week 6 : 7 november
activism, politics
Highlights From Student Posts[back to week 7]
- Barrie
- Now that the bones are picked, it's easy to see how the concept of the commons is taking hold on the Web, or has already done so. I wish spam didn't immediately come to mind, because on the whole, the last two decades of free--in both senses of the word--exchange of information has been not only revolutionary, but positively so... As I ponder, I read stuff like the EFF's page on e-voting
- Belle
- But it’s all about a Utopia, the character of Internet is based on the diverse opinion market. And also the author mentioned that “The result is administrative law, which is rightly feared for an ancient reason--Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?--"Who shall watch the watchers themselves?"”
And there exist an essential problem, since the Internet needs a series of facilities to access. We face an inevitable digital divide among all people. Not everyone is affordable to all facilities, and also not everyone has enough knowledge to access the Internet. Thus, people with better knowledge will come out better lives, and people with less knowledge will stick in his/her level all the time. It’s unfair, and will defiantly cause serious social problems.... As to the E-Government and E-Democracy, here are some links to show the present status.
- But it’s all about a Utopia, the character of Internet is based on the diverse opinion market. And also the author mentioned that “The result is administrative law, which is rightly feared for an ancient reason--Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?--"Who shall watch the watchers themselves?"”
- Chloe
- Furthermore, Hardin pointed the tragedy of freedom in a commons. Because
everyone has an equal right to share resource and as a rational being,
everyone seeks to maximize our gain, this freedom of the commons will ruin
the commons....
The tragedy of the commons is a conflict for resources between individual interests and the commons. As far as I'm concerned, the theory of the commons also applies on the Internet. Each netizen may do whatever they want and excessively abuse these virtual resources on the Internet (commons) because they think that their behaviors are not restricted by others in the commons.
- Furthermore, Hardin pointed the tragedy of freedom in a commons. Because
everyone has an equal right to share resource and as a rational being,
everyone seeks to maximize our gain, this freedom of the commons will ruin
the commons....
- Courtney
- Group 4.
- Elina
- no post
- Jeanne
- no post.
- Kai-Chen
- “We made a big mistake 300 years ago, when we separated technology
and humanism. It‘s time to put the two back together” (Michael
Dertouzos).
Excessive freedom, and over-expanding population, suchlike these elements, will accelerate the deterioration of the earth itself. Garrett Hardin also emphasized that rich people mustn't damage to everybody's interests because of one's own interests.
- “We made a big mistake 300 years ago, when we separated technology
and humanism. It‘s time to put the two back together” (Michael
Dertouzos).
- Kevin
- I
was at UCSB where Hardin taught in biological sciences when his notion
that the 'green revolution' extending the food supply with new strains
of grain (the staple for most of the world's population) would ultimately
result in too many people....
It is difficult to apply the work of thinkers like this to the use of the Internet. Of course, if Hardin's point that there can't be a technical solution to problems is considered, then one might argue that the Internet is yet another extension of an imperfect world. ...
But, to Hardin's idea of a tipping point, if you will, in the commons, the Internet might actually encourage people to consider their choices more closely and more quickly. If McCluhan's idea that the speed induced by electricity drives the evolution of media, then education and understanding may come more quickly. ...
The Internet like any other technical tool has the potential to benefit society or detract from it. Ultimately, it's up to people.
- I
was at UCSB where Hardin taught in biological sciences when his notion
that the 'green revolution' extending the food supply with new strains
of grain (the staple for most of the world's population) would ultimately
result in too many people....
- Kristina
- By failing to regulate the commons, Hardin seems to say, the public will inevitably exhaust its resources. The Internet could be considered a commons...Will we eventually be bombarded with so much information that we won't be able to keep up with all the sites we want to visit (I think I'm already there). Actually, I don't think this is the problem so much as when certain sites become so enmeshed in the culture that newer sites will have a harder time finding an audience.
- Luke
- no post .
-
Magnus
- This tragedy of the commons is also known as the free rider clause in political science... I don't know how the internet can be a polluted public good.
- Mini
- From my experiences relating to e-government, it is a channel that the public and the government communicate with each other directly. To say it clearly, it can enhance civil participation.
- Nancy
- Hardin ties the idea of a shared pasture with individual herdsmen vying
for ever-increasing shares of the resource to overpopulation, and argues
that population problem "has no technical solution, but requires a fundamental
extension in morality." His scientific paper was notable for its discussion
of morality (Wikipedia, 2006)...
Last year I wrote a paper for an international relations class examining the population problem and have posted some excerpts here... (excellent overview)
- Hardin ties the idea of a shared pasture with individual herdsmen vying
for ever-increasing shares of the resource to overpopulation, and argues
that population problem "has no technical solution, but requires a fundamental
extension in morality." His scientific paper was notable for its discussion
of morality (Wikipedia, 2006)...
- Nika
- When I saw this title it made me think of a story from my economics class
about sheep in England. Then I read the article. It WAS about sheep in
England, well sortof. I felt smart =)
The theory applies to the Internet in that its a shared resource that people have little incentive to share and keep open. People use bandwith as they please, but at least when they use bandwith it doesn't disapear. But then neither did the grass if you didnt use too much. If the internet is simply used without any research and additions to it, it will grow old and die. The only reason its still working as a common resource is that we are putting so much energy and work into it. Imagine if the few countries who do so much for it, stopped. It would hurt everyone else.
- When I saw this title it made me think of a story from my economics class
about sheep in England. Then I read the article. It WAS about sheep in
England, well sortof. I felt smart =)
- Randa
-
The
Internet National Park
David Bollier, commenting on an article by Brett Frischmann, An Economic Theory of Infrastructure and Commons Management, Suggest there are areas, "positive non-market externalities" (I combined two terms), that have value to the common good not determined by economic value. These could include clean air, an open internet and say, the National Parks systems.
They go on to point out that the Web provides "value as a commons", but all sorts of social, cultural and personal value that market theory can't begin to appreciate (easy communication with one's family and friends, casual sharing and dialogue with strangers, etc.)" Just as we needed public policies to protect our wilderness areas, we need public policies to maintain the wilderness of our web. Write your congress person today.
-
The
Internet National Park
- Rex
- Group 4
-
Stephanie
- Group 4
- Steve
- Was anyone else surprised by this article? I'm not oblivious to the diversity
of opinion on population, nor do I think Hardin is totally off-based, but
couldn't he have left a little room for religious ideology as a possible
exception to the rule.
Apart from outer space, the Internet is the most expansive interval I can appeal to. Anyone can access it as if it were as common as the air we breathe. Ok, a little farfetched, but you get the point. So, where there is accessibility to such an extensive resource freedom of thought or expression races hysterically through digital highways reaching from the largest cities to the islands of the sea to young and old alike. So, how does this impact us? Well…that depends! I’m not going to go into a lot of detail how the free flow of thought through the Internet impacts us, but needless to say there are a lot of creepy people out there that take no thought of (Hardin would say they have no conscience) how their content will impact their neighbor.
- Was anyone else surprised by this article? I'm not oblivious to the diversity
of opinion on population, nor do I think Hardin is totally off-based, but
couldn't he have left a little room for religious ideology as a possible
exception to the rule.
- Tony (Fu-Yuan)
- Group 4
- Vaun
- Globalization has spread a freewheeling, free-market spirit of “more for me NOW!” to almost every corner of the globe. We still read articles and see television stories that warn us of impending perils, but our knee-jerk reaction today is to make jokes about them. Whoever came up with the idea, back in the ‘80s, of the bumpersticker that read “Nuke the Whales” knew exactly where our consciousness was heading.
Hardin’s article is even more depressing to read today that it would have been in 1968, if you think about how much worse the problems he talks about have gotten. In this age of high tech it is startling to read Hardin’s statement that there are no technological solutions to our problems. In this age of Information Revolution it is depressing to read Hardin’s prediction that even spreading information cannot stem the tide of our problems. Most depressing of all is his prediction that voluntary temperance and good behavior not only will not solve our problems but may actually make them worse, by making it easier for others to be intemperate and behave badly. As Hardin says, it only makes sense to grab what you can. Letting your neighbor grab it instead, because of your idealistic notions of doing good for the world, is perverse. ...
We laugh today at the people who thought that the telegraph, or the telephone or television, would bring world peace and brotherhood and sisterhood. Despite this, I believe that if the Internet can be maintained as a “commons” for free and candid communication throughout the world, it can be a powerful vehicle for bringing about progressive, non-oppressive political solutions to global problems.
- Globalization has spread a freewheeling, free-market spirit of “more for me NOW!” to almost every corner of the globe. We still read articles and see television stories that warn us of impending perils, but our knee-jerk reaction today is to make jokes about them. Whoever came up with the idea, back in the ‘80s, of the bumpersticker that read “Nuke the Whales” knew exactly where our consciousness was heading.