There's an old quote from US politics: "If you think the politicians are bad, take a look at their constituents".
General / Off-Topic Are we brexiting?
- Thread starter FuzzySpider
- Start date
- Status
There's an old quote from US politics: "If you think the politicians are bad, take a look at their constituents".
I don't agree with the somewhat antidemocratic musings of Fuzzy, but at the ultimate case I'll side with him over you. Survival of the biosphere (and us) is more important than democracy. If it were to come down to that, I'd absolutely pick a non-democratic regime that would effectively address this crisis rather than us voting to perish due to the sort of short sighted stupidity that has recently been on display.
Are you naive, some "democratic" governments have already shown they will conspire against their own citizens and murder them and other innocence, they will lie when it suits and deceive the public. You want to take away the only check on them, the opportunity to turf them out and try and hold them to account. Its easy see you`ve never seen state sponsored terrorism in action.
Where did I want to take away anything? I said I don't agree with the undemocratic musings up-thread. I just agree with the premise that if it came down to a choice between extinction (or utter ecological devastation, even if we cling to existence) and loss of democracy, I'll choose life over principles.
Woud you really not? If the democratic will of humanity is 51% towards apathy and not saving ourselves, would you support that rather than say a technocratic emergency governance which would result in us and the biosphere being saved? Is democracy as a principle literally more dear than existence to you?
The problem is that that is never a likely choice: you dont get the guarantee a dictator will fix anything, and if he doesnt you dont get to do anything about it. Thats why democracy is better in practice. In a perfect world a benevolent dictator would be grand. The technical term for such a person is God.
So you want a new world government to implement the job, what happens if they say there are too many humans alive, danger to the planet, producing too much methane or just a general nuisance. Who`s got the job of selecting and will you volunteer to put you & yours collective necks on the block. Yeah, when you start down that rabbit hole no one knows the ending.
The problem is that that is never a likely choice: you dont get the guarantee a dictator will fix anything, and if he doesnt you dont get to do anything about it. Thats why democracy is better in practice. In a perfect world a benevolent dictator would be grand. The technical term for such a person is God.
Of course it's not a likely scenario. Autocracies are stupid and short sighted. Just look at Russia or Turkey currently. They are hardly rational actors.
I was answering a philosophical question, not making a suggestion or prediction.
The way it actually could come into play is in a short term refusal to go along with a disastrous referendum or such. We may very well need draconian measures to tackle the climate crisis (and the population crisis as well).
We've seen how badly democracies are able to curb fishing quotas or logging, for instance. People will rather ignore problems, not believe expert "scare mongering" etc. We may well need a crisis caretaker government of some sort coordinating our global efforts.
Like the EU?
Get all those selfish local interest on one big table and make sure all suffer equally from the required measures?
I mean, one of the bigger criticism about the EU was, that they're not democratically elected. Is that a bad thing?
(mine would be, that they're not always as transparent as they'd have to be and that changes to established policies and laws that have proven not to work well take too long)
Last edited:
EXACTLY!
This is what I've been getting at. This is why leaving the EU, or seeing it weakened, is so depressing. It was making serious headway. Way short of what was required, but one can not deny there was a serious commitment by many in the EU to get a grip of what's going on and there was actual future planning.
The problem we in the west have is that we fatally overvalue our own freedom. Here we have intelligent and passionate defense of the "right" to vote even when that vote may result in painful consequences for others. To me the arguments parallel pretty closely the arguments about gun control;
1. We need voting to protect against tyranny.
2. We have the sacred right to vote.
3. Voting for despicable people doesn't ruin lives, politicians do.
4. If everyone voted instead of staying at home it would all be ok (if everyone owned a gun the gun violence would drop).
What I am seeing is violence, chaos, and destruction due in no small part to populist movements which have recently been given levity and a veneer of respectability by voting.
I don't believe in a dictatorship. But I believe that across the board voting is similarly flawed. Perhaps the voting licenses?
The EU has a touch of "might is right" at times, smaller countries are disadvantaged and have to make alliances to compensate. Big boys break the rules and get away with it, small guys can`t. The EU has been very good for Germany with the weaker Euro over a strong DM being a very big positive for the German economy, for others the story has been less than positive, and its not that the Germans are better at economic`s than everyone else. Other factors such as location, economy of size etc all have a part to play. That`s one big reason Ireland has the 12.5% Corp tax, our location and size puts us a sizeable disadvantage so we have to incentivise for FDI and such.
Last edited:
Yaffle
Volunteer Moderator
Meanwhile, today the advice passed on by the UK's EU Ambassador seems to confirm what everyone except HM Government has been saying - http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-38324146
If the British government minimizes, it is because they have reasons certainly
Robert Maynard
Volunteer Moderator
Such a regime would almost certainly not stop at changing environmental policy....
you are right about the euro, IMHO the EU's biggest blunder.
On the other hand being in the EU did give the smaller countries more clout. Things like the rotating presidency and unanimity voting in some areas gave the "little guys" leverage to pressure the bigger players. Witness Wallonia's little tantrum.
Without the EU, would these little guys have more or less leverage?
The EU is dammed if it does and dammed if it doesn't
If it offers too much influence to the small players we get "slow decision making", "inability to act" and "held to ransom by a tiny minority".
If they make the decision making more streamlined we get "undemocratic", "weighted in favour of the big players" etc.
david davis quote
we have 17 weeks until the end of march.
less than 90 working days.
given this is the biggest constitutional and economic change since the war, isn't saying "it's not ready yet" 90 days out cutting it a bit fine?
This isn't an end of term essay you can work on until the last minute and then drop on the teacher's desk at the last moment.
If the UK (parliament and public) is to have any chance of debating and scrutinising the proposals, they need to be out in the open by the end of Feb at the latest, even then that doesn't give enough time.
I don't disagree. It would almost inevitably try to perpetuate itself as some kind of Soviet Union style dystopia.
But you guys are missing my point. If it came down to a choice of a century of draconian top-down control or extinction, I would of course choose the former. If it starts to seem that it will be all Brexit & Trump election style populist rather than facing the problems head on, it may well come down to that choice.
Human societies have failed this test before. The tragedy of the Easter Islands is about to play out on a global scale, and this time we have to do better than they did.
Interesting to see the Easter Islands population collapse from the point of view of an ecologist (if I have that right, apologies if not). I see it from an archaeological perspective, which is a bit different.
As usual I would before that seriously Suggest to Read the Small Printed Details on this....
1.
Farming only for 60 Years.
ERM Nope. Sorry but Seriously No....
Its True that Creating Top Soil Requires an incredible Time for all the Minerals etc to seep into it and then decay into the Soil thus making it Fertile.
But to begin with Top Quality Soil is hardly available.
The Ukraine has large Areas with it. Which is why its an Incredible Valuable Land for any Major World Power.
The USA also has Large Areas with it.
But the Vast Majority of the World especially the vast majority of Europe. Does not have it in the First Place. And has been Farming on normal Fertile Soil. Which is not only available in Abundance for another 1000 years and more.
But also regains its Fertility in less than 10 Years of Rains and Fertilizing.
Usually in that time its used to Produce Crops that dont require much Fertility and thus help Fertilizing the Soil.
If you Forgot I am working in the Recultivation of the Coal Mine.
This sort of thing is actually just what I am doing. And the Farmland we are Creating behind us is so incredible Bountiful. Heck we are having Plagues of Wildgrowth and Mice to Deal with as well as hordes of Boars and other Animals Infesting it right away because the Recultivation Zones are Off limits and thus are creating some sort of Nature Protection Zone.
We got an entire damn Branch just responsible to somehow keep this in check including Farmers and Hunters....
The Claim that in 60 Years we will be Starving is a Giant Hoax. It works on the Assumption that we are using Top Soil all the Time which is just not the case....
And Heck to begin with that mega expensive Soil is not even used for Farming because no damn Farmer could afford it....
Its something your usually only finding on Glass House Farms in pot lines. The exceptions being when its Natural Deposits like Ukraine....
If all of the Top Quality Fertile Soil was gone in 60 Years you would likely not even notice it. Because its not really used for Cheaper stuff like Food anyways.
And here there is even more stuff. Because to begin with. Because different Plants have very different Needs.
Sigh...
I dont know that UN Guy there. But first Verdict would be hes trying to Advertise some Method. And thus twisting facts a bit.
We have been Digging Up non Fertile Soil which hardly grows anything. And have been working it into Fertile Soil for Decades.
So pls dont go telling me that we are running out of Farmland lol.
Maybe you want to Hire us later on when the Coal deposits have been Mined out ? *gg*
Would be a nice joke at least I guess. If the guys always being fought for Destroying Nature suddenly go around digging around the Planet to create Fertile Fields
2.
I still dont get my Head around this Graphic. It comes up in alot of Green Activists Blogs.
But the Curve is Ridiculous.
Its going minimal and then maximal suddenly. With no Reason or anything to Sustain it.
The Global Warming has been a steady Growth of Temperature with Changes in Speed of that Growth being absolutely Minimal.
Even if we assume an exponential growth. it would still be Centuries before its going to reach the Levels shown there.
Moreover measures to Protect the Ozone Layer have been done all around and have proven effective as well in the Past already.
Weather Zones have started Shifting which is Bad. But Sorry. Unfortunately you wont get Tsunamies and Tornadoes etc in Europe.
Earthquakes and Respective Tsunamies to begin with are entirely unrelated to the Temperature lol. They are due to the Tectonic Movements. Which are not really affected by this.
We will get them or not get them based on our Continental Plates moving around. Which we have no way to affect in any way right now.
Light Tornadoes or rather Storms are Possible. But anything beyond that wont happen because unlike the USA we dont have the Long Mountain Ridges Requires for it....
So Sorry.
But thats another Fantasy Hoax Doomsday Scenario thats not going to happen.
Global Warming is happening.
And it will increase the Bad Weather get us Stormy Weather and most of all it will bring us Flooding. And I dont mean Netherlands sinking because the Ice Melts. But Flooding due to extreme Rain.
But heck not Earthquakes and Tsunamies lol.....
3.
The Overuse of Antibiotics is really worrisome.
Albeit we dont need Chinese Beef for that lol.
Our own Hospitals have been Producing Antiobiotics resistant Bacteria already.
Which is an Catastrophical thing because it means that our Death Rates from Infection would increase more then Tenfold of what they are anyways already.
I would however also remind you. That Bacteria against which Antibiotics work are not the sole Threat to our Health.
Neither are they our Doom if we lose the Effective Weapon we got against them.
Maybe you Forgot but until WW2 we did not even have Antibiotics.
The thing Antibiotics for most Part are Effective for. Are not Illness to begin with. But Open Wounds and other Injury Infections.
One reason why Antibiotics are so vastly overused. Is because People somehow think they are the all go healing.
But the Truth is if the Doctors would only give them to you if you really needed em. You would be getting them maybe Once in your entire Lifetime.
Because nowdays Wounds are usually Cleaned right away thus not getting any bigger Infections at all. Most Sickness are something your Body can Handle with some Rest. And to begin with most of em are Virus Based not Bacterial.
We seriously need to stop using them for everything. We dont need to use for every Bacterial Infection either. A Cold even if its an bacterial Infection can be treated real good without Antibiotics. Same for most others stuff.
Antibiotics should be something only done in emergency when not having it might result in nervous damages or death or something like that.
Its not an environmental problem tough. And would you mind.
CHINA IS NOT A DAMN DEMOCRACY LOL
We seriously got problems here. But I would say the Democracies are handling this Problem at least 20 times better then the Authocracies !!!!!
So For Heavens Sake pls dont Side with him on that one.
I know your heavy on the Ecology Protection Side.
But seriously. Look around the World and tell me who is causing more Environmental Damages. Autocracies or Democracies
I love expressions like that "almost certainly" - reminds me of "everything but" or "totally with the exception of", "I am 99.9% sure" - LOL
Last edited:
As I said, it isn't a binary choice between democracy or dictatorship. Surely there are other methods, surely we can do better?
How about removing the concept of centralized government (beyond financial administration of tax/spend) entirely, and devolve powers to the various departments? How about putting things such as drug legislation in the hands of the health department as well as the justice department, and have expert representatives deal try to assert their interests within those departments for example. How about having laws on environmental rules and regulations placed in the hands of a committee of experts? How about having policy on prisons given to a committee of social scientists who actually know about rehabilitation and will construct a prison regime based on what the research says as opposed to how much hate the Daily Mail can throw at prisoners (who are suffering like never before)?
Think about this. What is a vote in the UK? Once, every 5 years, we get to put an "X" on a bit of paper, which is supposed to represent our view on the environment, law and order, healthcare, welfare, military spending, defense, drug and alcohol laws, education, and everything else. Once you get past the reflexive defense of the one vote you have every 5 years, how much influence do you have? If there were individual committies you could lobby and address, who would listen, there may even be more freedom for those able to politically engage with them. But such committies would be free to completely ignore the rantings of the likes of Farage or Dacre.
- Status