Yes and/but you might be interested to know these things about the “Tragedy of the Commons”:

Elinor Ostrom, awarded the Nobel Prize in Economics in 2009, fundamentally challenged the “tragedy of the commons” theory, which Garrett Hardin popularized in 1968. Hardin’s theory argued that shared resources—like grazing land or fisheries—inevitably suffer from overuse because each user, acting in self-interest, seeks to maximize personal gain. Without external regulation or privatization, Hardin claimed, such resources would degrade irreparably.

Ostrom’s work provided a different perspective based on extensive field research across diverse communities managing shared resources, such as forests in Nepal and fisheries in Turkey. Through these studies, she found that local groups often developed effective, self-governing systems to sustain and share resources equitably. Ostrom identified eight core principles, such as clear resource boundaries, community-devised rules, local monitoring, and graduated sanctions for rule violations, which contribute to sustainable communal resource management. By documenting these successful cases, she demonstrated that, under certain conditions, communities could avoid the “tragedy” without privatization or top-down control.

Ostrom’s insights reshaped economic thinking by showing that cooperation, rather than competition alone, could lead to sustainable resource use. Her findings emphasize that real-world communities often solve commons problems through trust, local knowledge, and shared governance, challenging the idea that only private ownership or government intervention can manage common resources effectively. Ostrom’s approach has since inspired policies and frameworks for resource management across environmental, urban, and even space governance contexts, as her principles underscore the potential of collective, decentralized solutions to common-pool problems.

Her work offers an empowering view of human capacity for self-organization, contradicting the inevitability of Hardin’s “tragedy” and suggesting new possibilities for addressing global commons issues like climate change and biodiversity loss. This impact has encouraged rethinking in fields ranging from political science to ecology and economics.

Sources:

• Inside Story, “The not-so-tragic commons”

• Resilience, “The Victory of the Commons”

• Space Foundation, “The Commons Solution”

I don’t think you can blame Twitter and TikTok for that. People who like Tate’s toxic masculinity incel garbage will find somewhere that feeds into their preferences.

I mean Harris and “progressive and inclusive” aren’t necessarily one and the same, from the sounds of it it’s Harris that should be pushing more progressive, but in the context of this election I agree they should be voting for Harris

I know someone in this circumstance, and it comes down to exactly one issue: abortion. The spouse is Roman Catholic and cannot support abortion, so despite disagreeing with most of the republican platform, they feel obligated to vote with the party that opposes it. I had the same thing crop up in 2008 with a roommate who was Greek Orthodox and in every way one of the most progressive people I knew, but they voted McCain purely on this one issue out of religious guilt.

Regardless of the election result, there will be a shit-ton of divorces incoming over the next 12 months because of it.

One possibility is that they got married before Republicans lost their minds, and now they are trapped.

People change.

The data doesn’t lie. People under 30 vote at embarrassingly lower rates than every other group.

Orrrr…hear me out here

This is a news article about a set of social media posts and has absolutely no link or relevance to the voting register.

you know the cool thing about people voting? You know who has voted and in what age group they are. Then you can look at the age group and say things like hmmm wow thats weird there are like 34 million people in the US between 18 and 24, but only 7 million of them voted, I wonder if the other 27 million would have swayed the margin on an election decided by hundreds of thousands of votes

Young people aren’t participating yet they have the most skin in the game. It’s daft.

Imo Implement compulsory voting, introduce third parties that can act as a protest vote, watch what the fuck happens. Suddenly the major parties have to be accountable outside their base.

Fool me once shame on you, fool me twice…!

Good for them for coming around.

Unless the one time was this one, most recent, time

Bussin

Lol, that would be Chidi.