Can we revisit the idea of overcoming tragedy of the commons through reframing action hitherto considered altruistic rather as strictly dominant?
I dunno how I feel about playing by ‘their’ rules and using ‘their’ language instead of snatching the reins to control the discourse on my own terms (I need to read that book that my colleague recommended) but whenever I try to use the language I wanna use, it comes out moralistic and I end up realising that I’d far rather try to use ‘their’ rhetoric to argue my point – and win! Like with the economic argument for eg. renewable energy.
Anyway. Tragedy of the commons. What if cooperate became the strictly dominant strategy due to reframing of the issue – and, thus, the payoffs?!?? E.g. using alternative indicators. That’s essentially the effect of using alternative indicators – you change the payoff structure and thus the strategy. Boom.
From a previous post:
The ultimate solution to this and all tragedies of the commons is to take unilateral action. Reduce greenhouse gas emissions because doing so is good for yourself or is the right thing to do, regardless of what others do.
Isn’t this basically what we’re trying to convince policymakers? Isn’t our work strategy to highlight benefits and awesomenesses resulting from taking the action we propose?