Way back on March 21 I wrote that I was submitting a $10,000 proposal to fund a 40th Anniversary retrospective on Garret Hardin's "Tragedy of the Commons." Today I finally--a month and a half later--received word that I would get the funding. Phew, I had almost given up hope.
So on November 21, 2008, the Adrian College Policy Institute will host the Symposium. Among the panelists will be commons expert Elinor Ostrom, of Indiana University's Workshop in Political Theory and Policy Analysis, Mathematician J. Marty Anderies of Arizona State University's School of Human Evolution and Social Change, Oberlin College Political Scientist Harlan Wilson, and Grand Valley State University biologist (and friend of the late Garrett Hardin) Carl Bajema.
Information about the Symposium is available at the Policy Institute website.
Showing posts with label garret hardin. Show all posts
Showing posts with label garret hardin. Show all posts
21 March 2008
I Lied
Despite the claim at the top of my blog that I will never lie to you (borrowed from Jimmy Carter, in his 1976 presidential campaign), I lied. I revamped the proposal one more time, eliminating all the alternatives I didn't really like, which left only 1, at a cost of $10,350 (which actually is a high-end estimate, based on top-end costs for many items, meaning we can probably bring it in under budget, if they give us that much).
This was a strategic move. Because most of the other options were less expensive, they might have been too attractive to an administrator who didn't really get what I had in mind. And the $12,000 estimate assumed we didn't charge a registration fee, but I decided it's best to make people to feel invested in the conference by paying a fee for it. Two good meals, a commemorative item, 9 high-quality speakers, and a hotel room, all for $40? That's more than a good enough deal. (
Of course once people pay the $40 it's a sunk cost, and they should ignore it rather than feeling committed, but since people aren't really that economically rational, I'll operate on a basis of how they actually do behave, rather than how they ought to behave.)
I talked to our College's Development Director yesterday, and he sounded positive about raising the money for it. Then I hinted to the Dean that I was going to ask for a lot more than we had talked about, and his response was, "Yeah, after we talked I started thinking that this thing could be really big, but I wasn't sure in what way." Sweet music to my ears! He's primed to think big, and is waiting for me to show him the way!
And I had a nice talk on the phone with Dave Gardner, who commented on my first post about this conference that he'd like to film the event for a documentary he's making. That, noted as a possibility, not a certainty, is now part of my proposal, as one of the selling points. Our President loves publicity for Adrian College.
As much as anything, I'm eager to find out if my strategic choices pay off. As a political scientist, I find it easy to look back at past political events and see what the good and bad strategic choices were, but when you're actually having to make them, it's much harder to see what the best strategy is.
This was a strategic move. Because most of the other options were less expensive, they might have been too attractive to an administrator who didn't really get what I had in mind. And the $12,000 estimate assumed we didn't charge a registration fee, but I decided it's best to make people to feel invested in the conference by paying a fee for it. Two good meals, a commemorative item, 9 high-quality speakers, and a hotel room, all for $40? That's more than a good enough deal. (
Of course once people pay the $40 it's a sunk cost, and they should ignore it rather than feeling committed, but since people aren't really that economically rational, I'll operate on a basis of how they actually do behave, rather than how they ought to behave.)
I talked to our College's Development Director yesterday, and he sounded positive about raising the money for it. Then I hinted to the Dean that I was going to ask for a lot more than we had talked about, and his response was, "Yeah, after we talked I started thinking that this thing could be really big, but I wasn't sure in what way." Sweet music to my ears! He's primed to think big, and is waiting for me to show him the way!
And I had a nice talk on the phone with Dave Gardner, who commented on my first post about this conference that he'd like to film the event for a documentary he's making. That, noted as a possibility, not a certainty, is now part of my proposal, as one of the selling points. Our President loves publicity for Adrian College.
As much as anything, I'm eager to find out if my strategic choices pay off. As a political scientist, I find it easy to look back at past political events and see what the good and bad strategic choices were, but when you're actually having to make them, it's much harder to see what the best strategy is.
16 March 2008
Grand Unveiling: ToC Symposium Logo
After several hours of furious designing, my wife, a soon-to-be Bachelor(ette?) of Fine Arts has produced the logo for the ToC Symposium. Sure, it's a little bit of cart-before-the-horse, but it will look great at the top of the proposal.
15 March 2008
Tragedy of the Commons 40 Year Retrospective--Coming this November!
I previously noted that this year is the 40th anniversary of Garret Hardin's "Tragedy of the Commons" article, which claimed that "freedom to breed is intolerable," and that "mutual coercion, mutually agreed upon" is the only way to prevent overpopulation. I suggested that I was going to try to organize a 40 year retrospective.
And now I'm actually doing it--I received approval from my Dean to go ahead and start planning it. Of course I can plan anything I want--the real question is whether I receive any financial support to make it good. Here's the fun part, the Dean suggested he could kick in about $2,000, and asked for a formal proposal. After thinking about it, I'm going to ask for $10,000!
Actually I'm going to ask that they commit the $10k up front, then go find a sponsor for it, and give them the naming rights for our symposium. Actually, actually, I'm going to ask that they find a sponsor willing to kick in $10,000 a year to do this every year, with the theme being an annual 1 day interdisciplinary, policy-oriented symposium that brings in top-name scholars, and is limited to only 40 other attendees who get lunch, dinner, and a hotel room free--all they have to pay is their travel.
Here's how I've figured it: By selecting a policy theme, we make it possible to bring in people from multiple fields. For example, a water policy theme could attract policy experts, environmental scientists, sociologists, etc. By tapping multiple fields, we dramatically expand our target audience to potentially vast proportions. By making it free we make it even more desirable. And by dramatically limiting the number of attendees, we make it exclusive and special, and make it possible for us to provide a very personalized and high-quality event that will leave attendees thinking our small College is the best-kept secret in the U.S.
$10,000 will buy a tier 3 nationally known speaker to come in and talk for an hour. (Tier 1 is $50,00 and up; Tier 2 is $15-20,000). Or we can do something that absolutely nobody else is doing.
And consider this: Within a 6 hour drive of our campus are 12 major universities, 30 regional universities, and several dozen smaller colleges and universities. I don't doubt I can get 40 people to come, and have most of them clamoring to come back next year.
And I've already secured a commitment from the world's leading expert on commons problems, Lin Ostrom of Indiana University, possibly both the world's smartest, and the world's nicest, political scientist (with apologies to my graduate advisor, John Orbell, who probably comes in second on both counts). A big name to build my first conference around--it should be good.
And now I'm actually doing it--I received approval from my Dean to go ahead and start planning it. Of course I can plan anything I want--the real question is whether I receive any financial support to make it good. Here's the fun part, the Dean suggested he could kick in about $2,000, and asked for a formal proposal. After thinking about it, I'm going to ask for $10,000!
Actually I'm going to ask that they commit the $10k up front, then go find a sponsor for it, and give them the naming rights for our symposium. Actually, actually, I'm going to ask that they find a sponsor willing to kick in $10,000 a year to do this every year, with the theme being an annual 1 day interdisciplinary, policy-oriented symposium that brings in top-name scholars, and is limited to only 40 other attendees who get lunch, dinner, and a hotel room free--all they have to pay is their travel.
Here's how I've figured it: By selecting a policy theme, we make it possible to bring in people from multiple fields. For example, a water policy theme could attract policy experts, environmental scientists, sociologists, etc. By tapping multiple fields, we dramatically expand our target audience to potentially vast proportions. By making it free we make it even more desirable. And by dramatically limiting the number of attendees, we make it exclusive and special, and make it possible for us to provide a very personalized and high-quality event that will leave attendees thinking our small College is the best-kept secret in the U.S.
$10,000 will buy a tier 3 nationally known speaker to come in and talk for an hour. (Tier 1 is $50,00 and up; Tier 2 is $15-20,000). Or we can do something that absolutely nobody else is doing.
And consider this: Within a 6 hour drive of our campus are 12 major universities, 30 regional universities, and several dozen smaller colleges and universities. I don't doubt I can get 40 people to come, and have most of them clamoring to come back next year.
And I've already secured a commitment from the world's leading expert on commons problems, Lin Ostrom of Indiana University, possibly both the world's smartest, and the world's nicest, political scientist (with apologies to my graduate advisor, John Orbell, who probably comes in second on both counts). A big name to build my first conference around--it should be good.
28 February 2008
40th Anniversary for Tragedy of the Commons
I just recently realized that this year is the 40th anniversary of Garret Hardin's seminal essay "Tragedy of the Commons" (ToC).
Hardin, who died in 2003, argued that the Earth is commons, and that we're rapidly overpopulating it. (Oddly, Hardin did not cite Malthus.) The tragedy is that there is no technical solution to the problem, that is, no way to win without radically revising the game itself. Voluntary restraint in childbearing would lead to those voluntarists being outbred by those who didn't restrain themselves. The only solution, therefore, is "mutual coercion, mutually agreed upon," because "the freedom to breed is intolerable." Because of ToC's environmental implications, Hardin inarguably has had more influence in the social sciences than any other biologist.
Certainly population growth since the 1960s has been tremendous, as is shown in this chart. But the rate of growth has declined, so we will stabilize at some point in the future.
Source: United Nations.
But as can be seen in the second graph, population growth is almost wholly a function of underdevelopment. As people grow wealthier, they tend to shift along the r-k reproductive continuum from a more r-type strategy, to a more k-type strategy, resulting in fewer childen, and slower population growth.
Source: United Nations. Found at Population Reference Bureau.
The critical problem in Hardin's argument appears to be his assumption that having more children is always individually rational (or, from the biological perspective, always selectively advantageous). But philosopher Stephen Gardiner persuasively argues that this assumption is both theoretically erroneous, and not supported by empirical data.
One of the predicted outcomes of overpopulation was pressure on available resources. To that end, Paul Ehrlich, who famously predicted that much of the world would starve to death in the 1970s, accepted a bet with economist Julian Simon, concerning the future price certain resources (Simon let Ehrlich select them, and Ehrlich chose 5 metals). If they became scarcer due to population pressure, the price would increase. Ehrlich lost the bet, and just recently economist Mark Perry has argued that if the bet had been repeated between 1990 and 2000, Ehrlic still would have lost.
Most people, including me, are worried about overpopulation of the Earth, but empirical evidence that we've reached or exceeded carrying capacity is scarce. But I think the whole issue is compelling enough that I've begun planning a 40-year retrospective symposium at my college. It's much too early to say whether I'll pull it off, but I think it would be very interesting to get a variety of perspectives on Hardin's argument with the benefit of 40 years of thought and accumulated evidence.
Hardin, who died in 2003, argued that the Earth is commons, and that we're rapidly overpopulating it. (Oddly, Hardin did not cite Malthus.) The tragedy is that there is no technical solution to the problem, that is, no way to win without radically revising the game itself. Voluntary restraint in childbearing would lead to those voluntarists being outbred by those who didn't restrain themselves. The only solution, therefore, is "mutual coercion, mutually agreed upon," because "the freedom to breed is intolerable." Because of ToC's environmental implications, Hardin inarguably has had more influence in the social sciences than any other biologist.
Certainly population growth since the 1960s has been tremendous, as is shown in this chart. But the rate of growth has declined, so we will stabilize at some point in the future.
Source: United Nations.
But as can be seen in the second graph, population growth is almost wholly a function of underdevelopment. As people grow wealthier, they tend to shift along the r-k reproductive continuum from a more r-type strategy, to a more k-type strategy, resulting in fewer childen, and slower population growth.
Source: United Nations. Found at Population Reference Bureau.
The critical problem in Hardin's argument appears to be his assumption that having more children is always individually rational (or, from the biological perspective, always selectively advantageous). But philosopher Stephen Gardiner persuasively argues that this assumption is both theoretically erroneous, and not supported by empirical data.One of the predicted outcomes of overpopulation was pressure on available resources. To that end, Paul Ehrlich, who famously predicted that much of the world would starve to death in the 1970s, accepted a bet with economist Julian Simon, concerning the future price certain resources (Simon let Ehrlich select them, and Ehrlich chose 5 metals). If they became scarcer due to population pressure, the price would increase. Ehrlich lost the bet, and just recently economist Mark Perry has argued that if the bet had been repeated between 1990 and 2000, Ehrlic still would have lost.
Most people, including me, are worried about overpopulation of the Earth, but empirical evidence that we've reached or exceeded carrying capacity is scarce. But I think the whole issue is compelling enough that I've begun planning a 40-year retrospective symposium at my college. It's much too early to say whether I'll pull it off, but I think it would be very interesting to get a variety of perspectives on Hardin's argument with the benefit of 40 years of thought and accumulated evidence.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)