Entry 17: Tragedy of the Commons Experiment

I think if the method of acquiring the fish wasn't so difficult then we would deplete the lake of the fish supply very early on. Fortunately for us, we weren't so good at picking up M&Ms with chopsticks so we only acquired moderate levels of fish. If we were able to take however many fish we like then I am sure that fish would be extinct in our lake because we tend to do what's for our best interest even though it might hurt other people and lower the social interest. No one sacrificed for the sake of the society because sacrificing would mean that other people get more while you get less because unless everyone sacrifices, the sacrifice would be in vain and therefore only be negative to the good-willed philanthropist. However, after the first hunting season, we were able t discuss and come up with a plan that would benefit everyone and the social interest. We come up with the idea of everyone sacrificing and let the fish multiply and then we can take a lot in the end. We only took one fish per round because we wanted to let the fish multiply as fast as possible. I don't think the examples mentioned, regarding space and seats really fit with the situation. The reason is that fish is different because when we sacrifice, we're actually not only saving up for later but making it more profitable later while that's not the same case with seats and space.However, if its public good that would benefit from sacrifice then it is the same case and I think it's for the best that people put aside their self interest for the social interest because usually what happens in the long wrong is that it comes back and benefits personal interest.