Economics and China

[kandrathe]

So let’s bring it forward: what does this have to do with our current situation, you ask? This world will not change on its own, and to wait for everyone to "wake up" is to wait until it is already too late – our sixth great extinction will take us as well.

I'm more in the camp of... Climate Change is not our fault

However, as the article indicates, we are responsible for it, and to mitigate the harms we've already committed.

From my perspective as an astronomer, human beings and the cultures we've created are just another expression of the planet. We're not inherently bad or anti-nature. We're just something the Earth has done and, if you look at it, we've done it pretty well. Without intending to, we changed the atmospheric radiation transport properties of an entire planet.

That's kind of remarkable for a bunch of hairless apes.

Now the question for the age is; Now that we realize what we are doing, how are we going to stop doing it without freezing in the winters, or giving up our amazing transportation capabilities. How do we move forwards without fossil fuels, and not backwards?

The problem is we've lived in peace and passivity for so long, that the ebb and flow is in dire need of a dictator who will set the world straight though force to save the planet because the bitter truth is when someone tries to use logic or peace to move the mass in this day and age, their means are often twisted to a darker agenda if not directly subverted. I believe the world requires a strong political force to enrapture the world, rallying the majority against the greater evils of our generation(s) of decadence and wanton waste, with the cause of the day to destroy the modern world and those who oppose, or more specifically, those who oppose change.

Peace is not a problem, even if it were true. The 20th, and now 21st centuries have shown to be some of the most brutal.

Benevolent Dictatorship is Never the Answer.

Frequently throughout human history, people begin to think, just as you are here, that a consolidation of power will remove the barriers to positive change. This is because they fixate on the fantasy of the "positive change", rather on the reality of how power is shared or how consensus is built in society. The problem is not the lack of centralized power, the problem is the lack of a unified consensus on what we actions should be made, and subsequently who should do, or pay for them to be done. But, let's say yes, you get your emperor. Now with unchecked power, what assurances do we have that the fantasy of the "positive change" becomes a reality? If the majority are opposed to the changes, and our emperor imposes the changes "by force" with barrel bombs, and boot heels. What is the result? I think we are seeing it in Syria, with refugees, malnutrition, disease, poverty, suffering, death, a generation lost, and civil wars.

Those in power whose interest lie in money, and the effects of greed through (I hate to use one of FIT's monikers here) Capitalism will fight this battle to the bitter end defending their wealth, while those who want to help the world before it’s too late will fight against them.

And with foresight, should this great dictator win and rechristen the world a planet of sharing, where there is plenty of food for everyone, where all products are grown in farms and everything recycled so our seas and forests are not depleted or polluted and our wildlife is let to flourish once again, this individual will be looked upon as a great revolutionary with magnanimous vision and foresight who not only saved the planet, but brought it into a new age out of the severe state of greed and copious consumption it was in. We need an "emperor" to bring balance to the force.

Ow. Run on sentence much? Capitalism is not to blame either. It is merely the entirely fair proposition that to those who sow the seeds, should reap the harvest. If I have earned much, which I have earned honestly, what right does anyone have to lay claim to my boon?

But, as a society, we must also consider the condition of those who are in the society with us. Peace is easier when people's needs are met. So, it makes logical sense for the person with more, to share some with those who have less. There will always be inequity in wealth. It just needs to be moderated enough to prevent a civil war. My goal is to convince the wealthy to see this logic, and convince them therefore to part with enough to meet the needs of those less well off to prevent suffering. A compassionate capitalism, which for the most part is what we practice in the USA. The trouble is that in "business" much as in the starving survivors in a lifeboat, what you do to survive as a business may not be the ethical thing, and so you maybe should choose an honorable ethical death rather than eat the remaining survivors with you in the boat.

The battle for fairness in society is an ethical one, regardless of the political system attempting to achieve that fairness. The failures in empires, democracies, or totalitarian regimes are ones of ethical failure within all levels of the society. It is as much a fantasy to believe wealthy people will of their own accord share enough to sate to desires of those in need, as it is to believe a benevolent totalitarian will fairly distribute the wealth of the nation. This never happens. Ever. We need systems of checks and balances to prevent the accumulation of too much power in any area of governance, and to blow the whistle on corruption in the other branches of power when it inevitably emerges.

Another point: Our poor in the USA, are quite wealthy by the world standards of poverty. We have more than enough to go around now. It is just some get too much (e.g. where are people obese?) and some get too little. The barriers to getting stuff to the poor are political, more than structural. For those who consume too much, again, it is political supported by a consumerist driven society. We need to convince people to consume less, and we need to adjust our economy to grow by means other than excess consumption.

Anyway, assuming the necrosis of our planet through felodese (what else could it be since we already know the truth about our planet and resources), I only see this solution as a possibility looking forward into my children's generation or possibly one more after that before we've passed the point of no return.

Well, more like an addiction to fossil fuels. If we go cold turkey, we die. We need to find our Methadone, and eventually switch to renewable energy sources.

The world will not change on its own.

Oh, yes, it will. It will continue to change everyday, as it has since it formed. It may just be a world without us, and possibly if we mess it up enough, without any life.

I should be a science fiction writer .

I should be your editor.