You're looking at Less Wrong's discussion board. This includes all posts, including those that haven't been promoted to the front page yet. For more information, see About Less Wrong.

TheOtherDave comments on Stupid Questions Open Thread - Less Wrong Discussion

42 Post author: Costanza 29 December 2011 11:23PM

You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.

Comments (265)

You are viewing a single comment's thread. Show more comments above.

Comment author: Modig 24 January 2012 01:26:47AM *  0 points [-]

There's an argument that I run into occasionally that I have some difficulty with.

Let's say I tell someone that voting is pointless, because one vote is extremely unlikely to alter the outcome of the election. Then someone might tell me that if everyone thought the way I do, democracy would be impossible.

And they may be right, but since everyone doesn't think the way I do, I don't find it to be a persuasive argument.

Other examples would be littering, abusing community resources, overusing antibiotics, et cetera. They may all be harmful, but if only one additional person does them, the net increased negative effect is likely negligible.

Does this type of argument have a name and where can I learn more about it? Feel free to share your own opinions/reflections on it as well if you think it's relevant!

Comment author: TheOtherDave 24 January 2012 03:41:19AM 1 point [-]

The related behavior pattern where everyone contributes to the collective problem is sometimes referred to as the tragedy of the commons. I'm fonder of "no single raindrop feels responsible for the flood," myself.