The Tragedy of the the Commons is a stupid theoretical exercise that only happens under highly unrealistic scenarios. Elinor Ostrom won the Nobel Prize in Economics for her research which provided clear empirical evidence that common shared resources could be sustainably managed, provided that the all stakeholders involved are given input in how resources are developed and shared. In particular, her research cautions against any one size fits all approach, and instead advocates for ground up, grass roots approaches.
Her study of and subsequent evidence that use and sustainable management of resources by groups of people such as unions, cooperatives, and trusts can be rational and prevent depletion are clear arguments against individualistic Capitalism where one entity has undue power and can result in ruin.
Elinor Ostrom - Wikipedia - https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elinor_Ostrom
There is research about when commons work and when they don't. SRSLY WRONG has a podcast episode about it
Edit: here is the episode. Basically we are more motivated to follow rules when we are included in the process of creating them. Then we also are willing to "police" others so no centralized force is necessary. Also it's quite a leap to think that the dominant system doesn't work because of a thought experiment. If it works in practice, it has to work in theory
SciShow also has an episode on it. The tragedy can often be avoided by everyone agreeing that destroying the commons is bad and to adhere to a set limit. Modern research showed that happens way more often than an escalating free-for-all that would ruin the commons.
Counter examples were roads, which get loaded with traffic, and use of plastic bags, which fill up in landfills. Agreements can't solve all cases. Sometimes alternatives (public transportation) or incentives (a charge per plastic bag, no charge for reusable) are needed to avoid the tragedy.
The tragedy can often be avoided by everyone agreeing that destroying the commons is bad
Right, but you're also creating a prisoner's dilemma. That is, if everyone agrees to work one way, and you have one person that breaks rules in a way that gets them ahead--and lets say that, in a purely communist society, that 'getting ahead' in this instance means that they need to put in less work to have the same result as everyone else, and thus have more time available for themselves--then it creates a strong incentive for everyone to follow suit. You need those outside regulatory bodies with enforcement powers in order to create the disincentive to breaking rules and agreements.
Perversely, farmers often know that what they're doing is deeply harmful for the environment, but there are strong financial disincentives preventing them from changing. Without both a regulatory structure forcing change on everyone, combined with incentives that make changing affordable to them (such as giving them cash to buy updated equipment to farm in new ways, and ensuring revenue levels), they're kinda fucked.
