Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

cancel ×
This is a preview of your comment

No Comment Title Entered

Anonymous Coward 1 minute ago

No Comment Entered


Um..no (5, Insightful)

NiceGeek (126629) | about 4 years ago | (#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 (4, Insightful)

selven (1556643) | about 4 years ago | (#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:Um..no (-1)

sopssa (1498795) | about 4 years ago | (#31679532)

You cannot really compare governments to monopolistic companies. As it is now, you are free to leave your country and become a citizen of another. It just takes a lot of time and usually the restricting side is the one you're trying to join. Almost no government actually cares if you as a single person remain as their citizen - as soon as you get the other side to give you citizenship, your home country will either go on as usual (you have dual citizenship) or in rare cases you lose your old citizenship (you are now officially and fully a citizen of the country you wanted to join)

Re:Um..no (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 years ago | (#31679678)

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 (3, Insightful)

clang_jangle (975789) | about 4 years ago | (#31679552)

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 corporatocracy we have now would never allow that.

Re:Um..no (5, Funny)

spazdor (902907) | about 4 years ago | (#31679644)

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 (5, Insightful)

Tiger4 (840741) | about 4 years ago | (#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 (4, Insightful)

HBoar (1642149) | about 4 years ago | (#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 (5, Insightful)

Tiger4 (840741) | about 4 years ago | (#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.

Re:Um..no (2, Insightful)

Chris Burke (6130) | about 4 years ago | (#31679534)

I'm an environmentalist, but I also know that if you put democracy "on hold" it's awfully hard to get it started again.

Yeah no fucking kidding. What, he thinks humans are too stupid to implement a solution to climate change via democracy, but he thinks undemocratic rule is the answer? Uh, who do you think runs non-democratic nations? Hint: It ain't 200 IQ scientists who only do what is best for Gaia!

And where does he get off saying: "Even the best democracies agree that when a major war approaches, democracy must be put on hold for the time being."

Um... sure democracies put stronger holds on the populace, they'll even suspend some rights (like, uh, say, the right of a person to not be put in a camp for no reason other than Japanese descent), but put democracy itself on hold? Please! We had elections before and during WWII. Yeah in those cases most people vote for the incumbent, but the point is it was the peoples' choice.

So no, democracies don't agree that democracy must be put on hold. Oh and I also don't agree with the suspensions of rights that have taken place. And hey! Since this is a democracy, my opinion matters. A little. Kinda. I keep telling myself. *sob*

Oh but he's probably right about us not doing what is necessary until after a major disaster hits. Again, that's not democracy, that's human nature. Yes, humans are stupid.

Re:Um..no (4, Insightful)

DigiShaman (671371) | about 4 years ago | (#31679540)

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 (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 years ago | (#31679610)

What Democracy? America is not a real Democracy...

With the sheer idiocy of the majority, is Democracy even worth it? Puppets... elected by the people for the people. How many people would still vote for Sarah Palin, even though she abandoned her governor job at the first sign of a payout? How many would vote for Barack again... even though he has failed on his "promises"? And how many still think Bush did a good job?

America is full of idiots. Idiots who vote with a "two party" system, when the reality is that they are all paid shills of wealthy corporations and you are just choosing which corporations gets to manipulate the "laws" of the land to their benefit.

The American government is just a facade so that the people feel empowered despite the fact that the wealthy elite are actually in control.

Re:Um..no (2, Insightful)

sznupi (719324) | about 4 years ago | (#31679620)

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 (4, Insightful)

MightyMartian (840721) | about 4 years ago | (#31679694)

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."

Slow news day (2, Insightful)

oldhack (1037484) | about 4 years ago | (#31679288)

Ugh! Naked troll story.

Re:Slow news day (1)

Aranykai (1053846) | about 4 years ago | (#31679320)

"James Lovelock: Humans are too stupid to prevent climate change"

Thankfully, James Lovelock is not human and therefore smart enough to tell us how to fix our problems.

building building a a dupe dupe detector detector (2, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 years ago | (#31679294)

if if only only we we had had the the technology technology

Lovelock or Love Democracy (4, Insightful)

WrongSizeGlass (838941) | about 4 years ago | (#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.

Re:Lovelock or Love Democracy (0, Flamebait)

MrHanky (141717) | about 4 years ago | (#31679442)

If democracy has become an end in itself, then it's not worth saving.

Re:Lovelock or Love Democracy (2, Informative)

The_Wilschon (782534) | about 4 years ago | (#31679774)

I think you're missing the point, which is that the GP would rather die in a global climate catastrophe than live in a world without freedom. I applaud her/him for this sentiment.

Re:Lovelock or Love Democracy (1)

sopssa (1498795) | about 4 years ago | (#31679458)

So he wants to save a world without Democracy in it?

Well, in terms of saving the world, industrialization and everything else democracy probably isn't the best choice. However, it is the nicest choice for everyone as nobody is supposed to be exploited and can have their saying. The problem is that everyone stops caring and just do whatever they want, and I think that is his point. Personally I rather live in the democracy we have, but I do see his point about the future.

Re:Lovelock or Love Democracy (1)

Wyatt Earp (1029) | about 4 years ago | (#31679642)

Except that non-democratic societies like the Soviet Union and People's Republic of China have far worse environmental records than industrialized democracies and republics.

Re:Lovelock or Love Democracy (-1)

sopssa (1498795) | about 4 years ago | (#31679756)

But they didn't really care for such thing back then, they just needed to get military, technology and other shit done. If the priority was environment, it would be enforced as priority number one.

Re:Lovelock or Love Democracy (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 years ago | (#31679486)

parent beat me too it. I'd vote for that.

To what end? (5, Insightful)

SoapBox17 (1020345) | about 4 years ago | (#31679304)

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.

Re:To what end? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 years ago | (#31679336)

Nuke China already, then.

Democracy? (4, Insightful)

dsginter (104154) | about 4 years ago | (#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: Democracy? (1)

Black Parrot (19622) | about 4 years ago | (#31679396)

Ban the party system.

IIRC, George Washington warned us to avoid any n-party system in his farewell address.

Re: Democracy? (4, Informative)

Tiger4 (840741) | about 4 years ago | (#31679588)

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? (2, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 years ago | (#31679592)

Ban the party system


And I don't mean "how could it be possible", I mean "how, specifically, would you do it?"

Re:Democracy? (2, Insightful)

Cassius Corodes (1084513) | about 4 years ago | (#31679630)

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 "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. We have a two party system as well but without many of the problems of the US or the multi-party european system.

Re:Democracy? (2, Funny)

Tablizer (95088) | about 4 years ago | (#31679672)

Further, big businesses have way too much influence on our politicians, media, and public opinion. We're essentially a bribeocracry.

It's just two turns of anarchy (1)

Moraelin (679338) | about 4 years ago | (#31679716)

Well, yes, but the difference between republic and democracy is just two turns of anarchy. 'Course, you just have to choose the right time, 'cause you just know someone out there has an army of anti-tank spearmen with your name on it the moment you're with your pants down ;)

Re:Democracy? (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 years ago | (#31679720)

Democratic Republic is a form of democracy, just not more direct Hellenistic democracy. And though I highly admire George Washington and nearly all of his legacies, where he was wrong was his opposition to parties/factions. The rise of parties/factions is what holds together such a geographically large "Republican" Federation. When national parties break down, you are left with local, regional factions; the American Civil War.

Theory vs reality (1)

fnj (64210) | about 4 years ago | (#31679752)

In THEORY we have a two party democratic republic. In REALITY we have a corruptocracy composed of a consipiracy between politicians and mega-corporations. The two parties are a charade. They are tweedledum and tweedledee.

Re:Democracy? (1)

Jeremi (14640) | about 4 years ago | (#31679782)

Ban the party system.

Which party should we support in order to get that change implemented?

Well... (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 years ago | (#31679334)

i suppose if we can suspend democracy and civil rights to fight the TERRORISTS,
we also can suspend them to stop global warming...

Oh dear (1)

Anrego (830717) | about 4 years ago | (#31679344)

Democracy slows down progress! .. in other news, scissors sharp.. fire hot.. water wet

But seriously.. when a huge number of people with completely different objectives and viewpoints have to agree for anything to happen.. stuff happens very slowly. Still, better than most alternatives..

He's got historical precedent on his side (1, Interesting)

IICV (652597) | about 4 years ago | (#31679360)

He does have historical precedent on his side - after all, Plato thought that the best form of government would be rule by philosopher-kings.

In terms of practical historical precedent, not so much. This sort of thing tends to end badly. I think it's far better for us to thrash these issues out now, so that in the future everyone will be more aware of the standard array of denialist tactics. [scienceblogs.com]

Re:He's got historical precedent on his side (3, Insightful)

religious freak (1005821) | about 4 years ago | (#31679452)

Yeah Plato (the philosopher) thought people like him should be making decisions and Lovelock thinks the folks who are put in charge should make certain decisions the way he sees things.

There is nothing new about this approach and we know how it ends

Re:He's got historical precedent on his side (1)

Neon Aardvark (967388) | about 4 years ago | (#31679498)

Good way to "thrash out" a scientific theory by using a smear word to label those on the other side, which is also applied to certain neo-nazis.

Re:He's got historical precedent on his side (2, Interesting)

Dice (109560) | about 4 years ago | (#31679578)

Plato thought that the best form of government would be rule by philosopher-kings.

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.

A better way to save the world (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 years ago | (#31679384)

Would be to suspend James Lovelock. In carbonite.

Re:A better way to save the world (0, Flamebait)

techno-vampire (666512) | about 4 years ago | (#31679542)

Would be to suspend James Lovelock. In carbonite.

Personally, I'd rather he were suspended by the neck until dead.

I can fix everything (2, Funny)

Al's Hat (1765456) | about 4 years ago | (#31679390)

Elect me benevolent dictator and I promise to limit my term. I'll step down as soon as all of the world's problems are fixed.

The US has democracy? (3, Informative)

headkase (533448) | about 4 years ago | (#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.

What about others nations? (1)

LockeOnLogic (723968) | about 4 years ago | (#31679408)

China is not a democracy, and they have not risen to the challenge of combating global climate change either.

Building building whatnow? (1)

Xachariah (995669) | about 4 years ago | (#31679412)

I don't think he's right about what will stop climate change. Is it the getting rid of democracy or is it building building sea defenses?

Wrong way round, Lovey (4, Insightful)

Torrance (1599681) | about 4 years ago | (#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.

Re:Wrong way round, Lovey (1)

MindlessAutomata (1282944) | about 4 years ago | (#31679738)

That's the same excuses communists give for the faults of the USSR, too--that it wasn't "real" communism", that it wasn't enough communism.

Democracy is a failed ideology just like communism is. I am not advocating whatever James Lovelock is; I am saying, quite simply, that democracy has failed to make us free. Freer than earlier tyrannies? Perhaps, though even during the days of monarchs the trend was towards more freedom in general.

You can only push the people so far (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 years ago | (#31679430)

The ensuing civil war that will break out from suspending democracy will certainly help save the environment with the casualties no longer consuming natural resources.

Gaea (4, Insightful)

Black Parrot (19622) | about 4 years ago | (#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.

I knew it (2, Insightful)

ickleberry (864871) | about 4 years ago | (#31679474)

This whole 'carbon footprint' and 'green' malarky is just a way to make us feel bad about pretty much anything we do even though we might be able to afford it and so the eventual aim seems to be to usher in an authoritarian regime where everybody is given the absolute minimum necessary to survive.

These doomsday environmentalists are not helping the situation one bit - I am actually interested in renewable energy, electric cars and so on but each time one of these guys opens their mouth I feel like jumping into the car and pouring 70 litres of petrol into the tank while I'm still allowed, you know.

Before we are all thrown into a supermassive apartment block and given only rice crackers and water to live off. If we are lucky they might allow us a single CFL in our cell and the very obedient are allowed a recycled netbook with Google Chrome OS or similar Web-only OS.

Meanwhile the politicians and scientists behind this regime will obviously be livin' the good live on some island with all the fuel and personal freedom they could possibly ever think of asking for.

Re:I knew it (2, Insightful)

matjaz (132729) | about 4 years ago | (#31679560)

Agreed with ickleberry

The original post can do with his Democracies whatever he wants as long as he leaves my Republic alone.

Democracy = Rule of the majority over the minority
Republic = You're free as long as you don't affect my freedom.

Electorate afraid to lose their "Lifestyle" (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 years ago | (#31679490)

Everyone I know whose against global warming - and I'm not talking about folks who are legitimate skeptics who base their opinions on science. I'm talking about Joe and Jane (usually AM Radio/Fox News consumers) who want the whole Global Warming idea to go away because they firmly believe that global Warming is a myth created to:

  • Destroy capitalism by the left
  • A backhanded way to raise taxes for the left to spend
  • Wealth redistribution: from rich countries to poor ones (there is some truth to that one)

They are afraid of losing their lifestyle: unbridled consumption. The stereotype? Big SUV with "McCain/Palin" bumper stickers and sometimes faded Bush 04 stickers. They want all their money and explaining that the reduction in Greenhouse gases will also clean up the air just goes over their head.

My favorite cartoon of all time shows an climatologist screaming "What if we clean up the Earth for nothing!" - or something like that.

It boils down to people wanting to benefit from pollution (economically) without having to pay the consequences. Unfortunately, they don't see the damage to their health from a dirty environment.

Re:Electorate afraid to lose their "Lifestyle" (0)

Neon Aardvark (967388) | about 4 years ago | (#31679628)

It boils down to people wanting to benefit from pollution (economically) without having to pay the consequences. Unfortunately, they don't see the damage to their health from a dirty environment.

There's zero damage to their health from CO2 output. Because it's not "dirty" or "artificial" or a "pollutant". It's a natural trace gas that plants crave.

People want technology to overcome problems. And it can.

Taxation, totalitarianism, restrictions, and repression don't overcome problems. Innovation does. The world and life aren't zero sum game.

Why can't you hysterical luddites accept that?

Re:Electorate afraid to lose their "Lifestyle" (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 years ago | (#31679704)

The world and life aren't zero sum game.

Yes they are. Ever heard of entropy?

Start with James Lovelock's democratic rights (2, Insightful)

syousef (465911) | about 4 years ago | (#31679496)

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.

Re:Start with James Lovelock's democratic rights (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 years ago | (#31679556)

What is this aburbum you speak of and how does one get access to it?

At least the solar powered trains will run on time (1)

Cyberblah (140887) | about 4 years ago | (#31679500)

Suspending democracy is a great way to be told, forever, that the climate will be fixed at the end of the current five year plan.

As an American... (-1, Troll)

tool462 (677306) | about 4 years ago | (#31679502)

I'd like to tell Dr. Lovelock that we're on the motherfucker. Full democracy shutdown commencing in 3...2...1...

LOL (3, Insightful)

vvaduva (859950) | about 4 years ago | (#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.

Re:LOL (3, Insightful)

DigiShaman (671371) | about 4 years ago | (#31679650)

Fascists are fascists regardless of their cloth. Even communists are fascists. And no, that isn't a contradiction.

Re:LOL (1)

Chris Burke (6130) | about 4 years ago | (#31679706)

No, it's obviously more about the environment. He wouldn't care about controlling your life but for that.

Of course it's still a retarded way to "solve" the problem.

Fucking idiot. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 years ago | (#31679518)

What else is there to say? That kind of a stupid argument does not deserve a second of consideration or refutation. Save the world one step at a time: Shut up and die, one less source of carbon dioxide.

Not a good idea (2, Insightful)

KDN (3283) | about 4 years ago | (#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".

Clarity Nazi (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 years ago | (#31679522)

Ok, I know building is both a noun and verb and all, but come on.

"suspend democracy"... (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 years ago | (#31679528)

The problem with the AGW crowd is that their solutions invariably seem to involve money and power transfers that endorse or parallel the Socialist ideals. If this is TRULY a LIFE OR DEATH situation then we shouldn't be giving exemptions under the Kyoto Protocol to burgeoning economies such as China and India "because the West wasn't burdened with the same artificial constraints during its boom years"... Take the politics out of global warming or else I and many others like me will continue to thumb my nose at it. I WOULD RATHER LIVE IN A HOT, FREE SOCIETY WITH DEAD POLAR BEARS AND SHRINKING COASTLINES THAN A SOCIALIST ONE.

Tomorrow belongs to me (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 years ago | (#31679558)

Lovelock's lovely idealism is well represented by the Nazi record on human rights, the Soviet Union's record on pollution, and Pol Pot's support for intellectual inquiry. Mugabi's farm programs come to mind.

Totalitarian regimes are often started by the firey passions of committed intellectuals, who are shot once the populist revolutions they engender empower the thugs to take control. Then we see what happens to their pretty ideas. Villa for me, firing squad for you. Thanks, nerd, for my family's newfound power.

THIS is going to put the deniers at ease (2, Insightful)

Arancaytar (966377) | about 4 years ago | (#31679564)

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.

Re:THIS is going to put the deniers at ease (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 years ago | (#31679740)

That's not irony. That's the opposite of paranoia.

Gaia: Creationism for environmentalists (2, Informative)

GNUALMAFUERTE (697061) | about 4 years ago | (#31679582)

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.

Tell you what.. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 years ago | (#31679608)

Let's put it to a vote.

Global Warming as Back-door to Global Government (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 years ago | (#31679614)

There is a significant amount of evidence that global warming is not even really driven by humanity. Even if you ignore the fact that the sun, and therefore the entire solar system, is heating up, the cause of earth-bound heating effects are still undetermined. It is a matter of no small debate among climatologists. Hardly a settled question.

It is therefore quite disturbing to see the suggestion that the level of self-determination in terms of leadership and political decision-making should be curtailed in order to ameliorate the effect that people may or may not be having on the environment.

dsginter makes a good point, but regardless of exactly how much sovereignty the people currently have over themselves, (and I think we can all agree that it's not much (and already declining...)) there's no reason to strip it away entirely over global warming--especially since all the facts are not in.

I tend to think that there exist powers (that be) that wish to "put democracy on hold" for their own selfish reasons. Hence, the generation of such lame justification for said "on-hold-putting" as this.

fragile species (1)

Tablizer (95088) | about 4 years ago | (#31679626)

As George Carlin "nicely" puts it, the planet will eventually adapt. It's the humans who have the most to lose from warming and pollution. If we all vote to @#%$! ourselves, then perhaps that's fate. (Not sure dictators care either.)

Re:fragile species (1)

GNUALMAFUERTE (697061) | about 4 years ago | (#31679708)

"The planet is going nowhere. We are going!. We are going away. Pack your shit folks!, we are going away!"

George Carlin: Best. Person. Ever.

My response is so what? (2, Interesting)

DarkOx (621550) | about 4 years ago | (#31679632)

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.

A quote by Samuel L. Jackson (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 years ago | (#31679636)

"English, motha****er -- Do you speak it?"

Seriously /. ... has it come to this?

Let's go to the videotape (4, Informative)

jfengel (409917) | about 4 years ago | (#31679668)

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.

Please... (1)

aBaldrich (1692238) | about 4 years ago | (#31679680)

Do you remember what happened the last time that a developed country put democracy 'on hold'?
Take a look at the most important armed conflicts of the british empire in the last 60 years.
  • World War II
  • (Cold War)
  • Falklands' War
  • Gulf War I
  • Kosovo War
  • Gulf War II

What do they have in common?
You guessed! Suspended democracy!

Which (2, Insightful)

Dunbal (464142) | about 4 years ago | (#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.

Crackpot (3, Informative)

vandan (151516) | about 4 years ago | (#31679690)

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!

The committee for public safety would like a word (1)

mveloso (325617) | about 4 years ago | (#31679712)

Off with your heads, you environmentally insensitive clods!

It's Already Happened - See EU and UN (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 years ago | (#31679732)

The EU and UN are run by unelected officials and they're already pushing the "manmade global warming" propeganda pretty hard. Why is he suggesting them after it has already been done?

I'm not defending the statement... (0)

dachshund (300733) | about 4 years ago | (#31679748)

... which I think is tone-deaf and stupid, and will instantly be used by the truly rabid anti-climate-change "skeptic" types as evidence that the entire environmental movement is a secret plan to institute world government. The fact that this claim will be total horseshit won't stop them for a second --- it never does.

The guy is 90 years old, he's probably got a different perspective on things, and anyway he doesn't represent most people's feelings on the matter.

That said, there is one element of truth to what he's saying: namely that if the $hit really does hit the fan (e.g., a major climactic catastrophe, or confirmation that the clathrate feeback look really is happening), things like democracy and the healthy free market are going to be severely endangered. When a society is fighting for its survival, niceties like that are often the first thing to go. And in case you don't follow me, I'm saying that this is a bad thing, and the best way to avoid it is to deal with the problem in an intelligent, conservative way (cutting emissions now).

If nothing else, you can expect a massive decline in our standard of living if human-caused climate change is strongly confirmed in a couple of decades (and it will be, I suspect) and we have to come up with some crazy last-minute mitigation plan.

I would have a different feeling about this if the anti-climate-change side was offering some kind of reassuring science to counter what the majority of climate scientists are finding, but they're not. Mostly we're getting horseshit like misinterpreted emails. And if a movement with so many followers (and billions in fossil-fuel profits) can't offer anything better than that, you should be scared. Really scared.

Problem is world democracy (1)

grege1 (1065244) | about 4 years ago | (#31679758)

Copenhagen showed the individual governments of the world will never get past self interest to agree on a common approach. It is pointless having a system where a Pacific or Indian Ocean country can scuttle a brokered deal by voting no. In the end the G8 will have to make an agreement and then enforce it on the rest of the world. So in a sense Lovelock is correct, just at the wrong level of government.

Scientist? Yeah, right (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 years ago | (#31679764)

He's no scientist if he's relying on data rendered questionable because of blatant disregard for scientific principles.

East Anglia data, as well as substantial portions of the rest of the World's data being rendered essentially useless is unforgiveable, scientifically (at least). Putting your thermometers near heat sinks makes your data useful for studies of temperatures near heat sinks, not global climate trends.

Too bad that population centers encroached on the weather stations, but we can't pretend it didn't happen, or that the data from those stations is useful.

Even more disturbing (well, at least as disturbing) is NASA'a admissions that their climate data is LESS reliable than East Anglia's.

I am a scientist, and I'll admit that I've screwed up an experiment or two, and couldn't use the generated data. These screw ups with climate monitoring are monumental, though, and are affecting peoples' quality of life, one way or another, around the world.

Too bad there is INSUFFICIENT SUPPORTABLE SCIENCE to support either side of the argument.

It's all down to politicians, aka marketing.

What a waste, at so many levels.

Molecular Mechanic

The people want a solution, the powerful don't (1)

bigsexyjoe (581721) | about 4 years ago | (#31679770)

He has this completely backwards. The problem is not enough democracy. If all the people of the were given a referendum to cut greenhouse gas production to protect the environment, it would easily win.

The powerful interests are the ones preventing anything from being done about climate change. Suspending democracy won't work because there is no one to hand control of the world to who would work to overt climate catastrophe.

However, the people of the world, particularly of the third world, do want to do every thing possible to save the environment. So the answer is more democracy in both government and economic affairs.

Read up on the Eastern Block (0, Troll)

32771 (906153) | about 4 years ago | (#31679788)

Environmentalism was a secret movement there and people were harassed by the secret police for doing something for the environment. This is exactly what this fool wants with his dreamed up theories. Now you just have to explain to me, i.e. how mining in Russia and Eastern Germany were environmentaly friendly. Not to speak of all the other desasters. He probably also thinks Chernobyl was a good idea.

Load More Comments
Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>
Sign up for Slashdot Newsletters
Create a Slashdot Account