supporting this claim is the "mean-world" syndrome.  This states that after seeing thousands of acts of violence portrayed on television, such as murders, we are lead to believe the world is actually as dangerous in reality as it seems on the screen.  Although this may be applied to interactive mediums such as video games, these games do not have real humans acting out the scenes, rather animations of characters, which makes them less realistic.  Although video games and other interactive mediums may be effective to a certain extent, they do not stack up to the effectiveness of passive mediums, such as television.

http://www.cracked.com/article_18856_6-shocking-ways-tv-rewires-your-brain_p2.html

My First Blog