![[dr. bob]](/dr-bob-sm.gif)
Dr. Bob is Robert Hsiung, MD,
bob@dr-bob.orgShown: posts 16 to 40 of 79. Go back in thread:
Posted by alexandra_k on September 19, 2013, at 18:25:27
In reply to Re: the commons, posted by Dr. Bob on September 18, 2013, at 22:29:26
is this about the three post rule?
Posted by alexandra_k on September 19, 2013, at 18:26:10
In reply to Re: the commons, posted by alexandra_k on September 19, 2013, at 18:25:27
:-/
Posted by Dr. Bob on September 19, 2013, at 21:05:40
In reply to Re: the commons, posted by alexandra_k on September 19, 2013, at 18:25:27
> is this about the three post rule?
That wasn't what I had in mind, but thanks for remembering. :-)
Bob
Posted by alexandra_k on September 20, 2013, at 4:23:36
In reply to Re: the commons, posted by Dr. Bob on September 19, 2013, at 21:05:40
well then...
i guess you could view it as a commons.
some points of similarity that occur to me, that might be relevant...
it is a space.
that was a potential problem with the mental illness idea... i guess my thought there was that mental illness might be selected for (without being adaptive) rather than dysfunctional (to the individual). but i think now that the crucial bit that got me excited was the idea that inclusive fitness or evolution by selection doesn't necessarily produce adaptation.
even though Campbell's Biology (what is that, like the very best textbook in the whole freaking world!!!) says:
(concept 23.4 HEADER --)
'Natural selection is the only mechanism that consistently causes adaptive evolution'
That is not true.
WHat is this notion of adaptation? fit between organism and environment? What the hell does that mean? Consider the behaviour of the handstanding beetle that stands on its head in deserts so morning dew collects on its body and runs down into its mouth. or darwins finches with beaks and foraging behavior both adapted to a niche... What is this notion of fit?
Consider also... (I totally stole this).
a gene that is only carried on the y chromosome... results in the y sperm swimming faster than the x sperm so they tend to reach (hence successfully fertilize) the egg before the x's get there. this will take over the population and eventually... result in the extinction of the species (including that particular gene, of course) from too many boys / not enough girls.
what we seem to have here is... un co-operative genes (that replicate themselves to the cost of the genes they are supposed to be co-operating with). but also ultimately... to their own demise... which... isn't very rational. seems to me. more things considered... isn't very optimal. isn't very adaptive.
anyway... back to babble...
it is space limited (sort of) in the sense that people who look at the boards are looking at a certain number of posts because older posts are archived.
the three post rule is an obvious one with respect to limiting the frequency of posts by a single poster. which limits the frequency of their posts relative to others. which alters the sample that a new poster perusing the boards is likely to read. which alters their decision whether to join...
perhaps...
basic things...
these boards are obviously tended. there aren't a bunch of 'enlarge your penisses with natural artificial supplementz!' posts. insofar as the internet is a commons the problem is... the sh*t that the masses contribute. that takes so very much time... to sort though. hence the three post rule, again.. sigh. (i only violate it because i feel like i'm running out of space. but this shows that babble is indeed space limited, in a sense). and it is weird, right, because i can make this post (for example) as long as i like (to the best of my knowledge).... anyway... i need to get better at impulse control. clearly.
what else.... i don't know.
i don't know.
Posted by alexandra_k on September 20, 2013, at 5:10:22
In reply to Re: the commons, posted by alexandra_k on September 20, 2013, at 4:23:36
oh.
policing is costly.
it takes time and effort to punish defectors - and one runs the risk of the defector retaliating.
i guess that is what can be nice about having a leader. someone else to bear the cost of punishment.
i have only recently come around to viewing failing to punish defectors as itself being a kind of defecting.
i think that sometimes that is what people mean when they tell me to 'stand up'. i think that oftentimes people do attempt to take advantage of me to test my limits... how much i will let them get away with and then what i will do. am i the kind of person who punishes appropriately or am i the kind of person who lashes out? that is valuable information to know about a person...
i shock people because when people test me... my response is to opt out. i... lack the... emotional control. to meet out appropriate punishment.
i think.
i am not a leader. not that kind of leader. i don't know.
of course i do know that someone has got to do it.
probably.
i guess libertarians or whatever focus on ways in which cultures / peoples have solved tragedy of the commons situations appropriately.
i think we need to look to anthropology and consider the cases. i'd be interested to consider some of the best cases from anthropology for different sorts of solutions to tragedy of commons situations / different forms of governments...
Posted by alexandra_k on September 20, 2013, at 18:29:37
In reply to Re: the commons, posted by alexandra_k on September 20, 2013, at 5:10:22
typically in the human behaviour case people consider:
- collection of resources
- distribution of resources
- mate selection / care of offspring (guys need to trust the offspring is theirs, girls need to trust they will receive appropriate assistance with bearing the metabolic costs of pregnancy / lactation - at the very least -)with respect to co-operation. there are opportunities to defect (or to be incapacitated in some way) with respect to these...
(i'd be interested to know whether people with mental illness have problems assessing their contribution in public goods games / whether their future discounting is more extreme. difficulties with 'mental time travel'? or perhaps math? lolz.)
message board analogy?
in order for evolution to occur you need
- high fidelity inheritance (copies resemble parents more than non-parents)
- competition for finite resources (differential reproduction)
- variation in traitsmessage board analogy?
(cultural artifacts are problematic because transmission is more horizontal than vertical. the next generation profits - but it is unclear that ones own offspring profits more than their age mates. while some apprentices are their parents genetic offspring most aren't.)
in order for there to be a tragedy of the commons there needs to be:
- a commons. a space. i think we can grant that message boards are a space / place in a sense.
- the space to be finite in some way. for there to be competition. with respect to either something that can be got out of the space (a resource) or with respect to ones representation in the space (like bacteria populating a fixed size petrie dish with unlimited food supply). like... having posts in the unarchived space? perhaps... having people respond to your posts? perhaps... what, exactly? this is interesting...- the possibility of getting more of the above in a way that stabotages the possibility? liklihood? of others getting that. and... of yourself getting that (over the longer term)
i suspect... too many posts seeking support and not enough posts offering it could do that. that was actually what drew me to the site (along with all the other checks of no spam, no advertising, text / literacy based)... the intelligent, articulate, caring responses that people were getting from others.
how there certainly did seem to be norms of reciprocity on these boards. thoughtful responses to particular individuals - then you were in fact more likely to receive back in kind.
a lot of other message boards you can put a lot of time and energy into thoughtful responses to particular individuals - and not even get any acknowledgement back. or get dismissive acknowledgement.
seems to me.
hmm.
Posted by Dr. Bob on September 21, 2013, at 2:51:12
In reply to Re: the commons, posted by alexandra_k on September 20, 2013, at 18:29:37
> it takes time and effort to punish defectors - and one runs the risk of the defector retaliating.
>
> i guess that is what can be nice about having a leader. someone else to bear the cost of punishment.I'm reminded of something Twinleaf posted recently on Admin:
> > The history of sharing leadership with you -i.e. the deputies - has been unexpectedly negative
--
> in order for there to be a tragedy of the commons there needs to be:
>
> - a commons. a space. i think we can grant that message boards are a space / place in a sense.
>
> - the space to be finite in some way. for there to be competition. with respect to either something that can be got out of the space (a resource) or with respect to ones representation in the space (like bacteria populating a fixed size petrie dish with unlimited food supply). like... having posts in the unarchived space? perhaps... having people respond to your posts? perhaps... what, exactly? this is interesting...
>
> - the possibility of getting more of the above in a way that stabotages the possibility? liklihood? of others getting that. and... of yourself getting that (over the longer term)It was interesting to take a look at the 1968 article by Garrett Hardin in Science. In addition to the points you've already made:
> > natural selection favors the forces of psychological denial (8). The individual benefits as an individual from his ability to deny the truth even though society as a whole, of which he is a part, suffers.
> >
> > Education can counteract the natural tendency to do the wrong thing, but the inexorable succession of generations requires that the basis for this knowledge be constantly refreshed.
> >
> > In a reverse way, the tragedy of the commons reappears in problems of pollution. Here it is not a question of taking something out of the commons, but of putting something in--sewage, or chemical, radioactive, and heat wastes into water; noxious and dangerous fumes into the air, and distracting and unpleasant advertising signs into the line of sight. The calculations of utility are much the same as before. The rational man finds that his share of the cost of the wastes he discharges into the commons is less than the cost of purifying his wastes before releasing them. Since this is true for everyone, we are locked into a system of "fouling our own nest," so long as we behave only as independent, rational, free-enterprisers.
> >
> > The social arrangements that produce responsibility are arrangements that create coercion, of some sort.
> >
> > Taxing is a good coercive device. To keep downtown shoppers temperate in their use of parking space we introduce parking meters for short periods, and traffic fines for longer ones. We need not actually forbid a citizen to park as long as he wants to; we need merely make it increasingly expensive for him to do so. Not prohibition, but carefully biased options are what we offer him.
> >
> > To many, the word coercion implies arbitrary decisions of distant and irresponsible bureaucrats; but this is not a necessary part of its meaning. The only kind of coercion I recommend is mutual coercion, mutually agreed upon by the majority of the people affected.
> >
> > To say that we mutually agree to coercion is not to say that we are required to enjoy it, or even to pretend we enjoy it. Who enjoys taxes? We all grumble about them. But we accept compulsory taxes because we recognize that voluntary taxes would favor the conscienceless. We institute and (grumblingly) support taxes and other coercive devices to escape the horror of the commons.http://www.sciencemag.org/content/162/3859/1243.full
> insofar as the internet is a commons the problem is... the sh*t that the masses contribute. that takes so very much time... to sort though.
> a lot of other message boards you can put a lot of time and energy into thoughtful responses to particular individuals - and not even get any acknowledgement back. or get dismissive acknowledgement.
What I had in mind originally wasn't how many posts were posted, but what kind. The issues Hardin grouped under the heading "pollution".
Bob
Posted by alexandra_k on September 21, 2013, at 18:11:33
In reply to Re: the commons, posted by Dr. Bob on September 21, 2013, at 2:51:12
I hadn't read the Hardin article. Perfect statement of a position on mental illness (whether true or false, perfect statement of a position).
:-)
I think part of the negative experience of the deputies was facing hostility from those they punished and from other members of the community who disagreed with their decision to punish and / or with their decision to more generally participate in the process of sanctions. I think that came as a bit of a shock. And then the deputies wanted special protection from those kinds of hostilities (which involves more punishments being doled out) and things got hard... Of course the deputies all turned out to be a hell of a lot stronger than they thought... Something something about iron and fires...
I dug around some more and, of course, Ostrom won the Nobel prize already for looking at anthropological solutions to tragedy of commons. I just knew it would be a good idea to do that :-)
(Profiting, as I do, from interacting with *other people* who have been influenced by her work).
It is a whole field... There is a 'Journal of Commons' even. Lol.
I found "Managing the virtual commons: Cooperation and conflict in computer communities" - but I'm having trouble re-finding the internal content for the first chapter... Found this handy summary here:
But it doesn't quite do justice to parts I thought were worth drawing out... The social dilemma's... Ostrom's 8 features...
Posted by alexandra_k on September 21, 2013, at 23:33:24
In reply to Re: the commons, posted by alexandra_k on September 21, 2013, at 18:11:33
If you are driving a car you can detect hazards pretty quickly and send a signal for the car to speed up or veer in order to protect yourself. If you are remote controlling an exploratory vehicle on Mars things are harder because of the time delay. If you wanted the vehicle to come to no harm the best thing to do would be to try and program in some sorts of intelligence. The ability to detect the edge of a surface and stop before falling off it, for instance.
Imagine that you have some terminal disease but scientists can offer you the option of being stored safely away while they work on a cure at which point they will revive you and cure you. You need to figure out what kind of vehicle to put yourself in while your body awaits a cure. What will your strategy be? Will you get a vehicle that burrows you down below the earth and hides? Will you get a vehicle that moves about in the effort to avoid predators?
I am not doing Dennett's example justice...
But the idea is that we are such vehicles for our genes. They get together and co-operate in order to produce a vehicle to house themseleves in: Us. They give us brains so we can respond to the changing world / environment in order to protect them... But...
Perhaps... We can use some of the tools they gave us to look after them... We can subvert those... We can use those... To look after ourself. Perhaps even at their expense.
I mean...
From my perspective...
A teacher can contribute / leave much more than many genetic parents do. Leave more what? Whatever it is that WE (as people) care about. The influence of Newton and Einstein etc etc etc. I don't even know if they had kids or not. In a sense... Who cares?
Genes just aren't particularly important to us. Not for the things that matter to us. Things like... Creativity. Intelligence. Kindness. Pro-Sociality... The effects of genes is really very negligable compared to the effects of environment / teaching. By this I mean to say: Most viable human beings have the potential to be much more creative, intelligent, kind, and pro-social (for example) than they currently are with their current genetic endowment - if only they had better environmental and educational conditions.
It... Doesn't matter who the breeders are (from our point of view) so long as some of us do... The things we care most about... Are more horizontally transmitted (from one generation to the other) rather than vertically (from parents to offspring). Public education etc acts as a buffer from having particularly sucky parents...
Adoption...
This is perhaps one of the things that was wrong with eugenics. We... Don't have to worry about individuals with no social conscience breeding more than individuals with social conscience thus leading to the demise of our species... We... Have to worry about the lack of education / sucky environmental conditions / awful parenting that leads to individuals with no social conscience. The latter will fix things up for most everyone... The former... Well... You can send your criminals to Australia but new ones will only emerge as fast as you can ship 'em and Australians (now) aren't as criminal as they once were. Perhaps.
;-)
Posted by Dr. Bob on September 22, 2013, at 22:55:02
In reply to Re: the commons, posted by alexandra_k on September 21, 2013, at 23:33:24
> Ostrom won the Nobel prize already for looking at anthropological solutions to tragedy of commons.
>
> I found "Managing the virtual commons: Cooperation and conflict in computer communities" - but I'm having trouble re-finding the internal content for the first chapter... Found this handy summary here:
>
> http://cscw10.hciresearch.org/content/managing-virtual-commons-cooperation-and-conflict-computer-communities-1996What anthropological solutions did Ostrom find?
Thanks for sharing that link, I hadn't seen it before. Do their conclusions apply to Babble?
> > Babble is a remarkable institution which enables cooperation, however significant shortcomings remain.
> > Babble has a double edge: monitoring is easier, but sanctioning becomes more difficult: communication costs are lower, but defecting costs increases: it's easier to find people with similar interests and collaborate, but it is also easier to be disrupted by people who want to prevent collaboration;
> > "Babble may not need to resolve these problems, it may simply become a public space in cyberspace where the balance between order and autonomy is decided in favor of the latter."--
> You can send your criminals to Australia but ... Australians (now) aren't as criminal as they once were. Perhaps.
Becoming less criminal sounds like a good thing. How did that happen?
Bob
Posted by alexandra_k on September 23, 2013, at 5:58:27
In reply to Re: the commons, posted by Dr. Bob on September 22, 2013, at 22:55:02
> > Ostrom won the Nobel prize already for looking at anthropological solutions to tragedy of commons.
> What anthropological solutions did Ostrom find?That there were some.
That some peoples do manage subtractable resources in sustainable ways without the imposition of top-down government.
(How is that for a different take on the problem?)
Apparently there was a commons where the locals had the rule that you could graze only as many cows on the commons over the summer as you could keep through the winter - and that prevented overgrazing. She has examples such as these. Her favorite example seems to be water irrigation in Nepal. She is fairly scathing about the actions of US engineers and policy makers who go on in there and try and impose "better" systems that end up not even working at all because they lack local ecological knowledge / knowledge of constraints that need to be plugged into their optimality models (e.g., that there are a few main springs and thus you will need to tap into one of those).
She characterises Hardin as posing a problem where the only solution was top down governmental control / regulation. Because that is what he suggests. But of course that is no solution at all. The problem recurrs at the level of government: Why co-operate rather than being selfish? This solution also gives us no traction on the problem of how once upon a time we weren't particularly co-operative but now we are highly co-operative. And fairly darned altruistic to our non-genetic kin. How the hell did that happen?
> These early empirical studies led over time to the development of the Institutional Analysis and Development (IAD) framework. A common framework consistent with game theory enabled us to undertake a variety of empirical studies including a meta-analysis of a large number of existing case studies on common-pool resource systems around the world. Carefully designed experimental studies in the lab have enabled us to test precise combinations of structural variables to find that isolated, anonymous individuals overharvest from common-pool resources. Simply allowing communication, or "cheap talk," enables participants to reduce overharvesting and increase joint payoffs contrary to game theoretical predictions. Large studies of irrigation systems in Nepal and forests around the world challenge the presumption that governments always do a better job than users in organizing and protecting important resources.
>... the application of empirical studies to the policy world leads one to stress the importance of fitting institutional rules to a specific social-ecological setting. "One size fits all" policies are not effective. The frameworks and empirical work that many scholars have undertaken in recent decades provide a better foundation for policy analysis.
Hmm.
http://bnp.binghamton.edu/wp-content/uploads/2011/06/Ostrom-2010-Polycentric-Governance.pdf
I didn't take a lot of time with it... Economics isn't really my strong point...
You might like:
>The classic models have been used to view those who are involved in a prisoner's dilemma game or other social dilemmas as always trapped in the situation withuot capabilities to change the structure themselves... Whethe ror not the individuals, who are in a situation, have capacities to transform the external variables affecting their own situation varies dramatically from one situation to the next. It is an empirical condition that varies from situation to sitaution rather than a lgoical universality... When analysts perceive the human beings they model as being trapped inside perverse situations, they then assume that other human beings external to those involved - scholars and public officials - are able to analyze the situation, ascertain why counterproductive outcomes are reached, and posit what changes in the rules-in-use will enable participants to improve outcomes. Then, external officials are expected to impose an optimal set of rules on those individuals involved. It is assumed that the momentum for change must come from outside the situation rather than from the self-reflection and creativity of those within a situation to restructure their own patterns of interaction.
>dramatic incidents of overharvested resources had captured widespread attention, while studies by anthropologists, economic historians, engineers, philosophers, and political scientists of local governance of smaller to medium scale common-pool resources over long periods of time were *not* noticed by many theorists and public officials.
Usenet is probably a case of one of them.
Babble isn't.
Yeah?
> Thanks for sharing that link, I hadn't seen it before. Do their conclusions apply to Babble?> > > Babble is a remarkable institution which enables cooperation, however significant shortcomings remain.
> > > Babble has a double edge: monitoring is easier, but sanctioning becomes more difficult: communication costs are lower, but defecting costs increases: it's easier to find people with similar interests and collaborate, but it is also easier to be disrupted by people who want to prevent collaboration;
> > > "Babble may not need to resolve these problems, it may simply become a public space in cyberspace where the balance between order and autonomy is decided in favor of the latter."To the best of my knowledge... They are mostly focused on the unmoderated areas of usenet. It is primarily due to the lack of a moderator that they say it comes down on automomy over order. I guess your presence tips things in favor or order. Or that is how they would view it, anyway.
> > You can send your criminals to Australia but ... Australians (now) aren't as criminal as they once were. Perhaps.
> Becoming less criminal sounds like a good thing. How did that happen?
I don't know much about the history of Australia (the demographic breakdown of immigrants) but I suspect it would be nicer being one of the guys (a mate, if you will) in Aussie than being one of the poor trying to make ones way in a class/heredity-based London.
Posted by alexandra_k on September 23, 2013, at 21:03:22
In reply to Re: the commons, posted by alexandra_k on September 23, 2013, at 5:58:27
From:
>Poor Elizabeth Beckford. She was 70 years old and her crime was stealing 12lb of Gloucester cheese.
For that she could have hanged. Hundreds did in those violent, vengeful days, dancing "the Tyburn frisk" in the words of those who crammed around the gallows to watch this favourite spectator sport of the 18th century. But the state, in its mercy, saved her life - and gave her a punishment that some would see as worse than death.
>She was an unwilling passenger on a fleet of 11 ships that set out from England in 1787, the first of the convoys of the criminal underclass - as the ruling elite of Georgian England saw them - sent in chains to colonise new and dangerous shores on the other side of the world.
Those 736 sad souls on that pioneering voyage would establish a new world. Though she didn't know it - and the thought would have given her no consolation as she lay crammed with others in cell-like spaces below decks - Elizabeth was a founder member of a new country, Australia.
On Thursday, more than 200 years later, those who made those dreadful voyages - 163,000 in all over the years to come - are feted. Twenty-first century Australians celebrate their convict past, taking their lead from premier John Howard, a descendant of transported folk on both sides of his family.
The shipping and court registers of the banished have long lain in the National Archive in London. Now, in the knowledge that two million of us in Britain probably have blood links with Australia's criminal forebears, they have been put online for the hundreds of thousands of amateur genealogists in this country, eager to find out more about their roots.
The history they hide may not be pleasant. Elizabeth, incredibly, was not the oldest on that first ark of despair. Dorothy Handland, a dealer in rags and old clothes, was 82. How she was expected to contribute to empire-building in a virgin land whose hardships could only be guessed at is a mystery as great as the place she was being sent to.
But nonetheless she was among the waggon-loads of prisoners dragged down to the docks in Portsmouth from the sunless ship hulks at Woolwich where they had been held because the prisons were all full. They were dressed in rags, their faces pale from imprisonment, louse-ridden and thin as rakes from the slops they had been forced to live on.
Alongside the grannies were 120 other women, mostly young, like 22-year-old Elizabeth Powley. Penniless at home in Norfolk she had raided someone's kitchen for a few shillings' worth of bacon, flour and raisins and "24 ounces weight of butter valued 12d".
The death sentence on this starving girl was commuted and, as Robert Hughes, historian of the transportations, notes wryly in his book, The Fatal Shore, "she was sent to Australia, never to eat butter again".
At least the youngest of the "passengers", John Hudson, would never be pushed up another chimney. The nine-year-old sweep was condemned to seven years' exile for theft.
All on board were small-time criminals whose punishment, by the standards of later generations, in no degree fitted the crime. James Grace, 11, had taken some ribbon and a pair of silk stockings. John Wisehammer, 15, snatched some snuff from a shop counter in Gloucester.
For that, they would never see home again. The most extraordinary crime was that of William Francis, who stole a book about 'the flourishing state of the island of Tobago' from a gentleman in London. If he had had time to read it before he was caught, perhaps he had an inkling of what now lay ahead of him in a British colony far rawer than the West Indies.
There were no political prisoners, however, no rabble rousing, hay stackburning activists or trades unionists sentenced for their subversive activities, as some of today's anti-P*m Australians like to think. Nor, contrary to another common belief, were there any prostitutes as such - because prostitution was not a transportable offence at the time.
The women, however, were treated as whores. They arrived at the gangplank of their vessel, the Lady Penrhyn, almost naked and filthy, "in a situation that stamps them with infamy", according to the officer in command of the expedition, Captain Arthur Phillip.
He was appalled at their treatment by the magistrates who had sentenced them and the jailers who had held them. Whether he could guarantee them better lives at the end of their nine-month voyage was yet to be seen.
What they were about to embark on was the longest journey ever attempted by such a large group of people. Where they were going might as well have been the moon. Crewmen, let alone convicts, believed they would never see home or their loved ones again. "Oh my God," wrote one officer of Marines in his journal, "all my hopes are over of seeing my beloved wife and son."
As for the country they were going to, almost nothing was known except for the promise of Captain James Cook, its discoverer, that this 'New South Wales' as he chose to call it, was now British. But, to some observers of the hang 'em tendency, the thought that the felons might be better off than if they had languished in jail provoked bitter reproach. They were getting a new life, courtesy of the state, some argued. One balladeer wrote: They go to an island to take special charge Much warmer than Britain, and ten times as large. No customs-house duty, no freightage to pay, And tax-free they'll live when in Botany Bay.
Judging by the behaviour of some of the prisoners on that first voyage, the balladeer may have had a point. In truth, some of those on board acted in a way we associate with holidaying in Ibiza.
As they crossed into the tropics, and the hatches were taken off at night to let the prisoners breathe in some cool air, sex was rampant. The women prisoners were like stoats, according to the surgeon on one of the ships. They threw themselves at the sailors and Royal Marines in "promiscuous intercourse", he declared.
"Their desire to be with the men was so uncontrollable that neither shame - but, indeed, of this they had long lost sight - nor punishment could deter them."
Some were put in irons and others flogged, but the going-price for a quickie was just a tot of rum from a sailor's ration. Not surprisingly, the next problem for the captain was drunkenness among the same women.
The voyage rolled on seemingly endlessly with stops at Rio de Janeiro and Cape Town. The last leg was into the swells and troughs of almost uncharted waters of the Southern Seas.
The convicts were more crowded than ever because room had to be made for cows, horses, pigs and sheep for the future colony. Still the lechery continued. "There was never a more abandoned set of wretches collected in one place at any period than are now to be met within this ship," said the surgeon on the Lady Penrhyn.
Violent thunder squalls dumped tons of freezing water on the halfclothed convicts and dampened some of their ardour. The ladies fell on their knees praying.
And, finally, 252 days after leaving England they had made it to dry land as the ships anchored in Botany Bay. Forty-eight people had died - 40 of them convicts, five convicts' children. It was a tiny death rate compared with what they had achieved in that voyage.
"The sea had spared them," wrote Hughes. "Now they must survive on the unknown land."
It was a fortnight before enough tents and huts could be made ready and the female convicts could be disembarked. Sailors and women went mad with lust again.
That night a storm blew down the tents and rain lashed the camp. Male convicts pursued the women intent on raping them. Sailors from the ships, fuelled by rum, joined in.
"It is beyond my abilities to give a just description of the scene of debauchery and riot that ensued during the night," wrote the surgeon.
There was swearing, quarrelling, singing - "it was the first bush party in Australia," wrote Hughes, "and as the couples rutted between the rocks, their clothes slimy with red clay, the sexual history of colonial Australia may fairly said to have begun".
The next day the new governor harangued the convicts. He would stand no repetition of last night's orgy. Prisoners who tried to get into the women's tents would be shot. There was back-breaking work to do just to survive and if they did not work they would not eat, he told them.
The convicts had come to a hard country, as tough as any prison back home. They looked out on a territory that appeared fertile and lovely but was in fact arid. Beyond the landing grounds was bush, mile upon mile of it. There were Aborigines out there, too. Try to escape and they would spear you.
Even the Marine officers who ran the colony despaired. One wrote, that 'in the whole world there is not a worse country. All is so very barren and forbidding that it may with truth be said that here nature is reversed and is nearly worn out'. Surely, he added, the government would not think of sending any more people here.
But it did. The colony survived for its first year largely on rations it had brought with it, a diet of salt meat and leathery cakes baked on a shovel. Crops failed, illness struck down dozens of the convicts. But then supply ships arrived, and after that more convicts.
For some life was too harsh to continue. Dorothy Handland, now 84, who had endured so much already since her conviction back in England, hanged herself from a gum tree. She was Australia's first recorded suicide.
The convict colony clung on - just. There is no point in romanticising those days. Hughes's book makes clear that many of the convicts behaved badly, stealing each others' rations, and acting generally in the same dog-eat-dog fashion of the English slums they had come from.
On the other hand, they had little to cheer them. They worked on the land, hard, gruelling labour, often yoked together to haul timber in the absence of draught animals. Some preferred punishment to work.
The batch of women in the first fleet was not enough. More of marriageable age were needed and the next transport brought a boatload. The women convicts on the Lady Juliana had paired off with the crew as soon as they set sail from England. When she stopped in Tenerife and other ports along the way, a constant stream of male visitors came aboard, earning her a reputation as 'The Floating Brothel'.
On arrival in Australia they had money in their pockets, some a small fortune, for the half-starved convicts and sailors they were then married off to. Here was the "breeding stock", as one official in London put it, from which Australia would proudly grow.
Then land was granted to convicts who had served their time. There was an incentive at last. After 1792, four years after the first fleet first sailed into Botany Bay, the convict colony of New South Wales was self-supporting.
Back in England, the government hailed a victory. A worrying crime wave had been addressed. The criminal classes had been exiled and at no real cost.
That a whole continent would be conquered too was the unexpected bonus from those convict ships and their sorry cargoes.
Posted by Dr. Bob on September 24, 2013, at 16:43:28
In reply to Re: the commons, posted by alexandra_k on September 23, 2013, at 21:03:22
> some peoples do manage subtractable resources in sustainable ways without the imposition of top-down government.
Hardin didn't say there had to be top-down government:
> > To many, the word coercion implies arbitrary decisions of distant and irresponsible bureaucrats; but this is not a necessary part of its meaning. The only kind of coercion I recommend is mutual coercion, mutually agreed upon by the majority of the people affected.
> You might like:
>
> > When analysts perceive the human beings they model as being trapped inside perverse situations, they then assume that other human beings external to those involved - scholars and public officials - are able to analyze the situation, ascertain why counterproductive outcomes are reached, and posit what changes in the rules-in-use will enable participants to improve outcomes. Then, external officials are expected to impose an optimal set of rules on those individuals involved. It is assumed that the momentum for change must come from outside the situation rather than from the self-reflection and creativity of those within a situation to restructure their own patterns of interaction.I'm the "external official" here, yes? Assumed to be able to analyze the situation and change the rules to improve outcomes?
> > dramatic incidents of overharvested resources had captured widespread attention, while studies by anthropologists, economic historians, engineers, philosophers, and political scientists of local governance of smaller to medium scale common-pool resources over long periods of time were *not* noticed by many theorists and public officials.
>
> Usenet is probably a case of one of them.
>
> Babble isn't.
>
> Yeah?Isn't what? Local governance of smaller to medium scale common-pool resources over a long period of time?
> > > You can send your criminals to Australia but ... Australians (now) aren't as criminal as they once were. Perhaps.
>
> > Becoming less criminal sounds like a good thing. How did that happen?> Then land was granted to convicts who had served their time. There was an incentive at last. After 1792, four years after the first fleet first sailed into Botany Bay, the convict colony of New South Wales was self-supporting.
Thanks for finding and sharing that story. Incentive was the key?
Bob
Posted by alexandra_k on September 25, 2013, at 5:57:17
In reply to Re: the commons, posted by Dr. Bob on September 24, 2013, at 16:43:28
> > some peoples do manage subtractable resources in sustainable ways without the imposition of top-down government.
> Hardin didn't say there had to be top-down government
You are right, he didn't. In fact he acknowledges problems with this attempt at solution.
Ostrom characterizes much of the work since Hardin as thinking that this is the solution to tragedy of the commons situations, though. Whether she is setting up a straw man, or whether this is the case, this seems to be her target.> The only kind of coercion I recommend is mutual coercion, mutually agreed upon by the majority of the people affected.
But you don't want to put certain moderating policies to the vote.
> I'm the "external official" here, yes? Assumed to be able to analyze the situation and change the rules to improve outcomes?
You are if anyone is. I'm not entirely convinced you are an 'external official', though. I said more about this on admin.
> Isn't what? Local governance of smaller to medium scale common-pool resources over a long period of time?
That was my thought, yes. Babble isn't an example of unmoderated. I guess I was thinking that unmoderated was locally governed (social norms) rather than their being official moderation / official rules / sanctions.
> > Then land was granted to convicts who had served their time. There was an incentive at last. After 1792, four years after the first fleet first sailed into Botany Bay, the convict colony of New South Wales was self-supporting.
> Thanks for finding and sharing that story. Incentive was the key?I guess that is the way they tell the story. Being granted / Taking ownership.
Posted by alexandra_k on September 25, 2013, at 6:48:44
In reply to Re: the commons, posted by alexandra_k on September 25, 2013, at 5:57:17
I feel like the topic has been changed somewhat... I feel that some people DO suffer in current commons-type situations because they have MORE of a social conscience. These might be situations that are objectively seen to be 'working'. Perhaps they might even be cases that Ostrom would consider 'successfully managed'. But they might be managed such that the sensitive individuals with social conscience are in fact carrying more of the load. Is such a situation sustainable? People have managed to successfully exploit others over considerable periods of time...
Most of the time I opt out of co-operative activity. Because I don't trust my ability to objectively assess the nature of my contribution. I think that I've f*ck*d up the math somehow... That I've calculated things wrong...
But really...
For much of my life...
People have guilt tripped me into contributing much more than my share. Because they can. Because it has a short term pay-off for them. Of course I avoid them (everyone) where possible because the stress of the social interaction (the constant guilt of feeling like a selfish individual) makes it unpleasant for me. But that is a longer term thing that doesn't really feature into their calculus.
It creates problems for me because it means I've learned to avoid co-operative activity - and I've had some fairer people make better offers since. And I've dropped the ball... Because of my past... And then these present people think that I'm un-co-operative... I think they get it is more of a 'can't' than my purposely trying to cheat them... But I need to turn it into a 'can' or I write myself off.
It is hard.
People here... They want me to lead. They keep trying to do stupid things. At the moment they are trying to put us on dishwashing detergent rations. That is a matter of basic food hygene (I've brought dishwashing detergent for our house a couple times and we don't go through more than $2 not-bulk supermarket purchase per week - we do not need to be put on f*ck*ng rations). SOMEONE is supposed to STAND UP...
Someone... Can't do their f*ck*ng job of filling up the detergent properly. Could they be given a simpler job? I really don't think that is possible... I suppose the 4 day time delay might be excusable somehow... But then only filling it half way?
Someone really is attention starved...
I don't know what the f*ck to say.
On this occasion: I opt out. I buy my own detergent now. I have my own dishes, too (so I don't get the household sick virus from unwashed dishes ever again).
Must the common people live like pigs?
Really?
No. F*ck*ng. Way.
Posted by alexandra_k on September 25, 2013, at 6:55:29
In reply to Re: the commons, posted by alexandra_k on September 25, 2013, at 6:48:44
Because: I can manage myself.
I can buy 3 liters of milk. Be careful to keep it properly chilled, and it will last me 7 days.
But if I put it in the fridge here, it will not last 7 days.
Firstly, it will go off sooner, because someone will put it out on the table for hours at a time so a big group of people can use it for their cuppas.
Secondly, it will simply get used up sooner than 7 days.
Here is an (unconscious) strategy. Buy 1 liter of milk. Take a bit out. Leave it alone and use someone elses (my) milk. Eventually someone else (me) will throw out all the half empty bottles of rotten milk (so it doesn't explode on her stuff). Then... Just keep using her milk.
So I supply milk to the house.
Or: I don't get milk.
Tragedy of the commons.
We must all live like pigs.
I must manage everyone: I am not allowed to manage myself.
We must all live like pigs.
Posted by alexandra_k on September 25, 2013, at 17:58:50
In reply to Re: the commons, posted by alexandra_k on September 25, 2013, at 6:55:29
And the problem is that I don't want to manage everyone.
Why should I?
There are people who are *being paid* to manage us. That is their *formal job* that they *love very much* for all the *kudos* it grants them. For the people *sucking up* to get *sh*t they don't even need* like a flat to themself that they can turn into the noisiest f*ck*ng hub of a social center in the whole damned place.
Most of the people here don't even pay rent for the jobs they are meant to f*ck*ng do. Jobs like filling up the dishwashing detergent.
I pay rent (regularly and reliably) so I DON'T HAVE TO WORRY ABOUT THIS SH*T.
Only I do have to worry because once again (surprise surprise) the very people whose job it is to look after others... Who are paid to look after others... Couldn't even manage themselves. Let alone co-ordinate the actions of a number of people.
This is a f*ck*ng joke. Once again.And people wonder what it is that I like about student accommodation. I have seen some stupid sh*t in student accommodation, oh yes indeed, I have. But I don't have to deal with sh*t like people living sub World Health Organization Standards (hey, maybe if you kept the house at habitable living temperature you wouldn't get / pass on sickness quite the way you do and it might even add years to your life expectancy) or not filling up dishwashing detergent. We even typically have lockable food storage space because people know full well that the significant majority of people in this world cannot be trusted to contribute appropriately so you do in fact NEED TO PROTECT THOSE WITH SOCIAL CONSCIENCE.
I do have problems with math and suspect this is the origin, now. Trouble assessing portion sizes and the like because of people trying to have me on. Constantly. Nobody was smart enough to figure out the standard 'fair' strategies (you cut I choose). Bullies grabbed, anyway. You cried... Everyone laughed at you.
I am glad I came back because it will help me come to peace with my childhood. Of course... The final part of acceptance will only come from my getting the f*ck away, again. But I did of course have to come back.
I DO want to help. But... What do I need to do in order to actually help rather than contribute to the problem (as most people seem to be doing - who are supposed to be 'helping').
?
(Of course I'm being unfair. They help in a bunch of other ways. Just not being a drunken lout is being a good influence etc. While the alchohol ban rule (for example) is f*ck*ng annoying (what I would give to turn up some music, open a bottle of wine, and ENJOY cooking a meal) without it... This place would be full of a bunch of obnoxious drunken people. Given the alternative.
I hate my life sometimes. Why did I have to be born?
Posted by alexandra_k on September 25, 2013, at 19:22:07
In reply to Re: the commons, posted by alexandra_k on September 25, 2013, at 17:58:50
An outsider could be relatively objective. Because sometimes it is hard to be objective (to do the calculus properly) when you are enmeshed in some way.
Like the idea that the fairest division of wealth etc would be decided by a group of people who had been hypnotised or something so they didn't know *who they would be* / what position in society they would take up. So they would try and make it so that things were fair for all... And that the worst off wasn't too badly off in case that worst off individual turned out to be them.
I think I could feel a lot more compassionately and objectively about what might be good to solve this tragedy of the commons if:
1) I wasn't sick.
2) I knew my dishes were hygenically clean.And so on. Because I know what I need to do is take a deep f*ck*ng breath and model 'appropriate use of emotional responses' to others (which in fact comes f*ck*ng hard for me) in order to take several hours out of my life to chat to everyone on the whole f*ck*ng complex... To track down what teh f*ck is going on with the dishwashing detergent and sort that sh*t out. Why? Because nobody else is capable. How do I know that? Because they haven't done it already and because: They all got sick. Which is (of course) not in their interests at all.
So: I think that sometimes what is in fact needed or helpful is something like the view from nowhere or the objective outsider position.
I think the idea of mutual benefit is important re: co-operation. I think that people do not do things that they know to be good for themself in part because they feel bad for not sharing and in part because they feel that they are being taken advantage of when they do share. Some people can't reciprocate (they can't do the calculus or something). Some people won't. Because they can get away with it.
I think the can't / won't thing is very very very f*ck*ng important in terms of our help vs let f*ck*ng die intuitions...
E.g., If someone has a bad back so they can't sit at their office desk and work they are off sick... Then we discover them sitting on their couch all day watching the cricket we have the urge to punish them for having us on. But if someone has a bad back so they can't sit in their office desk and work they are off sick... Then we discover they can't get in their car and drive to the golf course (their favourite activity in the world) because their back hurts too much when they sit... We have rather more sympathy.
Something about tracking pay-off structures.
here is teh crucial bit: It doesn't rely on judgement of intent.
Posted by alexandra_k on September 25, 2013, at 19:33:56
In reply to Re: the commons, posted by alexandra_k on September 25, 2013, at 19:22:07
The version of the tragedy of commons that I like (for my purposes) is the one where the selfish strategy is ultimately self-defeating in that it results in everyone (including the selfish individual) being worse off.
The version of psychopathy I like is the one where psychopaths turn out to have problems making long term plans (so some aspect of their rationality is in fact in question).
Emotions: might be mechanisms for solving the commitment problem.
the commitment problem:
I kidnap you. I let you see my face. I have a change in heart and don't want to kill you anymore. You say 'if you let me go I won't tell the police on you - I promise'. Why should I believe you? It is in your best interests to have me believe you now and then tell the police on me later? I conclude that I must kill you.
One solution to the commitment problem is for you to give me something as collatoral for later. Something I could use to blackmail you later, basically. Then you later have some incentive to keep your promise.
Or: You have a two hundred dollar briefcase... I could steal it. You could prosecute me but it would cost you three hundred dollars in court costs. I conclude that you are rational: You won't prosecute me. But instead I know you will become so f*ck*ng mad at my stealing your property that you will prosecute me even at considerable cost to yourself. This acts as a sufficient deterrant to me.
Like... The dishwashing liquid. It isnt' about the cost, obviously. Each and every one of us can afford to buy dishwashing liquid. It isn't about that.
Someone needs to take the time to herd the f*ck*ng people. Time... Time... Tick f*ck*ng tick.
I just want a quiet place where I can work on my thesis.
No... You selfish bitch.
pay attention to us.
Why can't people just organize themselves? Instead of buying masses of sh*t that nobody wants to eat and putting it in the fridge where nobody will eat it so it rots... Why can't they just buy whatever it is that they want to eat and eat that?
Then they might notice that they can share the costs with someone else... And since they know in fact how long whatever it is lasts them they have some indicator of whether they are contributing honestly or not.
Collaborating (to mutual benefit) is HARDER than going it alone, I reckon. Because of having to police teh cheaters.
Some cultures... Michelangelo was painting the cistene chapel... While certain other people were singing together in grass skirts.
I wonder why?
I wonder what mechanisms there are?
Posted by Dr. Bob on September 26, 2013, at 1:32:18
In reply to Re: the commons, posted by alexandra_k on September 25, 2013, at 6:48:44
> > Incentive was the key?
>
> I guess that is the way they tell the story. Being granted / Taking ownership.I wonder what ownership here might look like.
--
> I feel that some people DO suffer in current commons-type situations because they have MORE of a social conscience. These might be situations that are objectively seen to be 'working'. Perhaps they might even be cases that Ostrom would consider 'successfully managed'. But they might be managed such that the sensitive individuals with social conscience are in fact carrying more of the load. Is such a situation sustainable? People have managed to successfully exploit others over considerable periods of time...
Sustainable is different than just:
> > An alternative to the commons need not be perfectly just to be preferable. With real estate and other material goods, the alternative we have chosen is the institution of private property coupled with legal inheritance. Is this system perfectly just? ... We must admit that our legal system of private property plus inheritance is unjust--but we put up with it because we are not convinced, at the moment, that anyone has invented a better system. The alternative of the commons is too horrifying to contemplate. Injustice is preferable to total ruin.
Bob
Posted by alexandra_k on September 26, 2013, at 17:45:13
In reply to Re: the commons, posted by Dr. Bob on September 26, 2013, at 1:32:18
i am glad you are here. thank you.
Posted by alexandra_k on September 26, 2013, at 18:10:43
In reply to Re: the commons, posted by Dr. Bob on September 26, 2013, at 1:32:18
I don't know about this the commons = total ruin business. Hobbes state of nature, or whatever.
I suppose it is more likely to be experienced as such by those who profit from the current system. For those who are screwed over by the current system... What would the difference be?
The loss of a dream?
I suppose I do have some security, in a sense, thinking that one day I will in fact have enough money coming in to have my very own place where I can lock the door and ignore the whole wide world. Without that dream... I suppose I really would despair. And... It isn't a winning the lottery kind of dream, even. It seems realistic. Sort of. Sometimes.
Sometimes I wonder if there is a just system that is sustainable. Or if those ends are opposed in some way.
I just can't stop thinking about 'brave new world' these days. With the 'different kinds' of babies... I need to read it again... The idea... That people might genuinely be happiest in different kinds of settings / with different things in life... Such that everyone could have what they needed / wanted... To a greater extent than now, at any rate.
Of course the later half of the book went in a different direction and it got all moralistic and blah... But back to the interesting idea in the first half of the book...
I did come to Babble in part specifically because you were here. I had a brief experience with a borderline personality message board that was moderated by consumers and while they were mostly very good sometimes... I don't agree with all your decisions... But I suppose you seem to be the lesser of all evils. Perhaps it is something to do with fit (some people like Grohol, for instance. I see him do some very kind things and respect him for that, but I also think he is a bit of an idiot).
I'm sure we could run the boards better than you sometimes... But I don't think we could consistently do so. And... Perhaps consistency is important. Sometimes. I don't know. I don't think it would hurt for you to listen to twinleaf (and others) more about the blocks. But then 10... I don't know...
Posted by alexandra_k on September 26, 2013, at 20:47:55
In reply to Re: the commons, posted by alexandra_k on September 26, 2013, at 18:10:43
> but I also think he is a bit of an idiot
actually that isn't true. it is more that it is relatively easy to wind him up.
Posted by alexandra_k on September 27, 2013, at 19:51:59
In reply to Re: the commons, posted by alexandra_k on September 26, 2013, at 20:47:55
> > but I also think he is a bit of an idiot
> actually that isn't true. it is more that it is relatively easy to wind him up.not that i test people or anything... but i don't feel that he is a very safe person to be around me when i'm having a lot of trouble with control.
i mean... i don't know that you are, either. but you are one of the safest. maybe we have complimentary pathology.
what is behind your defenses, i wonder?
do you get that dispersal feeling?
plastination for the win?
the trouble is... well... we just know what is going to happen with that. all these bodies (and parts of bodies) preserved (forever?) in plastic. if i keep up my training i think i'd make nice horizontal sections... there is going to be all this people litter. what are we going to do with all these plastic corpses? it is going to become a big f*ck*ng problem... i suppose we will ship them to space.
i think i might like that. being a plastic missile. intertia. space. i thought i would like space... but... maybe a little part is a little scared of that too...
i think death isn't so freaky because we don't know what will happen... it is more that of any of the things that could possibly be true of it... none of them seem particularly appealing.
Posted by alexandra_k on September 27, 2013, at 21:00:55
In reply to Re: the commons, posted by Dr. Bob on September 26, 2013, at 1:32:18
> > > Incentive was the key?
> > I guess that is the way they tell the story. Being granted / Taking ownership.
> I wonder what ownership here might look like.I guess we need to distinguish between the internet as commons and Babble as commons. I suspect that the internet is more of a commons and Babble is more your private property / your government.
I'm not sure that Babble can be viewed as a commons with your being in control of it.
I think...
We need to allow that social norms / customs spontaneously arise from groups of peoples - the way that common language does. Commons are governed, in a sense. It is just about WHO has control... About... Whether that control mechanism is... Sensitive to shorter vs longer term interests. Sensitive to the needs of all equally vs more sensitive to the needs of some compared to the needs of others. Etc. There are different ways different societies come down on things like that.
I'm starting to think that relying too much on genetic inheritance rather than merit isn't a strategy that works out particularly well... I mean... It served England for a while, but then even England had to adapt to that, rather (the monarchy is figure head these day, really). I think part of the issue with Maaori culture is that roles in society are meant to be determined by birth right... So (for example) the eldest boy is the speaker... And (when all goes well) he takes into account the little voices of others (perhaps those with brains etc) in his ear... But if you get a particularly stupid / incompetent one... You f*ck over a lot of people who rely on him to speak and advocate on their behalf... A better system would be to elect the person most competent to represent the people...
There are problems currently with women not having speaking rights on the Marae... Why would a woman choose to stay with her tribe and be passed over / dismissed when she can (for example) perform exceedingly well in a court of law (for instance)? Why have any kind of loyalty to a tribe who would dismiss / pass you over so?
(I don't know that that actually does happen - but if it did...)
(We have been told to not expect all students to speak up in front of other in tutorial groups because not all of them have been given the role of speaker. But my problem is: Why not train them all to speak and then pick the best ones to represent? Why decide upon birth who must do what? How does that result in the *best speakers*?)
Adapt... Or perish...
A leader turned up for us today. We will see... Part of the issue (for me) is that I just want to be left to do my thing... But... In the interests of the whole anthropology thing... It will be good for me... She comes bearing gifts for all... Wonderful things like dishwashing detergent... I will need to find the place between doing my own thing and doing some mental f*ck*ng mathematics...
Sigh.
These people (people like these) took me into their care when I was 14 years old. Nobody would look after me (get me away from my mother) and... They did. Even though I hated every minute of it (sort of) people people people masses of people... Was an antidote to just me/mom. And they are light-hearted... Whereas I am intense and roundandroundandround in my head...
So...
Smack me on the head sometimes for not being appropriately humble.
I got reading through the archives... And they are shrinking, yeah. A lot less posts than there used to be. How come?
Partly... I suspect the people who used to post here got better. Like Deneb... They have other things to be engaged in that aren't focused around 'mental health'. Partly... I think that you can find things that you get from here distributed around other parts of the internet. Sometimes in the most unlikely of places. I developed some wonderful friendships (where we talked about all kinds of intimate stuff - worked through body image issues and feelings of inferiority etc etc) in the most unlikely of places... this internet forum that was initially set up for people to chat to each other about bodybuilding steroids, of all things...
i think part of it is the decentralization of power thing. the rise of allied health. you are old school in a way... authoritarian... most people don't like that... the would rather take their chances with the commons... and bail to a different group if they don't like what they see. people take people with them... i lost t nation when a bunch of girls objected to the sexualization of women... this whole thing of them posting half naked pictures of their progress then taking offense as people posted 'i'd hit it' etc... they moved to google circles or whatever it is... i didn't go with... but i think people are doing that, more... the internet is the commons... and people set up temporary tents...
i am surprised that there aren't more people like me... i don't know why there aren't. why they aren't still here. i don't know. i need this place, though. i need it to still be here. thank you for not shutting it down and for responding sometimes. everybody here helps me feel less alone. but me... my issues... it means a great deal to me that you are.
Go forward in thread:
Psycho-Babble Social | Extras | FAQ
Dr. Bob is Robert Hsiung, MD,
bob@dr-bob.org
Script revised: February 4, 2008
URL: http://www.dr-bob.org/cgi-bin/pb/mget.pl
Copyright 2006-17 Robert Hsiung.
Owned and operated by Dr. Bob LLC and not the University of Chicago.