• ikidd@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      36
      ·
      2 months ago

      This sounded plausible until she said they poured bleach on the ground. Then it had the smell of bullshit.

      • Iapar@feddit.org
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        20
        ·
        2 months ago

        People drink bleach to avoid a life saving vaccine.

        In this parody of a world we live in I say it is not so far fetched someone would do this.

      • tetris11@lemmy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        12
        ·
        edit-2
        2 months ago

        Wait, why? Bleach is a common way to kill plants in the short term without any long term lingering effects in the soil since it decomposes into salt and water. With enough drainage, the salt seeps out and plants can grow again. I’d say it’s a pretty pragmatic solution to ensuring that someone doesn’t grow anything again in the short term.

  • frezik@midwest.social
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    82
    ·
    2 months ago

    “‘When you reap the harvest of your land, do not reap to the very edges of your field or gather the gleanings of your harvest. Do not go over your vineyard a second time or pick up the grapes that have fallen. Leave them for the poor and the foreigner. I am the Lord your God.” - Leviticus 19:9, 10

    • MehBlah@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      20
      ·
      2 months ago

      Leviticus Its in the pick and choose portion of the king james opinion of the bible.

      • Drivebyhaiku@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        8
        ·
        2 months ago

        Well it is “the Rules of the Tribe of Levi” canonically speaking they are laws made not by God but by a bunch of priests. It is important for biblical historical context reasons but technically speaking these are ancient society laws. It’s why instructional portions detailing animal sacrifice are included in that section when modern Christians tend to look at animal sacrifice as a satanic cult kind of thing.

        Provided you are Christian ( before the atheists start in, I’m not - I just study the religion as a part of gaining historical background info) Using Leviticus to justify one’s opinions on anything strikes me as showing that one read the text absent the scholarly context. A lot of Christians do this because book annotations wouldn’t be a thing before 1000 AD and it really benefited a lot of powerful people to never mention context of the compiling process of the book because once the supposed less than divine fingerprints on the processed material are brought to light it weakens it’s power as a tool of authority.

        • Zoboomafoo@slrpnk.net
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          2 months ago

          canonically speaking they are laws made not by God

          but the passage ends with God signing off on the law

          • Drivebyhaiku@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            2
            ·
            2 months ago

            So next time you’re at the tabernacle or trying to be being a priest you’ll know how to behave, sure.

            God signs of on mortal codes of governance multiple times in the text. Obedience to “Laws of the land” are a thing in other texts. The order seems to be “be orderly and in accordance to whatever the power structure where you are agrees is fair” it is pretty all over the place, Romans, Deuteronomy, Paul, Hebrews Numbers… God wields a pretty big ole rubber stamp.

  • LibertyLizard@slrpnk.net
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    50
    ·
    edit-2
    2 months ago

    I remember when I was young I got ticketed for trespassing on public property. I was so offended. Yet that’s the society we live in. Public resources aren’t for use by the public, they are for use by the small fraction of the public who control them.

    • shalafi@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      33
      ·
      2 months ago

      We’re gonna need the detail. The county jail is public property, but you can’t waltz in and say hi to the inmates.

      • LibertyLizard@slrpnk.net
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        42
        ·
        edit-2
        2 months ago

        It was for staying too late in a public park. It was meant to be closed after dark. I overstayed by like an hour.

        I think there’s a big difference between breaking and entering and trespassing. Going into a restricted area is more like the latter. Although there’s the whole ethics of a prison to consider as well but I don’t want to get into that.

        But yes there may be a small number of situations where public access should be forbidden but right now that’s a minority of all of the completely unnecessary restrictions that exist.

            • legion02@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              5
              ·
              2 months ago

              You’re thinking public or state ownership. Public property is property generally meant to be used by the public. That doesn’t mean that there aren’t conditions to that use though, like hours of operation.

              Most of this is in that article you linked…

                • daltotron@lemmy.ml
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  2
                  ·
                  2 months ago

                  That would imply the point is shit, which I don’t think it really is. It’s more like they’re buzzing around the point like how a fly will buzz around a chili dog at a baseball game. Likewise, they are being annoying and making it harder to digest.

              • gallopingsnail@lemmy.sdf.org
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                13
                ·
                2 months ago

                Property generally meant to be used by the public is “open to the public,” not public property. The grocery store is open to the public, but it is not public property, it’s private property.

              • lone_faerie
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                8
                ·
                2 months ago

                But why should a public park have hours of operation? Benches and open space don’t stop working after certain hours, don’t take resources or workers to operate, they’re just there. Why should we punish people for enjoying the outdoors?

                • JoeBigelow@lemmy.ca
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  2
                  ·
                  2 months ago

                  Swing through Washington square park at 2 in the morning, better still if you can do it 20 years ago

  • sketelon@eviltoast.org
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    37
    ·
    2 months ago

    I can’t recall the source, but I remember hearing that the Amazon, generations ago, was farmed. The trees aren’t distributed naturally, or something like that, we see signs of intentional crop management. However, it was done in a symbiotic way with nature so that it almost looks natural, until you look closer. With lots of fruit trees and food sources so that food was an abundant free resource.

    Wish I could remember the source for this, sounds like heaven on earth, working with nature is all we need to rediscover freedom.

  • Agent641@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    36
    ·
    2 months ago

    In my city, olive trees thrive like mad. I could probably start a business selling a few tons of brined and jarred olives a year entirely on free produce.

    Lemons, too. I could go for a 15 minute walk in any random neighbourhood and come back with 10 pounds of lemons.

  • AnUnusualRelic@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    36
    ·
    2 months ago

    Those same people walk on sidewalks without going through the toll booths!

    (for US people, sidewalks are designated areas on the side of the road especially for pedestrians, or as some people say, wasted space)

  • dQw4w9WgXcQ@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    28
    ·
    2 months ago

    The town I grew up in had several public apple trees. I have fond memories of climbing the trees with my friends to get apples.

    Maintenance is a thing, though. If not properly maintained, the apples will often grow too densely, yielding only small and sour apples. I would never consider the apples in my home town to be filling food - at best it would be a small snack. It would require a lot of labour to maintain a tree to the point where it would feed people in need.

    • DillyDaily@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      16
      ·
      2 months ago

      Public trees already have a maintenance schedule and budget, public fruit trees don’t need to be about filling hungry people, they’re just as much about finding small moments of joy in your community.

      Also trees that bear fruit usually don’t produce as much pollen in spring so it would cut down on hayfever, they do drop more seed which can be messier if planted along sidewalks. That’s the main reason decorative public trees are often male, 40 years ago civic planners decided pollen was easier to deal with than seed drop.

      • deafboy@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        2 months ago

        40 years ago civic planners decided pollen was easier to deal with than seed drop.

        Well, screw those people! In both nostrils!

      • JasonDJ@lemmy.zip
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        edit-2
        2 months ago

        I think whoever put the trees in my yard felt the same way.

        Never see any acorns or pinecones. Sometimes a maple seedpod floats it’s way into my yard.

        But our (silver and white) cars turn fluorescent green with tree spooge if we don’t rinse them off daily in the spring.

      • TranscendentalEmpire@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        2 months ago

        Public trees already have a maintenance schedule and budget, public fruit trees don’t need to be about filling hungry people, they’re just as much about finding small moments of joy in your community.

        Unfortunately, fruiting trees take a lot more maintenance just to keep alive, even moreso if you want them to produce anything worth eating.

        I have two plum trees in my front yard that I planted about 5 years ago and they take about as much work to maintain as a small garden patch. Modern fruit trees aren’t really natural, they’ve been bred over time to produce more and more fruit. With so much of its energy going to produce fruit, it leaves them more susceptible to disease and especially pests.

        If you like gardening it’s a great little hobby, but I couldn’t imagine the amount of work it would take to maintain hundreds or even dozens of public trees. Plus, I’m not so sure how comfortable I would be eating the fruits of trees absorbing all the petrochemicals from road wash.

    • stiephelando@discuss.tchncs.de
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      9
      ·
      2 months ago

      I have an apple tree in my yard. It needs to be pruned and thinned at appropriate times. Sometimes pest control is required, but that’s pretty much it. If done properly, it is a couple of hours of work per year max

      • TranscendentalEmpire@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        2 months ago

        I’m guessing it’s an older apple tree? Because my two establishing plumb trees take a lot more work than a couple hours a year.

        Most of the effort for fruit trees is spent getting them established and shaped the way you want. After 10-15 years of growth they mostly take care of themselves, but depending on your environment the first 5-10 can take a lot of time and effort just to keep them alive.

    • Swedneck@discuss.tchncs.de
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      2 months ago

      if that really is such a massive problem (i have never heard of that being a problem ever before, so what if they’re sour? just make cider then) just plant something else then, wild plums still taste great.

      also like… you can just plant more trees, you don’t need one single tree to feed 500 people, there is a depressing amount of completely unused space in most urban areas which you can just fill with fruit-bearing plants.

  • AnimalsDream@slrpnk.net
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    28
    ·
    2 months ago

    I’ve been told that this is a no-go for city planners because the sheer quantity of fallen fruit can be a walking hazard, and no one wants the legal liability. What it comes down to is that “free” fruit trees would require additional ongoing maintenance costs. Nothing nefarious, just logistical issues.

          • Track_Shovel@slrpnk.netOPM
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            12
            ·
            2 months ago

            No doubt, but look at the black and white thinking in this thread. We can’t have fruit trees at all because they might interfere with sidewalks, or because city planners might get in a huff.

            I’m not discounting the legitimate concerns of trafficability or zoning, but to write it off completely for these concerns is trash. If we can engineer a tailings dam and plan for 100 year floods that might ruin it, then we can figure out a way to permit fruit bearing trees in cities.

        • stebo@lemmy.dbzer0.com
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          4
          ·
          edit-2
          2 months ago

          Because fruit on a grass field isn’t a hazard? Also who said anything about cars? Cyclists use the road too and it’s a much larger hazard for them than for cars. You’re the one thinking about cars here, not me.

    • Aeri@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      6
      ·
      2 months ago

      I imagine if there were trees all over every street in town there would be a lot of mushy ass fruit swarming with flies on the ground.

      It’s not a stable enough logistics chain to be viable, like, If I think “I’d like to possess a bowl of apples” I’m not going to like, patrol the streets and pick apples to that end.

  • spicystraw@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    26
    ·
    2 months ago

    Don’t fruit trees need extra care and pruning, and the fruit that falls to the ground is also kind of a mess to clean up. Sturdy trees are good in the city, since they are low upkeep and very good for air quality and shade. I am however a huge fan of vertical gardens with edible plants. Imagine a whole wall with mint growing on it, that would be wicked!

    • Catoblepas
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      25
      ·
      edit-2
      2 months ago

      If you want to maximize production, yeah, you cut at certain times of the year to force the trees to put as much energy into the fruit as possible. But if you just leave them outside they will fruit as long as they are sufficiently watered and have enough room to grow (and it’s not insanely stressed from a drought or heat wave, etc). There might not be as many fruits, and they might be smaller, but it will produce. But ideally you always want to choose fruit or nut trees that are native to your region (or at least your agricultural zone) so that they require less upkeep in general.

    • tetris11@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      10
      ·
      2 months ago

      Date trees line the boulevards of many Mediterranean countries, and there is no issue with cleanup or rot.

    • JayObey711@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      8
      ·
      2 months ago

      We had a lot of berry bushes at the side of the road in my hometown. Trees were often apple or Japanese cherry blossom trees. And of course the local chestnut tree made up a lot of them. Wich are also delicious. All of them bore fruit and nuts and we loved picking the stuf.

    • Who knew?@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      6
      ·
      2 months ago

      Public works departments already deal with a lot of bullshit from the builder’s special trees that are already installed, managing permaculture forests would actually be easier in many ways. Portland Oregon handles this by making homeowners responsible for the sidewalk easement so they are encouraged to plant trees that don’t get too tall and don’t get too wide with their roots so the sidewalk doesn’t buckle. So you get people planting a lot of fruit trees. There is a Gleaning group there that goes and gathers ripe fruit and does stuff with it like applesauce, or there is also a cider made by Portland Cider Company with juices from gleaned fruit they get off people’s trees around town. It’s pretty good cider.

    • Benjaben@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      4
      ·
      2 months ago

      I think it’s a combination of the effort required and sadly the liability too. I would imagine anyone who is saying “feel free to come eat this food” is exposing themselves to lawsuits, to some degree. The kinds of organizations who are large enough to make a big impact by deciding to grow some food on their properties are the same ones who’d be targeted by frivolous lawsuits, costing money just to defend against, and offering the orgs no tangible benefit in return.

      To be clear, I don’t agree with structuring things this way and I think it’s a trash way for our society to work, but growing food in “public” places seems non-viable without addressing that big vulnerability somehow.

    • daltotron@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      2 months ago

      Sturdy trees are good in the city, since they are low upkeep and very good for air quality and shade.

      Sturdy trees WOULD be good for the city, yeah. Unfortunately we’ve decided to, in basically every major city (at least here in NA and I suspect other places), plant non-native trees that have low survival rates and are basically all male. Being male, they tend to also shit pollen basically everywhere. I’d imagine you could deal with the fruit falling to the ground in a number of ways, as well. Could put some canopy underneath the fruiting trees, as to collect the fruit more easily, you could just pay people to come and collect enough of the fruit for use in things like applesauce that the rest of the fruit really presents no issue as far as just sort of rotting and draining into the ground. You could set up a bunch of easy disposal compost boxes every couple feet, so you can just sweep all the fruit up and throw it into that.

      I suspect a larger problem would probably be that inside of the city the fruit would be exposed to more than an acceptable amount of brake dust, including that which drains into the planter box, and would maybe not get enough light, but I think those are generally problems we should be solving anyways since they don’t disappear just because we decide not to plant fruit trees. Brake dust on the fruit or carcinogens inside the fruit means that those things are also going to be going into your lungs.

    • Swedneck@discuss.tchncs.de
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      2 months ago

      trees don’t need much of anything, they’re perfectly capable of growing on their own. I can’t imagine they prune any of the fruit trees in my city (beyond like, removing big damaged branches and stuff that just applies to literally any tree in an urban area) and they produce fruit just fine.

      Fruit falling to the ground isn’t particularly problematic either, like yeah it rots and stuff but… okay? who cares? it’s gone within like a week and if people are really so unable to handle the reality of food then they can toss it in the compost.

  • woop_woop@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    25
    ·
    2 months ago

    Presumably because everyone assumes the tragedy of the commons will happen as it always does. And, little red hen, there’s a sense that if one person does the work, they are owed the fruits of their labor

    • ShinkanTrain@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      15
      ·
      edit-2
      2 months ago

      Talking about tragedy of the commons on the internet, in a decentralized network, is an extremely funny bit.

      Do I need to mention that the guy who came up with it was a racist who wanted to justify displacing the “unproductives”?

      • woop_woop@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        2 months ago

        To your first point, why? You know what the Internet is like outside the fediverse right?

        To your second, I guess you can. Don’t know what it has to do with the subject at hand

    • snooggums@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      9
      ·
      2 months ago

      But a fruit tree in a public space is like an open field or playground equipment in a public space. They are there for everyone, and people who complain that the ‘wrong people’ are using those public rrsources for personal use are selfish idiots.

      Like if a company came in and took all the fruit, sure, that would be wrong. But someone taking apples to make a pie? That’s what it is there for.

      • woop_woop@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        edit-2
        2 months ago

        What if one person comes in and takes it all? Don’t even need companies, just individuals.

        That’s the tragedy of the commons.

        • snooggums@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          4
          ·
          2 months ago

          What if the tree only produces 3 fruit, is it wrong for three siblings to pick and eat them?

          • woop_woop@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            2 months ago

            Idk, you tell me. I’m suggesting that scarce resources not owned by anyone will get used by those who take it. This is a fact. What then? Is it bad? Is it ok? Pretending it’s not a thing is to deny reality and all of human/life history

      • NaibofTabr@infosec.pub
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        2 months ago

        What if I hire a dozen people to randomly, individually go and pick all the fruit and bring it to me, and then I make a profit reselling what they collect?

        • Swedneck@discuss.tchncs.de
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          2 months ago

          this is literally a legitimate business in the nordic forests thanks to the right to roam, people will hire (generally thai people) to go out into the forests and harvest berries and mushrooms on an industrial scale (by hand though) and then sell it to grocery stores or directly to people on the street…

          and surprise surprise, i have never seen anyone complain about this. Rather people gladly pay their pretty cheap prices rather than going out and picking it themselves, and there’s more than enough available out in the forest that everyone can find some for theirselves if they want.

          hell the law specifically gives you a tax break for selling fruits and berries you’ve personally picked, you can earn something like 25’000 SEK per year that way without needing to pay any tax on it.

          This isn’t a fucking problem.

    • grue@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      5
      ·
      2 months ago

      It’s only a tragedy if allowing “first come, first served” until the resource is completely exhausted is actually a problematic outcome. For urban fruit trees intentionally planted for the public, I’d argue that that isn’t the case.

    • Semi-Hemi-Lemmygod@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      2 months ago

      Plus having rotting fruit laying around will encourage pests. Maybe put these into specific areas rather than just scattering them around.

        • BougieBirdie
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          10
          ·
          2 months ago

          Yeah, my city has street sweepers and gardeners, so I wouldn’t imagine this would be a huge problem.

          They could even put out compost bins like public trashcans. I wouldn’t mind cleaning up a couple of fruits here and there as I walk by.

          If it’s in a public place in front of businesses and such, then the business has an incentive to keep things tidy. So all in all, I think it’s a fairly easy problem to solve.

          • Maeve@midwest.social
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            5
            ·
            2 months ago

            Plus the employees and customers could enjoy the fruit. Free fruit already gathered may entice more customers for other things. I guess food stores may not like the idea.

        • Semi-Hemi-Lemmygod@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          3
          ·
          2 months ago

          I’m thinking about fruit trees and bushes specifically. If you’ve ever gone apple picking you see how many apples are on the ground. Domesticated fruit trees are bred and grafted to be highly prolific, and you’ll have a lot more fruit dropped than you’d think.

          Plus you’ll have animals going into the trees to eat the fruit. Commercial berry farmers have to cover their bushes and trees with nets to prevent birds from picking them clean. (And then producing very colorful art on outdoor surfaces.)

          I’m not saying it’s a bad idea, but I don’t think people have entirely thought it through.

          • Swedneck@discuss.tchncs.de
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            2 months ago

            this is already bog standard here in sweden and the only real problem is fucking MOOSE coming into people’s gardens to eat fruit, any other animals are too small for anyone to be bothered by them.

            fallen fruit just isn’t a problem in the real world, it’s fine.

            • Semi-Hemi-Lemmygod@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              2 months ago

              I lack confidence that my fellow Americans won’t make it a problem. Here people cut down fruit trees because birds shit on their cars.

      • Swedneck@discuss.tchncs.de
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        2 months ago

        how do you explain this just… not being a problem that anyone talks about in areas where fruit trees are already plentiful in cities? I feel like people use the word “pests” the same way conservatives use the word “immigrants”, it’s just an abstract scapegoat to throw out whenever you want to argue against something…

        • Semi-Hemi-Lemmygod@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          2 months ago

          I had a long list of animals that I was going to use but omitted it for brevity. Rats, mice, cockroaches, pigeons, raccoons, possums, deer and, apparently, moose would be a few of them.

          But in cities they’re already pretty prevalent so I guess adding another food source wouldn’t encourage them

  • Zement@feddit.nl
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    23
    ·
    2 months ago

    My parents are happy when people pick fruits from the trees at the street. When they fall they rot no one except the wasps and insects have something from it.

  • NaevaTheRat [she/her]@vegantheoryclub.org
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    22
    ·
    2 months ago

    Lol lmao. The right to the fruit of something is literally one of the kinds of Roman property law that informs European ideas of property rights.

    Fruit trees are mostly just expensive to grow vs other kinds and can be unappealing if fruit spoils or attracts other animals. E.g. you probably wouldn’t want to play on the grass underneath an orange tree on all the little bits of orange after possums have at it.

      • Ace! _SL/S@ani.social
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        6
        ·
        edit-2
        2 months ago

        I didn’t say we shouldn’t do it. I just wanted to point out that sadly one jerk will probably try and ruin it for everyone

        • dessimbelackis@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          5
          ·
          2 months ago

          We should bring back tar and feather punishments or maybe exile, for people who ruin good things so they can benefit more than anyone else

    • pelespirit@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      15
      ·
      2 months ago

      Meh, that’s why you plant an abundance. No value if you can’t steal at least most and probably be able to travel.

      • fishbone@lemmy.dbzer0.com
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        4
        ·
        2 months ago

        I grew up in a town with plenty of fruit naturally growing (blackberries especially, which grow like weeds) and having an abundance absolutely meant that no one tried to horde it all. You could pick 10 pounds of blackberries and barely make a dent in the amount in any given neighborhood.

      • Ace! _SL/S@ani.social
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        2 months ago

        That’s a good solution I didn’t really consider. Sad that my brain considers 1 apple tree already way more than any government might be willing to plant

      • SinAdjetivos@beehaw.org
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        4
        ·
        2 months ago

        And if you actually read the Wikipedia article you linked:

        The work of Elinor Ostrom, who received the Nobel Prize in Economics is seen by some economists as having refuted Hardin’s claims.[1] Hardin’s views on over-population have been criticised as simplistic[2] and racist. [3]

        Hardin’s work is criticised as historically inaccurate in failing to account for the demographic transition,[191] and for failing to distinguish between common property and open access resources.[192][193] Environmentalist Derrick Jensen claims the tragedy of the commons is used as propaganda for private ownership.[194][195] He says it has been used by the political right wing to hasten the final enclosure of the “common resources” of third world and indigenous people worldwide, as a part of the Washington Consensus.[196]

        Other criticisms have focused on Hardin’s racist and eugenicist views, claiming that his arguments are directed towards forcible population control, particularly for people of color.[210][211]

        The “tragedy of the commons” is one of those things that’s very Intuitive, but doesn’t actually hold up to much scrutiny.

        • Maeve@midwest.social
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          4
          ·
          2 months ago

          So the BLM lied about the (Cliven and sons) Bundy cattle degrading US property? No, I don’t sympathize with them, just saying the answer may be somewhere between each extreme. Key word: “may,” because I’m not a conservation scientist and people are people.

    • Swedneck@discuss.tchncs.de
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      2 months ago

      that just obviously doesn’t happen though, my city’s full of fruit trees all over and the absolute worst thing that happens is that dumb kids shake down some of the fruit because they’re dumb, and you can just… pick that up…