During the experiment, we had some ideas to start off with which certainly made the experiment more different. We had the idea of conserving the fish, so they can mass produce later on while we only acquire the bare minimum to survive. People did not take too many fish and like I previously stated, Andy quite possibly disrupted the outcome that we originally wanted, but we gained the most in the end. Society does reward those who take the most in the short run, as they can sell the most and become rich and prosperous among the fishing industry. We all did sacrifice for the good of the community as we thought that it would be a good idea to conserve now and gain alot later. Society does reward people like that after as afterwards our fish kept reproducing and all we could do at the end was keep fishing but we couldn't even finish our plate due to the large number of fish that have repopulated. Strategy stayed the same for game two as we were completely prosperous from our first round and we continued to do the same. There were no differences other than the fact that we started to clip more fish as we were scared that we couldn't finish at the last round. There is no way you can maximize both the fishermen's fish and the fish in the pond, if one goes up, the other has to go down. If the fishermen were greedy, the fish in the pond would in response, be less. We are faced with many commons, things like the sofa area will be taken up by many people. Natural resources that are common resources are such things like coal, natural gas, fish stock. Global commons are things like the ocean, the atmosphere and more. Many are not being used to its maximum power as shown in the experiment that the society will actually benefit more if the common resource were not taken up and people were not in pursue of personal interest.
No comments:
Post a Comment