cattywompapotamus t1_iwusj75 wrote
Reply to comment by andreaskrueger in For world philosophy day 13 thinkers share the philosophical questions that will define this century | Including Noam Chomsky on destruction, Naomi Oreskes on climate crisis and Carissa Veliz on innovation by IAI_Admin
I am skeptical that action/inaction on climate change has much to do with mode of governance. For example, China has also contributed significantly to climate change with a completely different governing system. Russia and Saudi Arabia too.
Climate change is a dilemma rooted in the petrochemical energy system that has powered modern civilization for 300 years, regardless of governance.
Yetanotherone4 t1_iwv4czs wrote
> Climate change is a dilemma rooted in the petrochemical energy system that has powered modern civilization for 300 years, regardless of governance.
Bingo.
kevster013 t1_iwwkoty wrote
The problem is greed, not democracy. Turns out that when companies put profits before the greater good then politicians are easily swayed - by bribes or just fear of being voted out. Seems greed overrides political systems.
andreaskrueger t1_iwuwrj3 wrote
[China's cumulative responsibility per capita is still rather small; only a recent "catching up" with the most destructive countries (who set the stage, and thus forced everyone to copy their wrong ways). E.g. pause this video here in 1999: https://youtube.com/watch?v=o-LQ8SJh0q4&t=3m15s and remember their population is X times bigger. All this is only a side issue though, the main fraction of additional CO2 in Earth's atmosphere now ... originated from "democratic" countries.]
Hmmm ... if all types of governance that have been tried are "not functioning properly" (as they failed to solve our most urgent problems) - then that includes democracy too - right?
> rooted in ...
Yes of course. But which other system than (whatever flavour of) POLITICS ... would be responsible to CHANGE THAT, in face of the apocalyptic prospects of business as usual?
So you would generalize it: No type of (at least all PAST versions of) governance has ever "functioned properly"?
cattywompapotamus t1_iwuyit0 wrote
Democratic countries may have established the systemic conditions for climate change, but is that because they were democratic? I don't think so. I think it has more to do with their geographic and economic circumstances.
If your standard for a properly functioning government is one that solves the most urgent problems in a society, then it's probably safe to say that there has never been a properly functioning government. Only varieties of better or worse.
Which other system would be capable of addressing the issue of climate change? Good question. Almost certainly one that has never existed before. It would be one that facilitates (or forces) coordinated action on a global scale, because carbon emissions are essentially a global collective action problem.
andreaskrueger t1_iwvme53 wrote
> never been
Yes. Exactly.
Yetanotherone4 t1_iwv41ch wrote
> China's cumulative responsibility per capita
oh, screw off with that. It's the absolute contribution that matters, and output / manufacturing output if you want to compare countries.
andreaskrueger t1_iwv629i wrote
I don't think, creative accounting will set you free.
The basis is physics. Measure the share of responsibility by counting the fraction of molecules of anthropogenic CO2 that are causing the mass death.
And atmospheric CO2 is long lived. Plus, past emissions have already deteriorated the capacity of absorption of the natural system (e.g. acidic oceans will capture less and less additional CO2 emissions), so earlier emissions have even compounding effects.
Dr_seven t1_iwuyy79 wrote
>So you would generalize it: No type of (at least all PAST versions of) governance has ever "functioned properly"?
I would counter, of course they've functioned properly. States don't exist for the purpose of maximally benefitting their citizens. They exist to consolidate and manage power over a given area, it's resources, and it's people. Some states are more democratic, others less so, but in all cases, the "point" isn't long-term benefits or even necessarily anything for the common people at all. The decisions that matter within complex societies are largely made autonomously by the workings of policy and institutions, and when not sorted that way, they are made by a small number of people with disproportionate ability to exercise power, whether because they hold elected office or due to corruption, autarky, etc. I like Schmachtenberger's term "hyperactors" as a catch-all name for these people.
From the perspective of states, they have done their job just fine. It's just that no state that exists today has ever been formed legitimately intended to benefit it's citizens as much as possible in the long run accounting for externalities as much as possible. Some may insist otherwise in their national mythos, but I would hope no reasonable person takes that seriously.
The national interest supersedes the global and the human interest, by default. That's the ultimate puzzle here- the short-term favors making actions to benefit ones own group that have negative consequences for every group over a longer stretch of time. It's a collective marshmallow test, more or less.
To fix this, we need new structures, based on entirely different modes of social contract and understandings of power relations- something perhaps closer to how certain pre-Columbian societies worked may be a good place for inspiration. I don't know if we will succeed, but that doesn't really change the terms of the discussion, I think.
andreaskrueger t1_iwvrf9i wrote
Thanks a lot, that helped me much to clarify it. When I said "never functioned properly", I did not mean the self assessment of that system.
Of course, there are many "internal" purposes, of which you mention a few:
> purpose ... states...
> consolidate ... manage power ... resources ... people
> policy ... institutions
> national interest ...
> ...
But in light of our real challenges ALL those "internal purposes" are secondary or even tertiary. Who gives AF if a state 'has done its job just fine' when harvests are failing due to a forever-inhospitable nature.
Democracy might be good or not so good at tackling its own aspirations. But while it does, it is using up attention, trust, time, and resources.
And my implicit/suggested value (collectively binding decision structures should solve the most important collective challenges) is "external" to all that; it evaluates the political system not by its own self assessment, but by its objective failure - not having changed the apocalyptic direction of society.
By that criterion, (also) the democratic ideology is failing us miserably. And that made me say "not functioning properly".
> to fix this we need new structures
I completely agree.
Dr_seven t1_iwvvn4z wrote
>But in light of our real challenges ALL those "internal purposes" are secondary or even tertiary. Who gives AF if a state 'has done its job just fine' when harvests are failing due to a forever-unhospitable nature.
I agree completely.
>Democracy might be good or not so good at tackling its own aspirations. But while it does, it is using up attention, trust, time, and resources.
I think one problem might be that the "democracy" we have today is a pretty limited and inflexible version of it. Certainly, the liberal capitalist model seems to have failed.
>And my implicit/suggested value (collectively binding decision structures should solve the most important collective challenges) is "external" to all that; it evaluates the political system not by its own self assessment, but by its objective failure - not having changed the apocalyptic direction of society. > >By that criterion, (also) the democratic ideology is failing us miserably. And that made me say "not functioning properly".
That makes sense.
Ignoring the issue of implementation (naturally), what is it that forms the base failure of our systems? Is it lack of awareness of material reality, i.e. ecology, physics, and so on? Is it the manipulating media and social superstructures that restrict imagination and shunt thought into preexisting lanes of inquiry? Some mix of both?
It's entirely possible that humans, as we are, just aren't wired for making decisions at this scale and complexity. But something about that feels wrong, given how fantastic the diversity of human social adaptations has historically been. We can shape a social reality to produce almost any result- the only question is if that can be done in a way that helps us end up in the best possible place during this ongoing crisis.
LegendaryUser t1_iww3ir9 wrote
>Ignoring the issue of implementation (naturally), what is it that forms the base failure of our systems? Is it lack of awareness of material reality, i.e. ecology, physics, and so on?
The only answer I've ever come to that feels right is that people operating in groups for the purpose of completing a complex task, function more like parts of a machine than each piece functioning as a microcosm of the whole. Each piece of the machine may work towards a unified goal, as specificied by the actor choosing to be a part of the machine, but each component will have its own goals and interests that may not perfectly align with the end goal of the machine, even if the job the component does satiates the machines desires. I'm inclined to believe that being a part of the machine in the first place conditions you to behave in ways that the machine deems acceptable, else the machine will simply spit you out. And that is probably one of the core issues. Gating success or acceptance, as defined by society, by checking against the needs of the machine and largely dismissing the parts that don't immediately provide benefit, such as spending a large amount of money on greener means of production or disposal, or acting like a goofball, which you might find entertaining but the machine mught not. Our machine is geared towards production, and until we downshift a bit, the game will be production at all costs.
andreaskrueger t1_iww5dkx wrote
Base failure/s ? Just one choice out of many:
Externalities. A glacier has no vote; a frog species finances no election campaign; a stable climate could not be voted for; the global dumpsters (atmosphere, oceans, etc) are free to use; cheap oil costs nothing but drilling refinery transport (and military) but neither the nonrenewability, nor the resulting pollution has to be paid for; (and without politics taxing all those, the economy misses out on that vital information completely, so it cannot deliver proper optimization); and almost no one gives AF about anything after the current election cycle - let alone future generations.
All the services that a no-longer-tame nature had delivered, were never in any government budget balance sheet.
So in short, we are losing literal INVISIBILITIES that only a tiny minority ever cared about, but which played zero role for everyone else.
"Minority" is a key observation here.
Diversity - what if the "base failure" is totally different, for different subgroups?:
I've watched plenty elections. The vast MAJORITY gets it all wrong. Each time. And still. Largely not even by their own thinking, but then they did not free themselves in time.
More (much more?) than three quarters of voters are just different shades of conservativism; perhaps that's why "democracy" has such horrible outcomes when completely new societal, technical, economic paradigms would have been needed instead? Only when the relevant timescales are longer than a human life, the situation might sometimes progress and improve, because old views can literally die out. And gerontocratic subsystems try hard to postpone that.
The ecological MINORITY has been growing, but much too slow. Perhaps only very recently out of the one-digit percentages? With its super slow growth, the biggest "base failure" of the ecological minority might have been ... in spite of better knowledge (and while time was running out) still believing in ...
the majority vote principle.
Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments