I don't disagree that it was an ideological "essay" but I dunno why you're linking that when it's most associated with Aristotle, in particular:

"What is common to many is taken least care of, for all men have greater regard for what is their own than for what they possess in common with others."

Maybe you're suggesting that that essay popularized the phrasing? But I'm pretty sure even as a coined "term" it was around before then

Tragedy of the common is a concept dating back to ancient times that has extremely broad empirical support throughout history. The essay you mention took the name from all this real world experience, and even if the essay is bad, the concept is anything but.

A simple search finds more examples and references to literature than you can likely read in years.

I’d recommend starting here https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tragedy_of_the_commons

Dating back to ancient times - specifically Aristotle. Aristotle also believed that women are deformed men. That some people deserve to be enslaved. That deaf people are incapable of reason.

So, just because it’s old doesn’t mean it’s true. Just like “kids these days” or “seems like nobody wants to work anymore” some bad ideas are evergreen.

> So, just because it’s old doesn’t mean it’s true

No one claimed it's true because it's old. If you like reasoning fallacies, you should love the concept of a strawman.

This is the first I've heard that it's false; however it seems like many times in my life I've observed something suffering, seemingly from lack of ownership despite being a common good.

What do you call that if you can't call it a tragedy of the commons?

On HN I’ve seen regular claims that “tragedy of the commons has been disproven”. I’ve not yet identified which social bubble propagates this or what it is based on but there seems to be some niche in which people are being taught that it is categorically proven to be an invalid concept.

It's more than one person - it happened in a recent comment I made: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=41758008

I suspect some popular blog/YouTube channel made some waves around it.

That persons argumentation is awful, however. Another patient soul took the time to challenge the idea with logic, and there wasn’t much actually supporting the idea in response.

I’d just like to note that i disagree with your summarization. They defend their perspective quite well imo

> I am sure there are some hyper specific examples where it has happened as described, but as a “fact” about the world and as a justification for any course of action, it’s highly suspect.

You read that and understood “categorically proven to be an invalid concept”?

I hope it was clear to most readers of my comment that I was talking about a general line of rhetoric rather than this specific post.

However, from the parent comment I keyed in on your quote less, and much more on:

> It was disproven

FWIW.

Lack of accountability.

People cite the tragedy of the commons to discourage sharing of resources. The idea that common land should be divvied up into private ownership to prevent them falling into ruin. When really shared resources just need accountability between the people who make use of them. It’s just basic game theory: If there is no cost to abusing your opponent, that strategy will get used. But if you’re going to be playing long term with the same people, systems will form to deter abuse.

When the UK enclosed their fields so that they were privately controlled crop yield immediately went up 20%. Theres overwhelming empiric evidence of tragedy of the commons being real.

it’s a specific viewpoint that chooses to measure success in terms of crop yields, rather than quality of life…

The tragedy of the commons didn’t claim that crop yields are slightly depressed. The claim is that the commons will be overused to the point of threatening to destroy it.