[ad_1]
The theory of common tragedy explains why some natural resources are exhausted.
An area belonging to someone is usually taken care of, as the owner is encouraged to conserve resources with long term care.
Photo: Fredrik Sandberg / TT
The explanation is that a common word is shared by many and taken care of by nobody. Each individual makes the most of the short-term maximization of his or her withdrawal from the public, such as fish or forest, before anyone else is in the past. In general, this means that the strongest can get used to the cost of the weaker ones.
However, an area belonging to someone is usually taken care of, the owner being encouraged to take long-term care with resources. And as society imposes the fruits of labor, everyone benefits from the long-term value creation that the property allows.
Despite the fact that history has provided a better understanding of the importance of ownership for the long-term management of significant resources, knowledge does not appear to affect future tensions. Speaking of this stream, an ongoing report from the Royal Institute of Technology, KTH. As reported by the Swedish scientific radio (28/11), the scientists evoke the idea that in the future, individual ownership will be less important. The property is predicted according to a scenario involving a collaborative economy, passing from private and public actors to collectives.
The strange thing about this kind of future tension is that in some ways it is ignored by both theory and practice. Communist tragedy and societal societal experiences do not speak because society improves by reducing private property for the benefit of the collective. Nevertheless, the idea often reflects that private property will diminish when society changes.
KTH researchers are not the only ones to design a future characterized by reduced property. The Swedish government and the European Commission have both launched a so-called circular economy. In the circular economy, the idea is that the responsibility of the products towards the producers will increase and that the consumers should only rent the service for example, a telephone or boots of 39; winter. When the product breaks down, the idea is that the company that owns it should be encouraged to repair it and conserve its resources. But if we really get better resource management, we can question the ownership of a large number of individuals to probably some global giants. Centrally controlled planning has never been demonstrated as the pinnacle of efficiency.
The same kind of thinking is also behind another prevalent future scenario – this is the so-called sharing economy. In this, the idea is that people share more and more on the same resource, like autonomous cars, and have less.
If it is possible to rationalize the management of resources, that's fine. But, at the same time, it is strange that in many cases the most effective concept of nutritional resources – widespread and strong individual ownership – should be reduced to create a sustainable future.
Edvard Hollertz / SNB
[ad_2]
Source link
