we already have. the "tragedy of the commons" meme, as well as its scientific underpinning in game theory, behavior analysis and economics, as well as the known solutions for the abstract problem, bear no relationship whatsoever with those eugenicist origins; those are just noise that has been discarded over time. rejecting the perfect-fitting memetaphor ;-) because of its author reeks of cancel culture, and is no more than an ad hominem fallacy. rejecting it because of the noise it was first published with is just as fallacious. rejecting it because some of the resource overusers attempt to guilt us into using less so that they can use even more would be missing both the point of the memetaphor and the known solution: a credible commitment between the parties to avoid overuse. throwing away the understanding and the known solution for a recurring behavioral pattern that's a perfect fit for pollution and for overuse of natural resources just because the term can be traced back to someone we disapprove of is about as fallacious (logically unsound) as demanding roses to be renamed, or claiming they stink, because someone highly reproachable happened to like them. me, I prefer shakespeare: they would smell just as sweet. the game theory models and solutions would still be the same, we'd just be using a less recognizable name for them, and that would hamper rather than promote knowledge and action that we need so urgently