Gaia theorist calls for the suspension of democracy

Garrulous Glaahk · May 31, 2010

James Lovelock, whose book was my own bible when i was younger, has said that the climate threat is so severe, that it may be necessary to suspend democracy to deal with it. Here is the article:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/blog/2010/mar/29/james-lovelock

And here is a discussion of it on bbc radio:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b00sfwtc

The host Justin Rowlatt has done lots of programmes on his own journey to try and cut his carbon footprint that are really quite good and quite amusing as well.

So the question in my mind is, is anything worth suspending democracy for, and if it is, how do you get it back after you've achieved your goal?

Easygoing Eyebeast · May 31, 2010

What, in this context, would you mean by "democracy?" Important to define that before one decides about its "suspension." Democracy is technically a form of government, but he mentioned egalitarianism in that part of the interview, which more a cultural or social idea. In other contexts, I've heard democracy used practically synonymously with individual liberty. So what do you, or Lovelock, mean by it?

Garrulous Glaahk · May 31, 2010

I guess that most people see democracy as being the ability to elect representatives to a governing body that reflect ones views and concerns. In the case of the article and the radio interview they will be talking about established Government norms in western societies, not libertarianism.

here is a copy and paste from the article:

Quote:

We need a more authoritative world. We've become a sort of cheeky, egalitarian world where everyone can have their say. It's all very well, but there are certain circumstances – a war is a typical example – where you can't do that. You've got to have a few people with authority who you trust who are running it. And they should be very accountable too, of course.

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.

That was Lovelock, who of course wrote the groundbreaking book in the early '70's that along with the book Silent Earth helped kickstart the environmental movement.

Kyshakk Koan · May 31, 2010

Democracy is not very effective when it comes to world interests because the very nature of Western democracy sees to the interests of the individual. It ensures that the desires of each person or small communities of people are equally represented, and so the needs of the whole are often lost. Madison wrote about this at length, calling it the problem of factions. As a result, we have a bad habit of ignoring the long term or the greater good because every small faction in Western democracy is trying further their own agenda and thus things that should be obvious fall by the wayside. An enlightened dictatorship could solve this problem, but has one of those ever existed? No, and I doubt even our advanced technology level would allow for one.

Easygoing Eyebeast · May 31, 2010

In theory, emergency suspension of democracy in favor of temporary dictatorship can work just fine.

For example, take the Roman hero, Cincinnatus. In a time of grave peril for the Roman Republic, the Senate made Cincinnatus dictator of Rome. Cincinnatus, being the wise dude that he was, managed to resolve the crisis in a timely manner, and then stepped down from power.

Or take a later reprisal in history, the American hero, George Washington. Mr. Washington feasibly had the ability to declare himself King of America, as the forefathers of the country wrote important pieces of paper, such as the Constitution. Not only did he not do that, he resigned from his power as Commander-in-Chief, and later set the precedent of only serving two terms as President.

However, there is a reason people like Cincinnatus and Washington are seen as exemplary people. For every leader who shuns absolute power, there are those who crave it. Look at the absolute monarchs of Europe, and specifically Louis XIV, the Sun King. Remember the Julio-Claudian Emperors of Rome, who, according to Augustus, were theoretically going to return power to the Republic eventually. All of these people tasted power and never let it go.

Now, look at the current world. Would you want a suspension of power placing Bush as the dictator of America? In this age of political scandals and partisanship, would you really trust any politician to be dictator of America, Canada, or Australia? Furthermore, how does this suspension of democracy play out in the United Kingdom, with a reversion to a powerful monarchy under Queen Elizabeth II, or allowing the Prime Minister to become the leader?

To quote the infinite wisdom of those before me, "Absolute power corrupts absolutely," and "With great power comes great responsibility."

Easygoing Eyebeast · May 31, 2010

Originally Posted By: Goldenking

Would you want a suspension of power placing Bush as the dictator of America?

After a total of twelve years of unbridled idiocy by George and George W., the only Bush I ever want to see in the White House is a potted plant.

Quote:

In this age of political scandals and partisanship, would you really trust any politician to be dictator of America, Canada, or Australia?

Would you trust any politician to be dictator of anything? Or, for that matter, would you trust any politician, anywhere? In both cases, my answer is a resounding "No."

Hatchling Cockatrice · May 31, 2010

Thomas Friedman has been writing about how China's ability to impose large-scale changes from the top down gives them the ability to effect infrastructure overhaul and sudden switches to green technology. It's handy for things like dealing with crisis and, well, infrastructure.

—Alorael, who still wouldn't want to live in China. He likes his free press so that Fox can be counterbalanced by things that aren't Fox. He's also a fan of the internet.

Easygoing Eyebeast · June 1, 2010

I have merely two things to say on this matter:

1. (this is nitpicking, really) America, as a republic holds popular election to decide who will run the country. You could have strong central government and still have a republic, indeed, you could have a virtually autocratic state that still had free and fair elections and the leader stepped down if he was ever voted out of office. Of course, the problem with this would be that the temptation to seize power would increase to the point where a dictatorship would be inevitable if a Robespierre got power. This would be able to effectively deal with problems while still fitting conventional images of a "democracy" perfectly well.

2. (this is the important bit) Why the hell should I care what a drugged-up ex-hippie who spouts pseudoscientific nonsense about "Gaia" has to say on anything, much less governmental authority?

Hatchling Cockatrice · June 1, 2010

Originally Posted By: Dantius

2. (this is the important bit) Why the hell should I care what a drugged-up ex-hippie who spouts pseudoscientific nonsense about "Gaia" has to say on anything, much less governmental authority?

because he votes

Understated Ur-Drakon · June 1, 2010

Did you read the first link? Seems pretty intelligent, though most of it's common sense.

Well-Actually War Trall · June 1, 2010

Originally Posted By: Nalyd

Did you read the first link? Seems pretty intelligent, though most of it's common sense.

I just did, and, no, it doesn't, exactly. He makes a lot of assertions about the conduct of science today that he doesn't support and with which I disagree, on the basis of my personal observations. His discussion of climate change, later in the article seemed more reasonable on the whole, but I was less interested in that portion.