The term 'tragedy of the commons' was coined at the time of the biggest transfer of land from common ownership to private interests in the history of GB. It describes the very benefits the businessman in the OP describes - the profit motive of efficiency due to privatisation. It is in itself capitalist fodder.
Over time it has may have come to signify anti-capitalism. Perhaps the only thing that kept the tragedy of the commons in check was social responsibility. Which, by virtue of remote capital, has been decimated - once again, as the OP describes.
Your argument about feeding the millions is both common and fallacious. The world population has increased more than sevenfold from that time.. the increase in population much more closely mirrors the increase in production, than production does the increase in need.
The term 'tragedy of the commons' was coined at the time of the biggest transfer of land from common ownership to private interests in the history of GB. It describes the very benefits the businessman in the OP describes - the profit motive of efficiency due to privatisation. It is in itself capitalist fodder.
Over time it has may have come to signify anti-capitalism. Perhaps the only thing that kept the tragedy of the commons in check was social responsibility. Which, by virtue of remote capital, has been decimated - once again, as the OP describes.
Your argument about feeding the millions is both common and fallacious. The world population has increased more than sevenfold from that time.. the increase in population much more closely mirrors the increase in production, than production does the increase in need.