Posted by
Steve Smith on
Mar 30, 2008; 4:11pm
URL: http://friam.383.s1.nabble.com/Wed-Blender-Stereo-and-Computational-Photography-Videography-for-Cultural-Preservation-tp525972p525994.html
Folks,
I apologize if I missed this in an earlier part of the thread... these
discussions are so elaborate and rich that I simply find I cannot keep
up with them all front to back.
However... this divergence of discussing bicyclist pelotons which is
segueing into what feels like a discussion of seeking solutions to what
is known as the "Tragedy of the Commons" has gotten my attention.
> The canonical example is of a resource that begins with having no limit for
> a small community of users with various cooperative habits for exploiting
> it. If their habits constitute a growth system, the users will usually know
> only their own individual experience and have no experiential information
> about the approach of that limit. It's not clear what their best source of
> information would be about it, or how they would choose what to do at the
> limits.
>
> What kind of information might indicate the approach of common resource
> limits? How would that be different from evidence that other users are
> breaking their agreements? As independent users of natural resources tend
> to have less information about, or interest in, each other's particular
> needs than, say, cyclists in a peloton, how would they begin to renegotiate
> their common habits when circumstances require it?
>
As most of us know, there has been a lot of abstract study of this in
Game Theory as well as practical study in economics, political science,
and evolutionary biology.
The bicycle peleton seems to arise fairly directly from "reciprocal
altruism". While there is some cost to the riders at the head of a
peloton in terms of simple distraction and risk of interference, in
general the only cost they bear is relative to the others who gain an
advantage from an emergent common resource, the air pocket behind them
which is unexploited otherwise. "reciprocal altruism" is an obvious
response, each member of the peleton being motivated to contribute to
the group as a "windbreaker" in exchange for not being ejected or
ditched from the peleton. As the end of the race nears, the motivation
to "defect" increases and only those with a shared fate (members of the
same team) are likely to maintain pelotons right up to the last minute.
Phil makes good points about global optimization under local awareness.
As our actions begin to have longer range consequences and we begin to
exploit a larger commons (global, including earth orbit, Lagrange
points, and the lunar surface soon enough) our awareness of the state of
said commons must be expanded equally. This also is problematic, as
our awareness must be mediated both technologically and socially (we
must use telescopes, remote sensors, etc. and depend on others to share
their observations and judgements about the condition of the commons).
When these other devices (mechanical and social) are insinuated between
our perceptual system and the commons in question, we are at risk of
them being miscalibrated and of our innate perceptions not being tuned
to them. We simply may not understand the implications of what our
instruments are telling us in the first case and in the second case, we
may not trust the agenda of the social constructs between us and what we
are observing (see the long-running arguement over whether climate
change is real or not).
- Steve