Can authoritarianism save the Earth?

[Aloone_Jonez]

http://development.thinkaboutit.eu/think3/post/can_authoritarianism_save_the_earth/

Any meaningful response to global warming can not be achieved from within the modern democracies of the western world. There are certain circumstances – a war is a typical example, and climate change may be an issue as severe as a war – where you've got to have a few people with authority who you trust who are running it. So democracy must be put on hold for the time being. We need a more auth
oritative world.

Argument
The idea of “putting democracy on hold” is not new. In the 1970s, the “limits-to-growth” idea was fashionable, arguing that only authoritarianism could drive through the lifestyle-changes required for saving the Earth. William Ophuls prophesied that “the golden age of individualism, liberty, and democracy is all but over –  we should return to something resembling the premodern, closed polity”.

I don't like this at all. The climate change proponents are not doing themselves any favours here. Pushing for a more authoritarian form of government is only going to feed conspiracy theories: could it be that they have a hidden political agenda?

They'll sell the idea of freedom from the oil producing nations, saving the planet and creating a sustainable future but in reality they'll lead us down the road to serfdom under a new appalling ultra-leftist regime.

[Laukev7]

They aren't 'feeding' conspiracy theories, they're proving that they were correct all along: that modern day 'environmentalism' is an excuse to control our lives. Of course, that doesn't mean that protecting the environment is bad, but the movement's been hijacked by control freaks and eugenicists.

[kintaro]

Another point to be made is that the largest cause of damage to the earth in general isn't normal human activity but human conflict. At least the only thing that gives this world meaning, sentient life, is violated through modern environmentalism. Thus it is entirely self defeating.

[Aloone_Jonez]

I don't think it's enough to prove that there's one big climate change conspiracy, but it does prove that there's a sect of environmentalists with dangerous political views, even if they might be well intentioned, as no doubt was the case with many of the Bolsheviks.

I doubt there's going to be a environmentalist run superstate any time soon.

[Laukev7]

Well there's at least enough evidence to prove that one of the groups profits by gaining control over people. They don't actually care about environmentalism, but they want to use it to promote global govenrment. Other groups of course have their own agendas, like making money off carbon credits.

[kintaro]

Well there's at least enough evidence to prove that one of the groups profits by gaining control over people. They don't actually care about environmentalism, but they want to use it to promote global govenrment. Other groups of course have their own agendas, like making money off carbon credits.

I think its a simple case of breaking the photocopier to fix it instead of doing real work in an office. At least, I have no evidence to suggest otherwise. Also, I've managed to profit from the US bailouts, that does not imply I was involved.

[Calum]

I don't like this at all. The climate change proponents are not doing themselves any favours here. Pushing for a more authoritarian form of government is only going to feed conspiracy theories: could it be that they have a hidden political agenda?

They'll sell the idea of freedom from the oil producing nations, saving the planet and creating a sustainable future but in reality they'll lead us down the road to serfdom under a new appalling ultra-leftist regime.

oddly enough, i think your stance on this is quite accurate. i haven't got much to add, except that they may be right that our current ineffectual fluffing around is too little too late, but i totally agree with you that declaring martial law is a backwards step, not a forwards one.