Tragedy of the Commons: The Big Evolutionary Hurdle

The tragedy of the commons was a term popularized by Garrett Hardin that illustrated how a group of dependent actors could end up destroying the resources they’d all relied upon due to being driven by their own self-interest. As potential solutions to the issue of resource depletion, Hardin proposes systems of governance or privatization. While human beings have the outstanding capacity for negotiation, social conventions and moral frameworks to potentially curb such tragedies, evolutionary biologists have come to question how non-human organisms would go about doing the same. Consequently, researchers have attempted to apply the tragedy of the commons to a vast array of biological systems to discover the various different mechanisms in play, such as kinship, policing and more.

In Hardin’s paper, he describes a situation where herders would share a plot of land to graze their cattle. While they have the option to graze smaller amounts to sustain their respective cattle for a lifetime, their self-driven interests cause each player to add more cattle to their herd, ultimately resulting in the depletion of land and a losing situation for everyone. This occurs since there is a clear monetary incentive for each individual herder while the losses in environmental stability are felt system wide. These behaviours have been consistently replicated in studies using various natural resources such as marine goods, clean air and more. The wisdom gained from these studies has generally pointed towards some form of negotiation or repercussions on noncompliant actors being needed to prevent a tragedy from occurring. For example, taxing parties that pollute excessively to help prevent ecological waste.

Obviously, these intricate solutions cannot be applied to non-human organisms. In spite of various organisms’ lack of cognitive abilities, however, evolutionary biologists have found mechanisms that they’ll use to circumvent tragedies. For example, kin selection is used by plants in competition for water sources to prevent resource depletion. Additionally, chimpanzees will use dominance-based monopolization strategies along with social tolerance. Punishment is a strategy employed by sea slugs to ensure male slugs are an available resource for reproduction. Non-human organisms have plenty of strategies to employ to avoid a losing situation.

The tragedy of the commons clearly showcases how simply acting in one’s own self-interest can produce heavily negative outcomes in the long run. While it might seem that organisms should be quite susceptible to this tragedy given their self-interested nature and lack of cognitive faculties, it is interesting to see the mechanisms in play to prove the contrary.  One should note that it would be impossible to record organisms that have suffered due to the tragedy as those would no longer exist.

I found this to be an engaging topic of inquiry as the tragedy of the commons has also been conveyed by the Prisoner’s Dilemma that we discussed in lecture. Due to the respective prisoners’ self-interests, both parties end up confessing and face the most possible time in jail as a result. It was interesting to see how evolutionary biologists utilize game theory to develop working models and use them to answer questions regarding evolutionary behaviour.

Relevant Links:

The Tragedy of the Commons in Evolutionary Biology
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0169534707002741#tbl1

Koomen, R., & Herrmann, E. (2018). Chimpanzees overcome the tragedy of the commons with dominance. Scientific Reports8(1). doi: 10.1038/s41598-018-28416-8

Chimpanzees Overcome the Tragedy of the Commons with Dominance
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-018-28416-8#Sec18

Rankin, D. J., Bargum, K., & Kokko, H. (2007). The tragedy of the commons in evolutionary biology. Trends in Ecology & Evolution22(12), 643–651. doi: 10.1016/j.tree.2007.07.009

Radicalized through Recommender Systems

Online radicalization is a social phenomenon that has been a popular point of discussion as of late due to recent affairs in the modern political landscape. In light of events such as the Charlottesville protest, Christchurch shooting, and overall rise in hate crimes, many have pointed to major social media platforms in playing a contributing factor. By hosting and promoting extremist fringe content through their recommender systems, platforms like Youtube are becoming fertile grounds for radical ideologues. Caleb Cain is an example of an individual who, as he describes, “had fallen down the alt-right rabbit hole.”  In a New York Times published piece, he speaks of his slow indoctrination into far-right ideology through Youtube’s own recommender system as it would suggest further dubious content for him to view.

In a report from DataSociety by Rebecca Lewis in 2018, she outlines the potential pathways to extremist ideology one might have on Youtube by producing a graph of various political pundits and their relationships through appearances on the same video. Nodes are treated as their respective YouTube channels while the edges represent videos in which both parties contributed. As the algorithm tends to suggest videos from content creators and collaborators that the user has viewed, she lays out potential links between how one could be watching videos made by mainstream political pundits like Ben Shapiro and eventually be lead to viewing content from devout white nationalists such as Richard Spencer.

The findings in this report were further built upon in a study this year titled, “Auditing Radicalization Pathways on YouTube”. Researchers found a strong overlap between the users in comment sections of videos ranging from conservative talk show hosts to alt-right figureheads. To test Youtube’s recommender system, they took a snapshot by beginning at a Youtube channel that belonged to one of their devised community groups while performing a random walk across five suggested channel links and recorded their destination. The researchers found that they would hit a channel belonging to their “Alt-Right” cluster once every five times that they ran their recommender system, meaning one out of a total twenty-five attempts. While the percentages may seem small, they can make a meaningful difference given the scale at which Youtube operates.

Having encountered recommender systems during our discussions about signed networks in lecture, I thought this would be a good opportunity to look into the applications of these systems in the real world. They are no doubt effective at engaging users given how they’re employed in virtually every social media platform in some shape or form. Whether it be for finding products you might enjoy, movies, restaurants, friends and more, these recommender systems do a great job in analyzing a network and giving users more of what already suits their tastes. They are clearly optimized for engagement given the monetary incentives involved. The more time you spend clicking that next video suggestion on Youtube, the more opportunities they have to make money from advertisers. At the cost of only optimizing for engagement, however, you have issues with these recommender systems having unintended consequences.

This brings forward the idea that with recommender systems being so ubiquitous on the web, perhaps the internet isn’t the open sea that people pictured it to be. It might seem, in certain instances, that it’s more prone to forming bubbles instead. The ways in which these recommender systems provide great convenience can be damaging in some aspects as well. It will be interesting to see how companies akin to Google choose to augment their systems, if at all, to address problems such as user radicalization in the future.

Relevant Links:

The Making of a Youtube Radical –
https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2019/06/08/technology/youtube-radical.html

Alternative Influence: Broadcasting the Reactionary Right on Youtube –
https://datasociety.net/output/alternative-influence/

Auditing Radicalization Pathways on Youtube –
https://arxiv.org/abs/1908.08313