James Lovelock Suggests Suspending Democracy To Save the World 865
mosb1000 writes "Climate scientist James Lovelock claims it may be necessary to put democracy on hold to prevent a global climate catastrophe. He goes on to say that the best remedies may be adaptation techniques such as building sea defenses."
Lovelock is famously the creator of the Gaia hypothesis.
Um..no (Score:5, Insightful)
I'm an environmentalist, but I also know that if you put democracy "on hold" it's awfully hard to get it started again.
Re:Um..no (Score:4, Insightful)
It's not just about putting democracy on hold. It's about a global concerted effort to do so. If the world governments all join up to save the world from the greenhouse gases, once the smoke clears we're left with a single world government. AKA, a global monopoly. The telco monopoly gave us telcos that didn't care about their customers, the browser monopoly gave us the most reviled browser ever created, and a monopoly on government would destroy civil liberties for centuries, and descend into a spiral of corruption, greed and social inequality that would only start to fix itself once the government collapses in its own filth.
Not having to buy any more winter clothing is almost preferable.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Nah.
The corporatocracy we have now would never allow that.
Re:Um..no (Score:5, Funny)
Oh, don't be so cynical. All it would take is for everyone in power to radically rearrange their priorities, stop caring about keeping/accumulating more power, and to begin putting the welfare of humankind ahead of their own. Easy peasy.
Re:Um..no (Score:4, Insightful)
I think they would welcome it. Only one body to sink their lobbyists' claws into.
Re:Um..no (Score:5, Insightful)
The way I like to put it, is everyone likes a tyrant as long as he's "my favorite tyrant".
It should be no surprise that there's someone out there in favor of totalitarian rule, as long as it goes the way he wants.
Where do you think the totalitarians get their support?
Anyway, I'm hoping for "my kind of totalitarian". You know, someone who, with a few of his handy goonies, will use main force to put a bullet in this guy's head. I mean, you know, if he's in favor of totalitarianism of they type HE likes, he can't possibly object to the type *I* like, now can he?
C//
Re:Um..no (Score:5, Interesting)
There seems to be a certain type of person who simply can not conceive that there are people who are not essentially humanitarian. These people simply assume that everyone has your best interest at heart. The criminal mind is entirely foreign to them. It's naive in the extreme, nevertheless we have a man intelligent enough to earn a PhD, yet dumb enough to think that power won't be abused despite evidence to the contrary in the news each and every day.
Re:Um..no (Score:4, Insightful)
Same set of people who think that people aren't fit to bear arms... except when it's the people they personally prefer.
C//
Re:Um..no (Score:5, Insightful)
Or we have a Slashdot poster dumb enough to not realize that the man with the PhD knows but doesn't care, as long as he gets his wish. Or that the PhD man is trying to set up an extreme position to locate the "reasonable compromise" where he wants.
Re:Um..no (Score:5, Informative)
A 90-year-old man doesn't have time to be a tyrant. If you take the trouble to read the article, Lovelock isn't advocating the suspension of democracy as a Good Thing(TM), be is making the point that people are too fucking stupid and inert to put aside their petty little squabbles for long enough do anything about bigger issues.
Re:Um..no (Score:5, Informative)
An '-ism' is a belief. Beliefs make you blind to anything which disagrees with your belief. This guy's belief is an idealized fervor for the ecosystem. It's his dogma to help the environment at personal cost. He's blind to the fact that others won't do that.
As pointed out in, of all places the Kevin Smith movie Dogma [imdb.com], "I think it's better to have ideas. You can change an idea. Changing a belief is trickier. Life should malleable and progressive; working from idea to idea permits that. Beliefs anchor you to certain points and limit growth; new ideas can't generate. Life becomes stagnant."
People often think only religions that talk about supernatural beings foster beliefs and blindness to the differences of others. I think any kind of unquestioning blind faith is bad, even if very smart people promote their own variety.
Re:Um..no (Score:4, Funny)
Re:Um..no (Score:4, Insightful)
The thing about the world is that it is really big. There are a lot of people in it. And if there's a top, everybody wants to be on top.
A strong world government wouldn't last. All it'll take is one regional leader to revolt, and a lot of other regions will want to do the same.
The UN is almost ideal as a global governing body insomuch as it doesn't govern but instead suggests and advises. Any stronger world government would result in an eventual rebellion and overthrow of the system. And it would continue until it reaches and equillibrium, which is more or less where we are at.
The only time a strong world government is remotely possible is in light of foreign invaders. And by foreign, I mean extraterrestrial. The need to survive will be the only catalyst for such a governing body. And once the invaders have been expelled, things will fall apart again. It's only under constant threat will it be possible for any world government to grow stronger.
Re:Um..no (Score:5, Informative)
Strangely enough this is the kinda crazy talk that my very very far right leaning stepfather has been saying they were trying to make happen with the whole global warming debate.
Re:Um..no (Score:5, Funny)
You are absolutely right. After reading the GP and your comment. A one world government isn't a monopoly. One can always choose to move to the moon or Mars.
Re:Um..no (Score:5, Funny)
On second thought, screw the environment, democracy and fair government.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
I volunteer to work as a humble civil servant in your society, and for a supreme sacrifice to the cause, for the sake of loyalty, purity and clarity of purpose, I'm willing to forgo the blackjack.
Re:Um..no (Score:5, Informative)
Everyone, be aware, "Third Position" is an American Neo-Nazi group that calls for "preservation of the European heritage" of the American population.
They're concerned that in a few generations our children won't still have such fair skin.
When you see this guy acting all normal, like one of the gang, bear in mind you're just dealing with Colonel Hans Landa with his uniform packed neatly away in storage.
I aim to make sure that as long as he posts here, the swastika on his forehead shines brightly. I'm just sorry I've already modded in this discussion, or I'd sign this little warning label, as I have done before.
Re:Um..no (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Um..no (Score:5, Insightful)
The idea of a democratic state is that it is better to institute and artificially maintain a monopoly that you have some say in, rather than have one appear naturally in a power vacuum, which you have no say in at all.
Re:Um..no (Score:4, Insightful)
some of us realize that individuals effectively have no say in democracy. like the parent said, at least we can decide not to purchase the telco's service. and even their crappy service is due to government monopolization in the first place.
Re:Um..no (Score:4, Interesting)
You're quite wrong about that, and I can only imagine that you were the victim of a strong anti-democracy indoctrination campaign. Let's take what should be an uncontroversial example: civil rights. Civil rights came about because of the actions of many individuals. It wasn't a gift from a corporation. It wasn't a gift from the government or the ruling classes. It happened because people stood up for themselves and what they believed in, and through democratic processes exerted their will over the ruling classes, getting change for the better.
Where your education has failed you, is you don't seem to understand what democracy is. Democracy is not 40% or less of the population going to a voting booth once every X years to select which beholden, corrupt bastard is going to be making decisions for the next X years. Democracy is people being active, educating themselves, getting active (and getting out in the streets if necessary) to make sure that the people making decisions are actually listening. Democracy requires you to get off your ass and do something from time to time. Democracy requires you to take responsibility for what your country is doing in your name. And a healthy democracy requires educating yourself to the methods by which the corporate media manipulate you, and what their motivation is (I suggest an excellent study "Manufacting Consent" as a starting point for this.).
Turning American into a healthy democracy means learning how the system is corrupted and failing, and working to correct that. By and large, that means better sources of information (and the internet helps here), taking corporate money out of the electoral system, and instituting more democratic mechanisms, for example allowing more public referendums. Shorter terms, etc etc.
Of course, the alternative is to take an anti-politics stance, and allow your fate to be decided by large corporations, which are essentially private tyrannies, beholden to no one, working toward a single goal: profit, and the environment, human rights, worker safety, freedom from slavery, or whatever else only has a value if it can be used to generate a profit.
Re:Um..no (Score:5, Interesting)
Democracy is still a monopoly on power. It is a better way to do it than the alternatives that have been tried to date, but don't delude yourself. In a democracy, 51% of the population can vote to have the other 49% dragged from their homes and shot. Hell, the most cherished parts of the US constitution are the NON-democratic portions. The beloved bill of rights is a big old "fuck you" to democracy. It lays out the stuff that a democratically elected government can't do unless follows an arcana process that requires an overwhelming super majority.
There is nothing particularly wonderful or just about democracies. The real value a functioning democracy provides is that it gives the assholes in power the boot every few years, hopefully before they gather up too much power for themselves, and does so in a non-violent way. The selection process in a democracy ensure that at least a majority is more or less happy with the results. It isn't just, good, or anything of that nature. It is just convenient. Someone needs a monopoly on force, there are commons that need to be regulated, and some stuff that just works better when a guy can point a gun to your head and tell you to just do something. Highways are not built on hugs and democratic snuggles. They are built on a government's ability to point a gun at your head and tell you that you are going to pay for it or get cozy with the inside of a jail cell, and then do that a few million times to different people until they have enough money to build the communal asset.
As far as corporations go, they are great when they work. Personally, I love that I can pick between competing pizza places. There is nothing authoritarian in that. It is the ultimate expression of free will. In a democracy, if 51% are for something, they can put a gun to your head and make you do it. In the corporate world, if I think that Davis Square Pizza kicks the shit out of Sound Bites Pizza... I just go eat at Davis Square Pizza. The majority might prefer Sound Bites, but they can go fuck themselves because I prefer Davis Square Pizza. That is a vastly superior system over voting for a winner and then forcing everyone to agree with the results.
That isn't to say that corporations are all fine and dandy. They can gather up monopoly power, manipulate governments, and do all the nasty things that humans with accumulate power tend to do. When they work though, they are great, and the ability to freely choose between competing entities beats the living piss out of a 51% moral majority dictating to the other 49% what they are going to do. Personally, I am for free choice when it works, and only after that fails, do we resort to the injustice of democracy.
Re:Um..no (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Um..no (Score:4, Insightful)
And my point is that a single world government would leave you with no other country to become a citizen of if you don't like your current establishment.
Re:Um..no (Score:5, Insightful)
Global mean temperatures have actually been decreasing in the last years after we hit a solar minimum.
Not it hasn't, it only looks that way if you specifically and only compare 1998 to 2008, which as anyone with a clue knows is a stupid way to analyze trends. This has actually been the hottest decade on record [earthpolicy.org], with 9 of the 10 warmest years on record occurring in it. 2008 was the exception (which is why you folks like to pick it and only it and not look at any other year in the decade), then 2009 was the 2nd hottest, and the warmest year on record, 2005, occurring right near the solar minimum you linked to yourself!
In fact the continued warming in spite of the solar minimum is yet more evidence that the phenomenon is real. Of course, climatologists had already thought of solar cycles as a possible explanation, I know it's hard to believe but yeah it's true they thought of it long before you did, and it doesn't come close to explaining the trend.
Sorry. Not Global Warming. Climate Change. The first moniker was so patently ludicrous it is better to say something nebulous instead.
What's patently ludicrous is that so many people are incapable of understanding something that is not uniform and monotonic, and that a blizzard does not disprove Global Warming. What's equally ridiculous is that scientists actually decided to change the name to accommodate your simplistic thinking. I'll admit that over the twenty years of hearing "Ha! We had a record snow today, 'Global Warming' my ass!" I'm pretty sick of explaining this simple fact. But obviously the name change was pointless -- it's not that you don't understand, it's that you don't want to. Which is why you're repeating twenty year old falsehoods.
Re:Um..no (Score:4, Insightful)
This has actually been the hottest decade on record [earthpolicy.org], with 9 of the 10 warmest years on record occurring in it. 2008 was the exception (which is why you folks like to pick it and only it and not look at any other year in the decade), then 2009 was the 2nd hottest, and the warmest year on record, 2005, occurring right near the solar minimum you linked to yourself!
Says who? Sorry, but I'm not buying the whole "hottest time period in history" crap anymore. Not only has the data that points to current climate been manipulated, but so has the data that makes up historical climate. Sorry, but I ain't buying it anymore until someone else without an ax to grind starts all over. I know it sux, but that is what happens when "scientists" believe their own ego over the data. True scientists get excited when they are proven wrong. It means they are about to learn something new.
Also, the climate has always changed. Grapes were once grown in England and the Thames was once frozen solid. In other words, it has been hotter than it's been now, regardless of the supposed "hottest decade crap", and it's been colder before. Right now, we are in a pretty average climate, if there was such a thing, as the climate is always in fluctuation. There was a time when the earth was a giant ball of fire and other times when it was ice from pole to pole. There is no such thing as "normal climate".
What's patently ludicrous is that so many people are incapable of understanding something that is not uniform and monotonic, and that a blizzard does not disprove Global Warming. What's equally ridiculous is that scientists actually decided to change the name to accommodate your simplistic thinking. I'll admit that over the twenty years of hearing "Ha! We had a record snow today, 'Global Warming' my ass!" I'm pretty sick of explaining this simple fact. But obviously the name change was pointless -- it's not that you don't understand, it's that you don't want to. Which is why you're repeating twenty year old falsehoods.
No, what is patently ludicrous is someone lecturing others over misunderstanding the time scales of "climate change" who thinks that a decade makes a trend. Climate changes doesn't happen over decades. It happens over tens of thousands, sometimes hundreds of thousands of years. It is enough time for rivers to get blocked by ice dams, only to break through and flood enough area to make up entire states, wiping out everything in its path, only to do it over and over and over again. We are talking time periods long enough for entire lush forests to grow back before the ice dam breaks and floods the region, destroying everything in the path all over again.
If that doesn't help you understand the time scales involved, think of this this way; even evolution is faster than climate change. Various climate ages have lasted long enough for species to adapt to the new climate, becoming completely new species and populate entire continents, only to become extinct after the climate changes again. And yet, this guy is talking about a hot decade. Call me when it hasn't snowed in a millennium and you may prove a small warming trend. Call me when Missouri has been under a glacier a mile thick for 10000 years and you'll have a trend.
So, please, don't lecture anyone about the time scales of climate change. You haven't quite have the grasp of it yet. Maybe you just don't want to, which is why you keep repeating 20-year old falsehoods.
Re:Um..no (Score:5, Insightful)
You seem to have doubts. It's not really your fault I suppose. You've been badly mislead by questionable "science" paid for by oil companies. And you want to disbelieve. Admit it, you want to believe everything is hunky dory, that you won't have to change a thing. You are afraid of change, so afraid that you prefer to deny that there is a problem. You start reaching, saying that climate change is a bunch of hooey, a plot of liberal scientists, and you jump up and down pointing at the East Anglia idiots as evidence. Yes, those East Anglia people screwed up. You go on about them, but why aren't you screaming about the oil companies, particularly Exxon, and their lying? What is your problem? You don't actually believe an organization like Exxon, which so obviously puts what it perceives to be its own interests first?
And what have you to say about the change in CO2 levels? Currently 380 ppm, and climbing, versus 280 ppm for millions of years. Steady for millions of years, then a climb starting around 1750, the beginnings of the Industrial Revolution. We are putting CO2 into the air faster than the world can take it out. Yes, we are the reason that is happening. And yes, such a change in the atmosphere does have effects. You don't need to believe a bunch of scientists to be able to see this could be big trouble.
Re:Um..no (Score:5, Informative)
And what have you to say about the change in CO2 levels? Currently 380 ppm, and climbing, versus 280 ppm for millions of years.
You do realize that a billion years ago CO2 made up 20%(ish) of the atmosphere, and O2 was almost non-existent, right? Where did all that CO2 go? It had to go somewhere, and something had to put it there. Hmmm... lets think about that for a minute.
It was integral for the formation of life on this planet. The original bacteria that all life began as may not have formed at all if the earth's atmosphere were rich in oxygen. They make up the largest bio-mass on the planet by a large margin. They are extremely industrious too, in fact they were pivotal in taking our atmospheric CO2 levels down and raising the O2 levels that are necessary for more complex life to evolve. Where the hell do you think all that oil we've been burning comes from? Bacteria put it there, over and over and continuously. I can tell you they are still doing it, because I work on an oil field and hydrogen-sulfide gas - which is produced by live bacteria is extremely deadly - comes up with the oil, and builds up in oil storage containers because of the bacteria. These bacteria are still performing the same processes that put the oil in the ground millennia ago.
Furthermore, warming trends have always been a boon for life on the earth. Life has thrived the most when it was warmest, and on a geological time scale we are in a warm, but not peak, period.
Steady for millions of years, then a climb starting around 1750, the beginnings of the Industrial Revolution.
The Mann "hockey stick" study was debunked a decade ago, originally by a pair of Canadian statisticians, but others who have tried to reproduce his results have failed (he has refused to release his raw data, as well). It has only stayed in usage for political reasons - it is the only study that shows a pronounced spike for the current time period while showing . Mann's methodology was seriously flawed - in fact, 90% of his data came from a single tree ring (which covered up to 1850), the rest was from various weather station reports from 1850 onwards. Furthermore, he smoothed his data. That's not uncommon for data coming from multiple sources, you throw out the extremes and take the mean, but it is uncommon when your data comes from a single source, like Mann's. When other tree cores are taken from the surrounding area are added to the study the picture changes, and when you take cores from around the globe the picture becomes even clearer.
The Mann "hockey-stick" graph absurdly unrepresentative of the truth. In fact, other more comprehensive studies have shown that about 1,000 years ago temperatures were on par with what they are now, with some decades being even warmer than now - particularly just before the "Little Ice Age" that started in the 1300's and ended around 1750.
Go back about about 16,000 years ago (primarily ice core data and sea floor sedimentary rock cores) and you see a sudden, massive spike in temperatures over the course of about 50 years or so as the earth came out of an ice age. The global temperature rose about 20 times higher than it has in the last 150 years, and it did so in 1/3 the time. It also peaked at a higher global temperature than it is now, and on average over the last 15,000 years the temperature has been slowly dropping. There have been several surges back up and a couple significant drops, but on average it is going down even if you include the current upward trend. There were only about 5 million people on the earth at the time of this great warming period; it could not possibly have been man made. It was part of a natural glacial/intraglacial cycle that has been going on for ages (and I mean that in the literal, millions-of-years sense).
Not many people doubt that the global temperatures are on a current warming trend. What people doubt is the absurd notion that mankind is the sole cause of such war
Re:Um..no (Score:4, Informative)
To say global warming is going to destroy life on earth, when evidence from the geologic record says the exact opposite, is downright dishonest. We are not going to turn the Earth into Venus by pumping CO2 which has already been in the atmosphere in the past back into the air. It isn't going to happen. Sea levels won't rise forever, they will eventually stop, and when they do (it will happen again eventually with or without our influence) the majority of the earth will be prime real estate for life, instead of having to hang out toward the middle.
Warm periods don't kill life, cold periods do. That's a fact.
The problem with your notion is that mankind has rendered much more of the earth incapable of turning this situation around. We've engaged in deforestation on a scale probably not seen since the dinosaur killer. You need plant life. It is entirely possible for the climate to be disrupted to the point where no modern civilization survives in its current form, while still not rendering the planet sterile.
Re:Um..no (Score:5, Insightful)
You're claiming that we can damage the Earth beyond a point which it can repair itself? Really?
Nope. I'm arguing it's possible that we can damage the Earth beyond the point at which it can repair itself on a timescale useful to us.
Re:Um..no (Score:4, Insightful)
Maybe it grew a brain and a lot of us are just as sick of global warming dogma as we are of fundamentalist dogma.
This article is EXACTLY why global climate change is such a hot topic: the end of the world is at hand is an EXCELLENT excuse to push bad policy.
Re:Um..no (Score:4, Insightful)
You know you sound very rational. I will agree that Global Warming was so ludicrous a title that it went plaid. Climate change is also misleading in a way, because as you say, it's always happening and will continue to happen.
However.......
My problem with your argument about the funding and possible damage to the economies is that it is probably based on just as much silliness, naivete, and ignorance (possibly willful).
Maybe you belong to....
1) The Christians who have their entire foundation for their argument based on God, Faith, Manifest Destiny, and the cute (but dangerous) theory that Man cannot affect God's creation and are just plain crazy. Mod me troll on that, but sorry, I must use Karma to say that. They're fucking nuts.
I sincerely hope you are just in the 2nd category....
2) Reasonable people who just think the overwhelming science, studies, and data coming from all sides is inaccurate, not genuine, and flawed. You weigh the benefit against the risks of actions being suggested to curtail Global Warming, or Climate Change, and think the risks are not justified by the data presented. As you said the economy might suffer unnecessarily.
Here is a thought.
Climate Change is not the real concern, or even question. If Man is having such an affect on the climate by his actions that it will result in serious irreparable damage to our world and all the species in it, that will affect him, what are you willing to do?
IMHO, Climate Change is a symptom of a much more serious problem. We are not living sustainably on this planet. What I mean by that is simple too. Can we keep doing what we are doing and survive another 1000 years? Screw the rest of the world. Let the Panda's, little owls and other cute creatures die. Maybe we can eat them, they could taste good for all we know.
I think the answer is a resounding NO. Regardless of where we are now, I think it is crazy to assume that our current behavior is, or will lead to, anything remotely resembling homeostasis.
It's the fall of Rome around us right now. I don't know you and where you live, but if it is in a so-called 1st world country then you may be under the mistaken impression that everything is relatively stable and ok. It is not.
The way we generate power, use our resources, and manage our waste is practically the polar opposite of sustainable. The majority of the world's most polluted cities are in China. If you want to understand how the standard of living is maintained in the wealthier and developed countries, just visit some places in China. South America. Africa.
Our standard of living is propped up by the filth and misery that these areas of the world deal with on a daily basis. A person trying to survive in those areas is going to have a dramatically different reality, perception, and opinions about economy, the environment, and politics than you do. I guarantee you they won't think the world is doing as good as you are.
Location, Location, Location.
The reason why we need to keep doing the science, keep funding the alternative energy projects, and pursuing global policy regarding the environment and how we operate is so that we can ultimately reach a sustainable way of life. That does not mean having to live like Hippies either.
There have been some recent events that cast Climate Change and their supporters in a bad light. However, please consider the whole story and broader picture before making a decision.
Personally, I think you have your head in the sand to think we are ok right now, or can continue to be ok in the future at the rate we are going. That is not based on any Climate Change studies. Just walking into a freakin Walmart and then remembering your trip to mainland China where you saw workers coughing up blood making the pottery you were considering purchasing. Or buying a laptop and remembering the pictures of Chinese cities where homes were full halfway up the walls with electronic parts sh
Re:Um..no (Score:5, Informative)
It's interesting that you link to the "Climategate" Wikipedia entry with the words "suspect at best" when the article seems to indicate that most reviews of the "climategate" situation indicate that the "massaging" was required to get sets of disparate data to use the same scale of units
What you think the words he uses to link the page represent a reasoned analysis and a sincere attempt to understand what he linked to? Ha! Not a chance. It's "Climategate" and the name alone proves it's all a fraud, that's all he needs to know, contrary facts need not apply.
It's why he says that the last decade showed cooling when that's patently false, and only appears to be true if you just compare 1998 (a record year) with 2008 (a cool year compared to recent trends though still one of the hotter years ever). If you instead compared 1999 (a much cooler year than 1998) and 2009 (the 2nd hottest year recorded) you could say ZOMG Epic Warming! But climatologists don't do that, because that's disingenuous. Yet he's the one who supposedly knows what's up. See the trend here?
One flood in Australia does not refute global warming science.
Yes it does, if you're the kind of person who thinks "Global Warming? Ha! We had record snow here in New England!" and "Climate Change - Ha! The climate has always been changing!" are reasonable arguments. Of course they had already decided global warming science was false from the get-go, and thus only seek out the arguments that confirm that bias and never attempt to discover if the argument has any merit.
Aaaaand of course always accuses climatologists of having the faults they themselves exhibit with every sentence. Wait for it, no really.
Re:Um..no (Score:5, Interesting)
What you think the words he uses to link the page represent a reasoned analysis and a sincere attempt to understand what he linked to? Ha! Not a chance. It's "Climategate" and the name alone proves it's all a fraud, that's all he needs to know, contrary facts need not apply.
All I need to know is that the data that didn't help prove the preconceived conclusion was thrown out. I know that the data that was left was included in the IPCC report. I know that the IPCC report is used to create policy, policies by governments you are so willing to give up your rights to. Sorry, but I'm not giving up my rights so easily.
...contrary facts need not apply.
That's the exact same thing the "Climategate" guys said when they saw data contrary to their models.
Re:Um..no (Score:4, Informative)
Global temperature change would likely be beneficial to as many areas of the planet as it would be detrimental.
According to the geologic record, global warming is almost universally beneficial to life, while global cooling is almost universally detrimental. The exception to that are areas that are prone deserts. The funny thing is, when the warms, the big deserts get bigger because there are geographic reasons they cannot get water, and higher temperatures don't help that. However, when it cools, the big deserts shrink a little, but smaller "cold deserts" start popping up all over the place. This is because the Earth's atmosphere holds more water when it is warm. More water + warmer temperatures = larger tropical regions, which are the densest areas of life on the planet.
Re:Um..no (Score:5, Insightful)
Power grabs for the greater good are always done in the best interests of the people. I'm sure our new benevolent dictator(s) will keep us in mind as they shear mercilessly through what we laughingly consider to be our personal rights and privileges while they build a better tomorrow [wikipedia.org] for us all [wikipedia.org]. After all, what benefit to them if we were all enslaved?
Re:Um..no (Score:5, Insightful)
Problem is that modern democracy is too far in the other direction. Very little gets done because it might interfere with what the uneducated masses think is best for them. I can't see how big problems like global overpopulation can be solved while we are trying to keep everyone happy -- in the end, some people will have to make sacrifices for the greater good. Obviously going about this in a Stalin like manner isn't the solution, but some changes are going to need to take place. Say what you will about China, but you can't deny that they are one of the very few countries with their population size under control.
It's predicted that the human population will reach 9 billion by 2040. That rate of growth simply cannot be sustained indefinitely, and by ignoring the problem we are condemning our descendants to a life of food and water shortages -- and not just those living in third world countries.
Re:Um..no (Score:5, Insightful)
Some people sacrificing for the greater good is all very well and good. It is often necessary. But some people deciding who will sacrifice, and others having the sacrifice thrust upon them, THAT is what makes the process so irritating or exciting. The who and how of that is what keeps the gears of history lubed with blood.
Number of problems with that (Score:4, Insightful)
The first is that you seem to think that technology can't fix this problem. Please remember that a catastrophe of human population has been predicted for a long time. I'm not talking about decades long, I'm talking about centuries long. Malthus would be one of the classical famous names in it and he was late 1700s early 1800s. People seem to want to think that we can't fix our problems but that's wrong. There's a rather good TED talk on the matter (http://www.ted.com/talks/david_deutsch_on_our_place_in_the_cosmos.html) that our problems are more or less engineering problems and we need to focus our efforts on science and technology.
The second is that we can check population growth though pretty voluntary means, if we increase the quality of life for people. We find that counter to simple organisms we don't reproduce more and more in ideal conditions. Rather we voluntarily reduce our growth. You see this in first world nations where population growth is low or even negative.
Finally the ultimate problem is that while you might think that you, or someone you idolize or believe to be really smart, isn't really as smart and as incorruptible as you or they think. The idea that there is a person or group that we can put in charge with more or less no limits on their power because it is for the greater good is a bad one. We have millennia of human history showing that is NOT the case. While they may start with nothing but high ideals, the result has been universally lousy.
I know it may be easy to think that people who are educated (to the standards you consider educated) would make a better world if only they were allowed the power to do so, but that really isn't the case.
Re:Um..no (Score:5, Insightful)
According to Plato's "Republic", democracy is only sustainable if the masses are, in fact, educated. I'm paraphrasing here, but he essentially predicts that all other democratic systems will revert to what is basically a totalitarian state by any other name. The only difference is that coups are by ballot and therefore much cheaper. The obvious solution to this is not to add further totalitarianism to the mix, but to improve the education of the masses. Given the complexity of modern life, I personally hold that we need to evolve towards Homo Universalis if we're to achieve this. We'll never reach that state, except in extraordinary individuals, even if it were taken as the ideal. However, until the average person actually comprehends the notion that cause will always have effect and that an unintended consequence is a consequence nonetheless, society cannot solve anything. That includes Lovelock's non-democratic solution. (See: Fred Hoyle's Molecule Men, Ossian's Ride and A For Andromeda.)
The big problem with my proposal is... well, ok, there are lots of big problems. Expense, the fact that teachers are rarely the ones who understand the subjects, the dumbness of humanity, social inertia, the amazing lack of understanding of how to educate, and the fact that it'd take 2-3 generations minimum to clear out the ignorance -- way too long a timeframe to be useful here.
Re:Um..no (Score:4, Interesting)
According to Plato's "Republic", democracy is only sustainable if the masses are, in fact, educated.
When quoting ancient greek philosophers, one should not forget the environment they were living in, and the things that they - unless you can show them explicitly disvowing them - would have taken for granted.
Among other things, that means that in a political context, only male citizens "count". No women, no slaves, no members of the unpriviledged class.
I've long held that democracy actually only works in that context, when the voters are people with enough education and leisure time to care about the issues they're voting on.
And it may - I don't say it is, but it may - be the case that we will always have a wide spread in education, and always have a large mass of people who know so little about matters at hand that letting them vote does nothing but harm. At least as long as complexity of life increases, this will always be the case. Keep in mind that todays "uneducated masses" have more education than all but the intellectuals of ancient times. For one, they can usually read, write and do basic math. That alone would've made you an educated man throughout most of human history.
Re:Um..no (Score:4, Informative)
Actually, all Western democracies have very small - and many of them negative - population growth rate. In fact, according to Wikipedia [wikipedia.org], the only continent with significant growth is Africa.
In other words, the problem seems to be solving itself, without the need for human sacrifice.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
No. This isn't about religion. This is about totalitarianism and subjugation by someone that doesn't realize the ultimate dangers of both. As far left as I might be, I don't submit to those circumstances. Ever. And if you do, you will rue the very day you did, as will your great great great great grandchildren.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
He won't have great grandchildren, didn't you read the part about the overcrowded Earth?
I can't say what I'll do ten years from now, but nowadays I fully believe that having children is a very uncivil action, especially when there's plenty of orphans to take care of.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Um..no (Score:5, Informative)
I just want to take this opportunity to remind you all that the "American Third Position" that the above poster is endorsing is a nativist, racist organization. You don't have to take my word for it. If you want to give them hits, you can click through to the link he so helpfully provides and see for yourself that these are just nazis without the cool uniforms, pushing an agenda of "returning America to it's "European" (white) roots" and racial purity.
They're just very polite about it and use very careful, if transparent, language. Here's an example from an article on their site called "US - Ours Much Longer?"
"Americans of European descent must awaken to the very real occurrence of our political and territorial dispossession. Unless our people band together at some point in the near future, children born of our kin, today, will live to see a time when their fair skin is a rarity and civilized society only the phantom of a bygone era." ...blah blah blah, you get the idea. God forbid "fair skin" should become a rarity. You know what that leads to? Rhythm music right from the jungle. Next thing you know, our children will be doing all sorts of wild dances and having relations with Jews and Negros.
They're concerned with maintaining America's "ethnic proportionality". Real nice bunch of fellas.
"Third Position" I can't stop you from posting here, but I'll be damned if I'm going to let you take off your uniform and try to blend into a community I care about. Like Lt. Aldo "The Apache" Rain, I like to be able recognize my nazis.
-PR
Comment removed (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Um..no (Score:4, Funny)
Instead...they succeeded in their stated goals, bringing happiness and prosperity to all?
Wait...
Re:Um..no (Score:5, Funny)
Maybe if he burned down the Reichstag, he could get the emergency powers he needs!
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
if you put democracy "on hold" it's awfully hard to get it started again ...as shown by the thing that it's hardly anywhere (and anytime...) present; when it comes to whole world it's almost suspended (or hardly existed in the first place) anyway.
Re:Um..no (Score:5, Insightful)
Indeed. I accept anthropomorphic climate change, but the idea of suspending democracy is just plain vile, and a sign of a twisted mind. A lot of blood lies on a lot of battle fields to defend democracy, so some whack-job can basically say "Oh sorry, your freedoms are inconvenient."
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
A lot of blood lies on a lot of battle fields to defend democracy
You can say that about any ideology. It doesn't really have any meaning other than to say that a lot of people died fighting for what they believe in. Democracy is merely another system of government that just so happens to be the most popular. But to say that it is better than other systems and more worthy of protection or consideration than other systems would be a stretch. After all, while it has its benefits, it also has drawbacks. How one determines what tradeoffs are acceptable is all about values.
That is the problem about being ignorant. (Score:5, Insightful)
One begins to say stupid things keeping a straight face.
Democracy is by no means the most popular form of government. Just for starters China is not a democracy, carry on adding countries with no functioning democracies, with autocracies, theocracies and outright dictatorships and you will find out that the truly democratic world shrinks to a few enlightened pockets, and even there its hold is at times dubious.
It can be proven objectively that the standards of living, the ecology, educational achievements, respect for property and human rights, amongst many other desirable outcomes are better served by a democratic system. Democracy is better in any way that matters to individuals, minorities and big populations in general. We had several decades of leftist dictatorships in several countries, pretty much all failed, theocracies? look at Iran or Saudi Arabia, countries no fit for decen civilized living, dictatorships? Yeah, Venezuelans are having a great time.
Honestly, how a properly educated and curious person can claim such idiocy is beyond contemptible.
Context is everything... (Score:3, Informative)
"What's the alternative to democracy? There isn't one. But even the best democracies agree that when a major war approaches, democracy must be put on hold for the time being. I have a feeling that climate change may be an issue as severe as a war. It may be necessary to put democracy on hold for a while."
This "whack-job" maybe 90yo but he's not
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Um..no (Score:5, Funny)
Um, 1861 to 1865, you might want to check those years out, seems your Encyclopedia set might be missing them.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
The civil war. And we had an election in the middle of that too. In fact the former commanding general ran against the sitting president.
Re:Um..no (Score:5, Informative)
Except that US hasn't ever had a war on its on land besides Independence war.
And the War of 1812, the Mexican-American War, and the Civil War. During none of these were elections canceled.
It's possible we might have if we were a European country in WWII, but frankly I find it doubtful.
Lovelock or Love Democracy (Score:5, Insightful)
Climate scientist James Lovelock claims it may be necessary to put democracy on hold to prevent a global climate catastrophe.
So he wants to save a world without Democracy in it?
I claim it may be necessary to put climate scientist James Lovelock on hold to prevent a global Democracy catastrophe.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
The end in itself is freedom, but I invite you to come up with a society that implements that without democracy.
Various shades of anarchism, maybe?
To what end? (Score:5, Insightful)
Democracy? (Score:5, Insightful)
Here in the US, we don't have democracy now. We have a two party, democratic REPUBLIC. The politicians can pretty much do whatever they want after they have been elected because the media has conditioned us to believe that we have only two parties from which to choose (i.e. - "bipartisan").
Ban the party system. At this point, the legislative vending machine that we call "government" will fall apart and we'll have something much closer to "democracy".
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Democracy? (Score:5, Insightful)
What I think the US needs is actually something similar to Australia - preference voting combined with strong party discipline. You can vote for who you want without "throwing away your vote", and the party that is in charge doesn't have to bribe its own members (i.e. pork) to pass a bill.
You wish for a system where the carrot (i.e. pork) is replaced with the stick (i.e. 'discipline'). So if someone on principle votes against his party, what happens? Is he thrown out of the party? Replaced with someone else? Then it's a dictatorship since the voted-in individual is being replaced by a party-chosen puppet.
"Strong party discipline" is another way of saying "do whatever the party leader orders you to". Your vote is still thrown away unless you're the kind of person who blindly votes for the party, not for the person. So my local representative is a prince among men, who cares if he is forced to take marching orders from some goat-sodomizing bastard? Oh, but they both have the same letter in parentheses after their names, so it's all right. Nope, sorry, I don't buy it.
Re:Democracy? (Score:5, Interesting)
Abolish elections and select your legislatures by random sampling of the population.
That completely undermines parties as well as saving the huge costs of elections and the corruption of election financing by big corporations.
Re:Democracy? (Score:4, Insightful)
Ban the party system
That, in itself, is anti-liberty. You can't ban parties, because people have a First Amendment right to combine into groups and to act politically within those groups.
You can ban special treatment for the "major parties," which I am all in favor of. And you can even go so far as to ban party affiliations from government-sponsored election materials (other than the candidate's own written text in the election pamphlet). But that's as far as you can go without attacking the First Amendment.
Re: Democracy? (Score:5, Informative)
That was foreign entanglements and factionalism we were to avoid. Parties had begun to form DURING the Washington administration, so he was clearly both aware of them and not directly opposed to them, just the power that they often tend to accumulate to themselves. Wiki Article George_Washington's_Farewell_Address [wikipedia.org] and the text itself. [wikisource.org]
Re: Democracy? (Score:5, Informative)
So it's not going to be a boot... (Score:5, Funny)
...stepping on a human face forever.
It's going to be a Birkenstock.
The US has democracy? (Score:4, Informative)
Wrong way round, Lovey (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Wrong way round, Lovey (Score:5, Insightful)
>>coupled with the dynamics of capitalism that have us in this hole.
Given that the USSR was the worst country in the world for the environment gives proof to the lie that capitalism is a global scourge.
Seriously, look sometime into what they did to their forests and rivers. I'm not a green, but it sickens me. And of course they emitted tons of pollution, CO2, and the occasional bit of nuclear fallout.
The reason Kyoto is a joke is because it sets CO2 targets based on the year before communism fell - all the eastern bloc countries now meet their targets now that they're no longer living in a communist dictatorship. (It's a joke since nothing would change, except us writing a 3 billion dollar cheque to Romania each year.)
Re:Wrong way round, Lovey (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Wrong way round, Lovey (Score:4, Interesting)
actually, capitalism and democracy are diametrically opposed. capitalism is utterly impossible when you have democratic governments taking over industries left and right, as has been the case over the past 300 years.
Gaea (Score:5, Insightful)
I don't think anyone has taken Gaea seriously since someone pointed out that the switch-over to an oxygen-rich atmosphere meant Gaea essentially committed suicide to bring on the new order of things.
Start with James Lovelock's democratic rights (Score:3, Insightful)
People like this who don't value their democratic freedoms should be made to live by their own decrees. So start with James Lovelock's democratic rights:
- I'm sorry Mr Lovelock, you no longer have a say in that
- I'm sorry Mr Lovelock, but you may no longer speak on that issue. If you do, you shall be arrested.
- I'm sorry Mr Lovelock, but you're under arrest. Your rights have been stripped so we don't have to give you a reason, or a trial, or let your family know.
- I'm sorry Mr Lovelock, but your food, water, and oxygen rations have been reallocated to someone else.
How'd ya like that lack of democracy now you crazy coote? Didn't think so.
Reductio ad aburdum? Perhaps, but then again what he's saying is so absurd perhaps the reductio part wasn't needed.
LOL (Score:3, Insightful)
I don't think so...at the same time, this guy has to be the first environmentalist to speak the truth behind their extremist message: it's about controlling people's lives, and less about the environment.
Comment removed (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:LOL (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:LOL (Score:4, Insightful)
The alternative to democracy is a voluntary society.
Not a good idea (Score:3, Insightful)
THIS is going to put the deniers at ease (Score:3, Insightful)
Conspiracy theorists are babbling about how climate change is an excuse to suspend democracy and unite all countries under a world government, and the solution is to suspend democracy and unite all countries under a world government in order to combat climate change. That's deliciously ironic.
Gaia: Creationism for environmentalists (Score:3, Informative)
That's all it is. This guy is a crackpot. He came up with a "theory" dressed up in science, that is nothing but wild speculation. Actually, it's not even speculation. It's Religion. He just decided the earth is a sentient being, without providing any kind of evidence for this ridiculous claim.
He also makes ridiculously close predictions for the "end of the world" and other unscientific predictions.
Now we know he's also against democracy.
What a nice guy.
Please, go ahead and try to measure him here http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/crackpot.html [ucr.edu]. My crackpot-o-meter went off-scale after trying to measure his theories.
I thought we needed to put democracy on hold (Score:5, Funny)
To fight terrorist porn. Or was it child terrorism?
My response is so what? (Score:3, Interesting)
If we have to give up essential freedom to stop climate change than I don't want stop it all. I'd rather just adapt to the new conditions whatever they may be.
Let's go to the videotape (Score:5, Informative)
Lovelock is being taken out of context. A more full quote:
But it can't happen in a modern democracy. This is one of the problems. What's the alternative to democracy? There isn't one. But even the best democracies agree that when a major war approaches, democracy must be put on hold for the time being. I have a feeling that climate change may be an issue as severe as a war. It may be necessary to put democracy on hold for a while.
From the slightly-less-badly-edited interview at:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/blog/2010/mar/29/james-lovelock [guardian.co.uk]
In other words, he's not calling for putting democracy on hold. He's predicting that it's going to reach a point where it's an obvious, impending crisis, like a war, and people aren't going to respond democratically to it.
He doesn't believe people are going to take climate change seriously until it's too late. Or at least, not enough people. There will continue to be arguments and finger-pointing until it finally becomes obvious. Not that it's a good thing, just a thing he expects.
Read the rest of the interview, and Lovelock sounds less like a monster than the article is trying to make him out to be. He's still elitist, proudly so:
Science was always elitist and has to be elitist. The very idea of diluting it down [to be more egalitarian] is crazy. We're paying the price for it now.
but he's not calling for an end to democracy. He's simply telling everybody they'll be sorry if they don't listen to him.
Which (Score:3, Insightful)
Goes to show exactly why climate change nut-jobs are DANGEROUS PEOPLE. But the history of the world is full of examples of killing people for lies. Climate change is a good substitute for (insert diety of choice), or even a political credo (Communism/Maoism/(proving Godwin's law)National Socialism). Hey let's suspend freedom to "save the environment".
The real problem behind all of this is, of course, overpopulation. I propose that instead of eliminating democracy we should just eliminate around 80% of the population. I can provide a list of volunteers for extermination (starting with Mr. Lovelock), and I ask others to do likewise. I, of course, choose not to be on any list.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
No, the real problem behind this isn't overpopulation. The majority of carbon emmissions are made by the vast minority of the population. You could wipe out most of India and China (~30% of the population) without making an impact in CO2 emissions.
Crackpot (Score:4, Informative)
This guy has lost the plot. First nuclear power as a way to save the planet. Now 'putting democracy on hold' to achieve the same goal.
Now, I'm under no illusions as to the state of our alleged democracy: we don't have one. We are wage slaves who delegate our power to representatives of the ruling class. But do we really want to be 'officially' handing over the keys like this?
Surely the only way to achieve the kind of world-wide change we need is a world-wide democratic revolution ( and no, I'm not talking about American / Western style democracy, but REAL democracy ). Bring on the TRULY democratic, one-world government!
Who's going to bell the cat named the USA? (Score:3, Informative)
We've got the world's most capable military by a very large margin, more than half our citizens own guns and know how to use them (to quote the Japanease Admiral, a rifle behind every blade of grass), etc. etc. etc....
Only an egghead from a country that started to disarm it's subjects almost a century ago (the Bolshevik revolution terrified the U.K. ruling class) could suggest such lunacy.
Oh Great! (Score:3, Interesting)
Sure I agree that we may be circling the drain waiting for a democratically acceptable solution to the problem. But claiming that democracy should be suspended while intelligent people set about saving the rest of us is just the sort of thing that has the tea bag party threatening to revolt. Last weekend they kicked it off in Searchlight, NV, and one of their rants is that global warming is part of a plot to eliminate American sovereignty. Now after sensible people tried to assure them that this isn't so, this egghead pops up with all this elitist crap.
I sense a great disturbance in the Force... (Score:3, Insightful)
...like millions of skeptics crying out, "See? I told you that's what they were really after all along!"
i think (Score:4, Insightful)
we need to put environmentalism on hold, to prevent a political catastrophe
Fuck this guy and fuck his stupid idea. (Score:4, Informative)
"Necessity is the plea for every infringement of human freedom. It is the argument of tyrants; it is the creed of slaves. " - William Pitt
LK
Re:He's got historical precedent on his side (Score:4, Insightful)
There is nothing new about this approach and we know how it ends
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
I'm with Plato: the general population is too stupid for a democratic system. Unfortunately we have not yet reached Culture [wikipedia.org] levels of technology so it's the best option we have at the moment.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
In terms of practical historical precedent, not so much. This sort of thing tends to end badly.
While I don't disagree, it's interesting to look at the example of Britain in World War Two. In effect, the major parties all banded together to form a single wartime government, thereby suspending true democracy for the greater good. However, in 1945 Labour immediately left the coalition and contested the general election in opposition to the government.
I think the point this guy is trying to make is that in the face of a sufficiently serious threat, partisan differences become an impediment to effective
Re:Slow news day (Score:5, Insightful)
Why can't "Gaia" fix its own problems itself?
It can -- but Gaia's fix will involve the die-off of most or all of humanity. That will work fine as far as Gaia is concerned, but speaking as part of humanity, I'd like to see if a more human-friendly fix can't be devised instead.