Ye gods guys, this book does your side of the argument no favours.
And then they offer a ‘third way’
Sure, guys. I’m sure we’ll end up with the philosophers of Plato’s Republic. Yeah, right.
Moonbats, utter moonbats.
I see nothing moon-battish about arguing that meeting the challenges of climate change may entail reforms of economic. social and political systems. These systems change all the time and are deliberately changed to reflect circumstances.
I, for one, welcome our new authoritarian government overlords!
(Seriously, I think it’d be waaaaay cool to be a member of the underground fighting to overthrow the oppressive regime who’s taken control of things “for your own good.” Or maybe I’d be a Han Solo kind of guy, just doing any old job for the money.)
Oh yeah, for more nutter fun, check out the NPR interview with James Howard Kuntsler, who’s convinced that in five years, the US will be reduced to something like Mad Max in the 14th century!
Personally, I’d prefer global warming over authoritarianism. If the choice is between ice caps or democracy, fuck the polar bears.
Yeah, because it’s soo much easier to overthrow nature than it is an oppressive government. :rolleyes:
Of course, the only way we can be certain that the environment is being protected is with a free and open government.
Shove your rolleyes up your arse you fucking cunt. Calling for the end of liberal democracy because of global warming is the stupidest fucking idea I’ve ever heard. Jesus.
Yeah, all we really have to do is get rid of that so-called ‘free market’ capitalism.
No thanks, they have sharp teeth and claws and could possibly eat me when I was done.
In spite of a the foaming-at-the-mouth rage in here, the authors of the book are not wrong. If climate change/AGW are indeed real and as serious as doomsayers say they are, by the time democratic governments with their overbloated bureaucracies get around to doing anything about it it will be far, far too late. Since this is exactly what is going to happen, and I do believe that we are quite a ways up shit creek, I think we’re in for a very rough ride.
ETA: Forgot the lobby groups who make your unwieldy system even more nimble.
Or the crypto-fascists of the environmental movement are seizing on global warming as an excuse to gain power.
I find myself in firm agreement with Dominic Mulligan. Let me keep my freedom. Then I can make a killing selling oceanfront property in Nevada.
Regards,
Shodan
How fortunate that moonbats are so rare, and only associated with Climate Change. Just think how unfortunate it would be if there were to be moonbats associated with topics like gun control, birth control, vaccination, organic food, sexual preferences, anchovy pizza preferences, or anything else for that matter.
:eek:
I thought that went without saying…
I do not think that authoritarian governments are any less bloated and bureacratic than democracies, and they are certainly a lot less nimble. And since the populace will not have any voice or choice, the authoritarian government does not have any checks in their power, but more worrying they don’t have to care what people think of their efforts, right or wrong.
What you gonna do with your money, son, eat it?
The way things are going with the dollar, that may soon be a necessary alternative…
I remember a Philosophy teacher (very good guy, actually) once started in telling me how it was all some right-wing politican’s idea back in the 80’s to link “Green” and “Red” politics, blah blah… I didn’t have the heart to tell him I’d never heard of the guy he mentioned (some big Reaganaut) and that I’d made up my own mind.
Sure, I’ev heard others bandy the idea abut, but I noticed right quic there were some Greens whose ideas seemed to come straight out of the Moscow Playbook. Freaky. What was funny is that most of them seemed incapable of doing things to actual help the environemtn.
Right. Regardless of what you think of the book’s conclusions, I think you have to admit that democracy probably isn’t too well-equipped to deal with this particular problem - or at least that it has not handled it well so far. Scienctific debate and democracy can be an uneasy combination. That’s worth discussing. Does it justify enviro-faciscm? No. But unless you reject the AGW concept altogether, it’s hard to escape the conclusion that we are approaching or in too-little-too-late territory.
Don’t worry, I’ve got a nice chunk with your name on it.