To combat climate change effectively, "eco dictatorship" would be needed

[fanboi]

This might just be a point for discussion, but there might be some merit to it.

I read a book (The Engine of God) where there is a very short note about a character in the book (that isn't an active character IIRC) makes a statement that to combat the climate change, some sort of eco dictatorship would be needed, where it would rule with iron first, making decisions without all the overhead and political maneuvering that is in today's society.

Would you say there is some merit to this? Let take a scenario where you have a group of very few individuals, or a single individual takes total control of the world and with a firm grip starts combating the climate change. It would be unfair, it would be undemocratic, people would lose their jobs and livelihood... people would starve and die. But the climate would change for the better. Would this be a good trade off? The eco dictatorship would of course be needed for many decades to come, but either when we come to a technological breakthrough or a climate that has been reverted to a good level would the eco dictatorship end.

I would say it is an interesting philosophy to allow something so abhorrent to combat a global crisis, but it would be more effective* due to less "overhead".


* These changes would of course be based on science in my scenario that is.

 

[Deleted member 15428]

 

[nsilvias]

so eco fascism?

 

[eonden]

Eco dictatorship. really reminds me of how some of the newer fascist parties try to hang up with the eco crowd (as a way to "protect the motherland") making eco-fascism a thing.

Also, a dictatorship would never be fully based on science because they need to be kept in power (and force people not to do what they want).

 

[fanboi]

Eco dictatorship. really reminds me of how some of the newer fascist parties try to hang up with the eco crowd (as a way to "protect the motherland") making eco-fascism a thing.

Also, a dictatorship would never be fully based on science because they need to be kept in power (and force people not to do what they want).

Click to shrink...

For sure, I am more thinking an utopian eco dictatorship here, where they actually are doing what was given to them. But yes, I think in the end, since humans are corrupted beings in general, would lead to disaster.

 

[pigeon]

For sure, I am more thinking an utopian eco dictatorship here, where they actually are doing what was given to them. But yes, I think in the end, since humans are corrupted beings in general, would lead to disaster.

Click to shrink...

It doesn't make sense even in the utopian model. You're talking about a dictator who lets people starve and die. What's the utopian way to do that, just make sure the right people starve and die? Guess what, that's just regular fascist dictatorship. That's what all the fascists think they're doing.

 

[CrazyAndy]

I'd rather have an AI government...

 

[adj_noun]

This power you give me, I will lay down when the eco crisis has abated!

 

[fanboi]

It doesn't make sense even in the utopian model. You're talking about a dictator who lets people starve and die. What's the utopian way to do that, just make sure the right people starve and die? Guess what, that's just regular fascist dictatorship. That's what all the fascists think they're doing.

Click to shrink...

It let people starve and die, for the greator good in this scenario.

Like the old "chose who dies or all dies", either all dies, or some dies. Sure, not a good outcome either way but one is better then the other.

 

[fanboi]

I'd rather have an AI government...

Click to shrink...

This is also a very intresting thing to discuss around.

 

[Nida]

"To save the Earth we must rid the planet of 50% of it's population. And we're going to start with..."

 

[moblin]

I suppose I don't see why it's functionally any different than people wanting so-called benevolent dictatorships for all of their pet issues. It's very easy to fantasize about a god figure coming and implementing ideal policy if you put aside pesky things like coalition building, democracy, or basic human rights.

 

[pigeon]

It let people starve and die, for the greator good in this scenario.

Like the old "chose who dies or all dies", either all dies, or some dies. Sure, not a good outcome either way but one is better then the other.

Click to shrink...

Yes, I understand what you're saying. That is what Hitler thought he was doing. Killing the right people to make the world a better place and prevent the eventual collapse of civilization.

Rethink this!

 

[fanboi]

I suppose I don't see why it's functionally any different than people wanting so-called benevolent dictatorships for all of their pet issues. It's very easy to fantasize about a god figure coming and implementing ideal policy if you put aside pesky things like coalition building, democracy, or basic human rights.

Click to shrink...

I mean, in this case, which might not be clear I agree, would those "pesky" things matter? Since it would all end if nothing is done.

 

[fanboi]

Yes, I understand what you're saying. That is what Hitler thought he was doing. Killing the right people to make the world a better place and prevent the eventual collapse of civilization.

Rethink this!

Click to shrink...

To point out, I don't believe this to be a way forward since it would be unfeasible, but an interesting point to discuss either way.

Difference with Hitler is that he singled out a group of people.

Here it would be global, indiscriminatory to your beliefs and whatnots.

 

[Laser Man]

People don't understand climate change, they don't fear it. It's just a concept or fake news to many. They do however know about dictatorships from the Star Wars movies!

Climate change needs to be perceived as the bigger threat for something like an eco dictatorship to work, which is not the case... but in time, we might get there. If we want to or not.

 

[Chewy Spaghetti]

I think the term you are looking for is The Philosopher King.

Philosopher king - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

A ruler who is benevolent and intelligent.

I wouldn't call this abhorrent at all. Democracy is not the end all be all of political philosophies.

 

[moblin]

I mean, in this case, which might not be clear I agree, would those "pesky" things matter? Since it would all end if nothing is done.

Click to shrink...

I disagree (and so does science, currently) with the idea that "it will all end". There will be many very serious problems associated with the climate changing, but life on earth ending won't be one of them.

And there is no reasonable way to "logically" determine which people are exterminated in such a scenario. A lot of the "overpopulation" paranoia ends up with - surprise! - advocacy of eliminating large groups of people who just so happen to live and have high birthrates in Africa, southeast Asia, or South America.

 

[pigeon]

To point out, I don't believe this to be a way forward since it would be unfeasible, but an interesting point to discuss either way.

Difference with Hitler is that he singled out a group of people.

Here it would be global, indiscriminatory to your beliefs and whatnots.

Click to shrink...

If the dictator is selecting people at random to die, it is neither utopian noefficient.

If they are selecting people based on some criteria of "efficiency," they are singling out a group of people based on the probably unintended consequences of that criteria.

Again, fascists all throughout history have believed they were wielding power and ending lives for the greater good and in the face of a serious need.

 

[JayC3]

Yeah, let's not do this.