[Noisebridge-discuss] [intellectual claptrap] Toward a theory of utilization

[jim]

    Nice answer. I suspect that both TOT{commons,privatization} 
coexist in a disjunct way. If I were one of the 10K homeless, I 
think I'd still want to be picky about my shelter; seems like 
the few homeless or near-homeless I know (all women, oddly) 
complain about various obnoxisities. Maybe adding the concept 
of a filter for right {placement,use} would be helpful. 
    Please do go on when you find the energy. 




On Sun, 2013-02-17 at 12:06 -0800, Tony Longshanks LeTigre wrote:
> On Sun, Feb 17, 2013 at 9:10 AM, jim <jim at systemateka.com> wrote:
>         
>         don't forget the tragedy of the commons.
>  
> I suppose I didn't specify, but I had in mind private property, not
> common resources. The "tragedy" you're referring to is a huge beast
> I'm not gonna tackle just yet, except that I don't think further
> privatization is the answer: down that road lies dollar signs, madness
> & plutocracy. With regard to, oh-I-don't-know-let's-just-say private
> property in the form of real estate, here in SF, where we have 30,000
> vacant housing units (according to the most recent U.S. Census)
> contrasted w/ supposedly low vacancy rates/housing shortages +
> astronomical rent rates + perhaps as many as 10,000 homeless people,
> consider this: a house or other livable property owned essentially as
> a commodity by its multi-property-owner is entered & used for shelter
> by said homeless persons or their allies. Obviously, not all 10,000 of
> the homeless people can fit in that one shelter; that would indeed
> "deplete the commons." But if the statistics we have to work with are
> correct, we have 30,000 vacant units & only 10,000 homeless persons (&
> 10,000 is probably a high estimate—"official" counts are usually more
> in the 3,000 to 5,000 range). Do a simple subtraction there & it would
> appear there is no Tragedy of the Commons but rather a Tragedy of
> Privatization (& a Question of the Surplus!) Thus the stock
> liberal/libertarian warning of the commons dilemma is little more than
> a bogeyman.
> 
> 
> Vis-à-vis NoizBrig though, I'll own that the commons dilemma is plain
> to see, along w/ so many other social issues—fascinating microcosm
> that it is. I'd term it a "comedy" or "tragicomedy of the commons"
> though, in that context; to wit: I was just reading up on different
> forms of symbiosis/mutualism & this jumped out at me:
> 
> 
> A commensal relation based on shelter is seen in clown
> fishes (Amphiprion percula), which live unharmed among the stinging tentacles of sea anemones, where they are protected from predators. Numerous birds feed on the insects turned up by grazing mammals, while other birds obtain soil organisms stirred up by the plow. Various biting lice, fleas, and louse flies are commensals in that they feed harmlessly on the feathers of birds and on sloughed-off flakes of skin from mammals. 
> 
> 
> Clown fishes, stinging tentacles, various biting lice & fleas,
> sloughed-off flakes....damned if that passage doesn't put ya in mind
> of NB in its less lovable moments! There is something to be said here
> about parasites vs. commensalites & other non-harmful/beneficial
> symbionts, but I'm too tired to say it right now....
> 
> 
> +11+
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Noisebridge-discuss mailing list
> Noisebridge-discuss at lists.noisebridge.net
> https://www.noisebridge.net/mailman/listinfo/noisebridge-discuss