"If they did not work together, they were dead." (p.92)
True on a ship, in a spaceship and ultimately on a planet. The issue has taken millennia to come to a head on a planet although millions have died unnecessarily meanwhile.
As in this story, sf writers imagine high tech dictatorships perpetuating themselves into indefinite futures but surely they are now at the point of self-destruction?
(Right now, Ukrainians are counter-attacking!)
26 comments:
Kaor, Paul!
Many dictatorships certainly have been self destructive. Unfortunately, as the former USSR, Maoist China, and the grotesque Kim "dynasty" of N Korea has shown, they can also be very long lived.
Ad astra! Sean
Sean,
But my point is that current regimes are destroying the environment and thus themselves.
Paul.
Kaor, Paul!
And despots like Putin, Xi, or Kim don't care.
Ad astra! Sean
Sean,
But nor do the rulers of any other countries. And the people of the world do need to care.
Paul.
Paul: it's not an either-or thing.
Most Western leaders do care about climate change, for example; it just isn't the -only- thing they care about. (If it was, they'd never win an election.)
Xi, on the other hand, presides over a country that burns 4,400,000,000 tons of coal a year, has announced that they intend to mine another 350,000,000 tons per year on top of that; that's over half the world total and rising.
He just doesn't give a damn at all.
Survival has to be more important than re-election, though? It seems that no one in authority is taking this issue seriously enough.
Kaor, Paul!
As Stirling explained, many Western leaders do care about pollution, it's just that they have to also care about OTHER things as well.
And the figures Stirling gave about Xi and China were disturbing. Why doesn't Xi put as much effort into building nuclear power plants as he does into mining coal? China would probably get as much energy in a far less polluting way!
Conclusion: Xi simply DOES NOT CARE!
Ad astra! Sean
Sean,
But the urgency of the climate crisis means that this problem has to override everything else. Now is not the time to start a war, for example. But now that a war has started, it is allowed to push the climate crisis into the background. But that crisis is still here: an imminent irreversible catastrophe unless major action is taken very soon.
Paul.
Kaor, Paul!
When China, all by itself, is causing more than half of this global pollution, then China has to do its part. And the Chinese dictator has made it plain he does not care. You seem to keep overlooking that.
Ad astra! Sean
Sean,
How am I overlooking the fact that the Chinese dictator does not care?
Paul.
Kaor, Paul!
Then, I apologize. It's simply that your comment for 3.27 at 10.34 seems so open ended that it allowed me to think you had only Western nations in mind. And the most powerful of Western nations, the US, has next to zero influence in persuading China not to pollute so much.
I did express puzzlement over why Xi doesn't get the energy he wants via nuclear power, instead of coal. I'm trying to be SPECIFIC.
Ad astra! Sean
Sean,
We, everyone, need to encourage the Chinese leadership to change policies and the Chinese people to change leaders. This is a matter of survival and therefore of urgency. That sense of urgency seems to be lacking from this discussion. Is it sufficient simply to blame someone else, then to talk about something else? You have said before what you think should be done about the climate crisis. So it is a matter of urgency that no government (not just the Chinese)is doing these things.
Paul.
Kaor, Paul!
Neither of us are kings, presidents, dictators, PMs, cabinet ministers, etc. Neither of us has any power to act directly, by command. What good would it do for us to be "urgent" instead of calm?
Xi rose to power thru the one party dictatorship founded by Mao. I simply don't see any kind of better, less harshly ruthless regime coming to power in Peking any time soon.
I mentioned China, both because of how massively polluting it is and because the alternatives to coal I have advocated elsewhere, could, if implemented in the Central Kingdom, have a correspondingly drastic effect in reducing pollution.
As for countries like the UK, US, Germany, etc., one problem is the massive opposition to the alternatives I advocate. And I have written to my House representative on such matters. Not that a left leaning Democrat in a state dominated by that party cares!
But, I hope the war in Ukraine has woken up Germany to the dangers of depending on Russia for oil and natural gas. AND to being willing to reopen those recently shut down nuclear power plants. And building more!
Ad astra! Sean
Paul: the thing about re-election is that if you don't get re-elected, you don't get to do -anything-, because you have lost the power.
Politics is about power; you may then use the power to do various things, but having (and keeping) the power is a precondition for any choice as to what to do.
As for Xi, China is now contributing about 50% of the new CO2 annually; India is coming up fast behind.
Neither show any sign of giving a damn about what we think, or about climate change. A good many Indians think that the whole concept is a conspiracy to keep them poor.
Accordingly, there's nothing much we can do. We could zero out and it wouldn't change matters much.
As for the war, humans are hardwired to pay attention to that. Note how they care more about people killed by enemies than those who die of disease or accidents.
Sean,
Individuals can do little. Mass action is necessary. That overthrew Ceausescu, among others.
Mr Stirling,
I know the argument about getting elected but what good is it if those elected are not taking action against climate change? I hope that the climate change campaigns affect what governments do.
Paul.
Kaor, Paul!
And I remain skeptical of the value and usefulness of "mass action." That worked on Ceausescu for two reasons: the tyrant had made himself bitterly hated by Romanians; and he lost the protection of the USSR, as its slackening grip on the east European satellites made its satraps more vulnerable.
As for what you said to Stirling, recall how he reminded you Western leaders have to care about OTHER things as well pollution. And, if they want to DO anything they first have to first win power and get reelected. And of course there is no guarantee they would try to implement the only policies I believe would work. If not, then to heck with those futile, counterproductive "climate change campaigns." Esp. if nothing is said or done about India and China!
Ad astra! Sean
Sean,
But pollution is overriding everything. Of course things are said about every government, including India and China. My expectation for the immediate future is either there'll be enough mass action or there won't be and, if there isn't, we're sunk.
Paul.
Kaor, Paul!
And "mass" action is the last thing to expect. We are far more likely to have to live thru "interesting times," as the Chinese curse puts it!
Ad astra! Sean
Paul: the thing with exterior pressure groups in a democracy is that they can get attention, but they're not going to get politicians to -do- anything unless they threaten their reelection prospects.
So if the pressure group wants them to do something that would anger their supporters into not voting or voting for someone else, they won't do it.
And most people are predominantly concerned with their immediate circumstances; meeting the bills, the price of food, a threatening neighbor.
Nobody much in Mariupol is thinking about climate change right now because heavily-armed enemies are trying to kill them while they crouch in a cellar and have no food.
Again, you can't -do- anything unless you have the -power- to do it.
Kaor, Mr. Stirling!
And there are many things I would like to TRY to do if I could be Absolute Dictator. Except I doubt I would achieve them all. As Putin is finding out! (Wry smile)
Ad astra! Sean
Sean,
Because of the way society is run, the kind of disaffection that brought down Ceausescu is always present to some extent, both East and West. The only question is where and when it will flare up enough to change things substantially but this does happen periodically. We have seen Apartheid ended and the Berlin Wall torn down, two things that I was told would never happen. Margaret Thatcher, apparently invulnerable, was eventually brought down by the consequences of her Poll Tax policy.
Paul.
Kaor, Paul!
I still disagree about "mass action." It works only if the regime being rebelled against has lost the will and support needed for crushing all opposition to it. China, AGAIN, comes to mind. In the same period the Berlin Wall came down, the Maoist regime in Peking mercilessly destroyed the Tienanmen movement.
The late Margaret Thatcher is a poor example. She was never dictator and never tried to ruthlessly hold on to power by illegal means.
Ad astra! Sean
Sean,
Of course Thatcher was no dictator. She won three General Elections. But she remains an example of popular resistance eventually having an effect. Sufficiently sustained mass action constitutes loss of support for a regime and also saps its will.
Of course you don't agree. None of these matters will be resolved in exchanges like this. But at least we clarify what we are saying. This discussion has moved on. Otherwise, I would not have stayed with it.
Paul.
Kaor, Paul!
That kind of argument, re Thatcher, goes both ways. A very similar "popular resistance" is what makes the Labor Party also losing elections.
Ad astra! Sean
Sean,
I mean that there was a mass campaign against Thatcher's Poll Tax, non-payment, imprisonment, demonstrations, disruption of Council meetings etc. The Tax was widely seen as extremely unjust.
Paul.
Kaor, Paul!
And that leads me, oddly, to thinking it might be a good idea for Britons to rethink a bit the constitutional role of the King or Queen. Ever since the beginning of Victoria's reign in 1837 it has been the settled view that the sovereign has to give the Royal Assent to any Act passed by Parliament. What if, instead, it was agreed that every five or six years, if Parliament passed a really bad or dubious bill, the King or Queen could refuse the needed Assent, and people would not blow their tops but think: "Hey, maybe this proposed law was not such a good idea. Let's read His Majesty's careful explanation of why he thought it a bad law." The majority party could always repass it, after all, in a year or two. In that case it would be understood the sovereign would then have to give his Assent to it.
If something like this had happened with Margaret Thatcher's Poll Tax law, everyone might have been spared a good deal of unpleasantness!
Ad astra! Sean
Post a Comment