> Sunlight delivers huge value to society but profit to no one. According to your claims that is a “commons”. And according to your theory unless a government manages sunlight it will always result in a “tragedy of commons”.
or perhaps the tragedy hasn't happened yet. And in any case, humans barely harvest the sunlight at the moment. So it might yet happen in the future. What if by building a dyson swarm, the sunlight becomes owned? Would that not be a tragedy then?
> These things still fit your definition of a “commons” being things that “deliver huge value to society but no profit to anyone”.
And we get increasingly fewer and fewer of these knowledge today imho, thanks to a tragedy called IP law.
So i do claim that my definition of commons is inline with the idea of commons, and that tragedy of the commons can (and probably will) still happen.
or perhaps the tragedy hasn't happened yet. And in any case, humans barely harvest the sunlight at the moment. So it might yet happen in the future. What if by building a dyson swarm, the sunlight becomes owned? Would that not be a tragedy then?
> These things still fit your definition of a “commons” being things that “deliver huge value to society but no profit to anyone”.
And we get increasingly fewer and fewer of these knowledge today imho, thanks to a tragedy called IP law.
So i do claim that my definition of commons is inline with the idea of commons, and that tragedy of the commons can (and probably will) still happen.