James Lovelock Suggests Suspending Democracy To Save the World

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.

Comments

Um..no

[NiceGeek]

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

[selven]

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:Um..no

[Tiger4]

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 for us all. After all, what benefit to them if we were all enslaved?

Re:Um..no

[DigiShaman]

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

[HBoar]

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

[MightyMartian]

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:Um..no

[Tiger4]

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.

Re:Um..no

[Courageous]

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

[zach_the_lizard]

Government is a monopoly, and is in fact the ultimate monopoly. The State has final say on justice and taxation in a certain geographical area; anything less than that would not be a state. Unlike the telco monopoly where you can elect to just not buy their service, you are required by the state to partake in it by virtue of exiting a birth canal in a certain area, or exiting the birth canal of those deemed to be under its jurisdiction (depending on the state in question). Attempting to not obey a state (or found another one) typically does not lead to very happy results, ranging from everything to fines to imprisonment or, in extreme cases, even death. Now, there are many people (most, even) who believe that a state is a required part of life, but it's hard to escape the fact that a state is a monopoly. It's just one that most of us are willing to tolerate, because we feel that it would be in our best interests.

Re:Um..no

[jd]

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

[shutdown -p now]

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

[Chris Burke]

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, 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

[Courageous]

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

[ArcherB]

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

[bzipitidoo]

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

[ultranova]

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

[drinkypoo]

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.

Lovelock or Love Democracy

[WrongSizeGlass]

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?

[SoapBox17]

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?

[dsginter]

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:Democracy?

[The Archon V2.0]

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?

[pudge]

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.

Wrong way round, Lovey

[Torrance]

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.

Re:Wrong way round, Lovey

[ShakaUVM]

>>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.)

Gaea

[Black Parrot]

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.

Re:Slow news day

[Jeremi]

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.

Re:LOL

[okooolo]

how about reading the article before condemning the guy? ........... "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." .............. He simply states that the issue is extremely important and warrants drastic action like in times of war

That is the problem about being ignorant.

[jotaeleemeese]

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.