Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Earth Government News Science

James Lovelock Suggests Suspending Democracy To Save the World 865

Posted by timothy
from the summon-the-council-of-wise-men dept.
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.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

James Lovelock Suggests Suspending Democracy To Save the World

Comments Filter:
  • Um..no (Score:5, Insightful)

    by NiceGeek (126629) on Tuesday March 30, 2010 @06:15PM (#31679284)

    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)

      by selven (1556643) on Tuesday March 30, 2010 @06:23PM (#31679424)

      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)

        by clang_jangle (975789)

        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.

        Nah.

        The corporatocracy we have now would never allow that.

      • Re:Um..no (Score:5, Insightful)

        by Courageous (228506) on Tuesday March 30, 2010 @06:52PM (#31679830)

        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)

          by aurispector (530273) on Tuesday March 30, 2010 @08:04PM (#31680788)

          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)

            by Courageous (228506) on Tuesday March 30, 2010 @08:41PM (#31681220)

            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)

            by ultranova (717540) on Wednesday March 31, 2010 @01:18AM (#31683546)

            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.

            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:4, Insightful)

        by steelfood (895457) on Tuesday March 30, 2010 @07:49PM (#31680624)

        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)

        by Jaysyn (203771) <jaysyn+slashdot&gmail,com> on Tuesday March 30, 2010 @08:23PM (#31681004) Homepage Journal

        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, Insightful)

      by Tiger4 (840741) on Tuesday March 30, 2010 @06:24PM (#31679434)

      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)

        by HBoar (1642149) on Tuesday March 30, 2010 @06:42PM (#31679688)

        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)

          by Tiger4 (840741) on Tuesday March 30, 2010 @06:48PM (#31679772)

          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.

        • by Sycraft-fu (314770) on Tuesday March 30, 2010 @07:11PM (#31680072)

          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)

          by jd (1658) <imipak@nOSPam.yahoo.com> on Tuesday March 30, 2010 @07:21PM (#31680234) Homepage Journal

          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)

            by Tom (822) on Wednesday March 31, 2010 @03:06AM (#31684216) Homepage Journal

            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)

          by ultranova (717540) on Wednesday March 31, 2010 @02:46AM (#31684110)

          . 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.

          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:Um..no (Score:5, Insightful)

      by DigiShaman (671371) on Tuesday March 30, 2010 @06:30PM (#31679540) Homepage

      Not only that, but non-democratic nations have a proven track record of having the worst pollution and impact on the environment in the worst possible ways.

    • Re:Um..no (Score:5, Funny)

      by Brett Buck (811747) on Tuesday March 30, 2010 @06:33PM (#31679574)

      Maybe if he burned down the Reichstag, he could get the emergency powers he needs!

           

    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by sznupi (719324)

      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)

      by MightyMartian (840721) on Tuesday March 30, 2010 @06:43PM (#31679694) Journal

      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)

        by steelfood (895457)

        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.

        • by jotaeleemeese (303437) on Tuesday March 30, 2010 @08:05PM (#31680806) Homepage Journal

          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.

      • As usuall words are being taken out of context here. If you look at the full interview linked to from the article you will find the full quote is as follows...

        "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)

      by INT_QRK (1043164)
      So, the Global Warming campaign an excuse for elitists to impose enlightened socialist rule...never saw that coming...
  • by WrongSizeGlass (838941) on Tuesday March 30, 2010 @06:16PM (#31679300)

    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.

  • To what end? (Score:5, Insightful)

    by SoapBox17 (1020345) on Tuesday March 30, 2010 @06:17PM (#31679304) Homepage
    A successful global effort to "put democracy on hold" for any reason would be proof enough to me that this planet is not worth saving.
  • Democracy? (Score:5, Insightful)

    by dsginter (104154) on Tuesday March 30, 2010 @06:17PM (#31679310)

    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)

      You have to think through what the alternative would look like - many countries in Europe have a whole bunch of parties in parliament, and this causes problems as they have to band together 5 or 6 to get a Govt. going, and then because there is so much difference of opinion nothing major gets addressed, and if they try to then Govt. collapses. 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
      • Re:Democracy? (Score:5, Insightful)

        by The Archon V2.0 (782634) on Tuesday March 30, 2010 @07:00PM (#31679928)

        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)

      by ignavus (213578) on Tuesday March 30, 2010 @06:54PM (#31679860)

      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)

      by pudge (3605) * Works for Slashdot <slashdot@[ ]ge.net ['pud' in gap]> on Tuesday March 30, 2010 @08:50PM (#31681336) Homepage Journal

      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.

  • by John Hasler (414242) on Tuesday March 30, 2010 @06:21PM (#31679376) Homepage

    ...stepping on a human face forever.

    It's going to be a Birkenstock.

  • by headkase (533448) on Tuesday March 30, 2010 @06:21PM (#31679402)
    I thought it was an effective choice between two parties with both being in the pockets of big business? So really its one choice in reality and you don't have enough money to influence what happens. Ever.
  • by Torrance (1599681) on Tuesday March 30, 2010 @06:23PM (#31679414)
    I'm pretty sure it's actually the lack of democracy (for lack of a better word) coupled with the dynamics of capitalism that have us in this hole.
    • by ShakaUVM (157947) on Tuesday March 30, 2010 @07:10PM (#31680054) Homepage Journal

      >>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.)

    • by lilfields (961485) on Tuesday March 30, 2010 @07:17PM (#31680164) Homepage
      Capitalism and Democracy (direct or representative) go hand-in-hand, and it's very difficult to separate the two. How can you have true political freedom if you don't have economic freedom too?
  • Gaea (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Black Parrot (19622) on Tuesday March 30, 2010 @06:24PM (#31679444)

    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.

  • by syousef (465911) on Tuesday March 30, 2010 @06:27PM (#31679496) Journal

    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)

    by vvaduva (859950) on Tuesday March 30, 2010 @06:29PM (#31679516)

    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.

  • Not a good idea (Score:3, Insightful)

    by KDN (3283) on Tuesday March 30, 2010 @06:29PM (#31679520)
    We have to suspend democracy in order to save it eh? Sounds like the Vietnam era "we have to destroy the village to save it".
  • 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.

  • 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.

  • by calmofthestorm (1344385) on Tuesday March 30, 2010 @06:34PM (#31679590)

    To fight terrorist porn. Or was it child terrorism?

  • by DarkOx (621550) on Tuesday March 30, 2010 @06:38PM (#31679632) Journal

    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.

  • by jfengel (409917) on Tuesday March 30, 2010 @06:40PM (#31679668) Homepage Journal

    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)

    by Dunbal (464142) * on Tuesday March 30, 2010 @06:42PM (#31679686)

    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)

      by LordLucless (582312)

      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)

    by vandan (151516) on Tuesday March 30, 2010 @06:42PM (#31679690) Homepage

    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!

  • by mangastudent (718064) on Tuesday March 30, 2010 @06:49PM (#31679794)

    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)

    by srobert (4099) on Tuesday March 30, 2010 @07:03PM (#31679950)

    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.

  • by Wonko the Sane (25252) * on Tuesday March 30, 2010 @07:13PM (#31680092) Journal

    ...like millions of skeptics crying out, "See? I told you that's what they were really after all along!"

  • i think (Score:4, Insightful)

    by circletimessquare (444983) <<moc.liamg> <ta> <erauqssemitelcric>> on Tuesday March 30, 2010 @07:23PM (#31680256) Homepage Journal

    we need to put environmentalism on hold, to prevent a political catastrophe

  • by Lord Kano (13027) on Tuesday March 30, 2010 @08:11PM (#31680874) Homepage Journal

    "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

The key elements in human thinking are not numbers but labels of fuzzy sets. -- L. Zadeh

Working...