&#x27;mikeash nailed it down perfectly, albeit very succinctly. It&#x27;s not reshuffling the terminology, it&#x27;s a common phenomena - that a group of actors making decisions in their self-interest end up creating a situation that is bad for everyone and that nobody wanted in the first place, but that they can&#x27;t get out of anymore.<p>For instance, in a little simplified example, each farmer would prefer to not abuse antibiotics because they deeply care about their health and maybe even about the future of mankind. But in a competitive environment, the first farmer to use more antibiotics will gain advantage over the others, so some other farmers - maybe afraid of losing the money to feed their children - will start using more antibiotics too to stay competitive (and those who refuse on ideological grounds will simply get outcompeted). Soon, everybody is abusing antibiotics even though no one wanted it (maybe the first defector was greedy, or maybe he <i>really</i> needed the money). The end result is the same (competitive advantage gained by antibiotics cancels out when everyone is using them), everyone is collectively worse, and no one can break the cycle.<p>That&#x27;s why we need external actors, like governments, to enforce some coordination. But real-life governments too often fail at that.<p>I linked to a powerful microscope in a parallel subthread.