Nut Nut's Attempt At A Book About Politics & Society

Is #4 a change of opinion or a misclick? Because we have had several conversations over multiple threads specifically discussing the need to override public opinion to save the world.

It sounded like a shift to me as well, but I don't see any point in trying to corner him into not modifying his views. It's been obvious for weeks that he hadn't thought much about the last piece of his plan. So now, at last, he is trying to do it in real time in response to questions.

The Churchill example would suggest we should just wait for climate change to generate a catastrophe of sufficient scale to get people aligned on doing something about it.

it never will in first world countries

It's a tricky problem because of the embedded feedback loops and the delay of ~ a century to reach equilibrium to new GHG levels.

It will probably be within a decade that it becomes obvious to even the closed minded like Lucifer that we're in deep doodoo. But what we feel in a decade will just be the tip of the iceberg compared to what's coming further down the road unless we figure out some amazing geoengineering that miraculously manipulates planetary systems and biodoversity into a sustainable homeostasis. I don't think human intelligence is capable of that kind of resolution. To synthesize an entire planet and all of it's interdependent life forms ? It sounds utterly insane .... but some crazy people ascribe to humans a God like and boundaryless capability.

The best analogy I can think of is from the film Don't Look Up with Leonardo DiCaprio. Climate change is like a meteor heading for Earth. But instead of making an impact in an instant, the impact is going to happen over centuries .... the collision is already happening but the "meteor" is still at a shallow depth and descending and the shock waves are becoming more profound as time goes on.

By the time we feel the shock waves sufficiently, the meteor will still be descending toward its destination and there likely isn't anything we can do to stop it from much deeper and much more powerful impact. The growing likelihood is that we simply don't react in time to salvage human civilization as we currently know it.

I don't think our representative democracy in the US is working. Politicians are concerned with themselves. Our campaign finance system creates a dependency on rich people to fund campaign and those funds come at a price .... the legislators do what the donors want. The average citizen is not consulted and they generally are shoehorned into gerrymandered districts which are not competitive so there is no real need to differentiate and compete for votes.

Look at how China has blossomed in the last half century !!!! They were starving by the tens of millions under Mao and now they are a legit superpower with the greatest manufacturing economy in the history of the planet. People's quality of life has improved and Chinese life expectancy has surpassed the US.

Xi is a dictator with the power to make decisions. Dictatorship is sometimes effective. The US is experimenting with dictatorship under Trump as we speak. He routinely spits on the Constitution and basically says he doesn't give a damn.

We're never going to accomplish anything so long as we have a Congress whose legislation is purchased by rich people. When rich people decide which candidates even make it to the airwaves in order for their ideas to be considered.

We need a benevolent dictator. I'm not saying that I'm the ideal candidate. I'm simply willing to put my hat in the ring for the purpose of getting the ball rolling toward a process of finding the best qualified person for the job.

So ... instead of making me the focal point ..... ask yourself .... who is the person on this Earth that we trust ? Personally, I kinda like someone Jon Stewart. He can help us laugh a little during what is otherwise going to be a grim era in human history. I pray that we make it out the other side.

You want it all the ways. You say that elections will be the mechanism for correction, but then you cite China, which of course does not hold free and fair elections. Which is it?

Also, lack of accountability to the people who are governed is pretty much a core feature of a dictatorship.

I want the people to choose a king.

Watch Game of Thrones. In the end, they chose Brandon Stark to be king. Once they choose him, he effectively becomes a dictator.

Monarchy is how humans have been ruled for the vast majority of our history. The people who support Trump want a monarch. they're fed up with a corrupt democracy which is in reality no different than feudalism wrapped up in empty democratic rituals. They want and need someone with the power to change the system.

In the case of Xi and Brandon Stark .... it was only the nobles who participated in choosing a new leader. It was a democracy of the nobility. Pretty much the same for Trump. The people did not have a voice in the selection of Kamala Harris ..... it was a handful of nobles who selected her as the party nominee. At least Trump won a primary which allowed competition.

I am not lobbying for something which is out of synch with current practice. I am lobbying for more of the same.

The only difference is that I'm willing to go toe to toe and debate with anyone.

But there is no one to debate with. There is no competition. If I ask you .... who do you want to run the world ? Who do you trust ? You can't tell me who you want and what you want them to do. All you can do is try and knock me down. I'm not a quitter.

Let's face it .... you're too lazy and unmotivated to educate yourself about the risks we face. You're too lazy to put forth your recipe of how you think the world should be run and who you support. All you can do is try and chip away at someone who has a plan and offers to try and do better.

if you have an immortal cripple with no self interest that can predict the future, then having a king could work

This GoT analogy is terrible. The kings and queens in GoT are universally terrible until the very end of the series. They are capricious, self-interested, and completely indifferent to whether the world burns. Their power is unchecked, and they rule until they die of their own accord or are killed by someone else who wants to be king. Sure, at the very end, a person is chosen to lead who you are led to believe will be just and wise, but that person is barely a human at all. In sum, there is a reason why those books are in the fantasy section of the library. Our chances of selecting a Brandon Stark to rule the world are approximately the same as my chances of seeing a dragon fly across the sky this afternoon.

This is a bullshit false equivalency of the highest order. You can't possibly think that Trump and Biden became president in the same way that Xi rose to power in China or Brandon Stark ascended to power in GoT.

I don't want a single person to rule the world. I don't have a better plan than democracy for selecting leaders. That's makes me lazy?

I still am entirely unclear on what your "democracy" looks like. You say that you want your global dictator to be elected. Do we all get to vote or are you proposing that "important" people install this leader by fiat? The latter is not a democracy.

When you say that the mechanism for correction is that the people elect a new leader, will people be allowed to run for the office of global dictator who have a very different view of how the world should be run than you do? If not, you are proposing something other than a democracy.

Nut Nut, I will help you out a bit.

You're essentially proposing that you're the Philosopher King the world needs.

Literally millions of (published, likely billions if not trillions if you include spoken or written in discussions) words have been spilled on whether such a ruler is possible, or such a system is stable. It's one of the most explored concepts in Sci-Fi (God Emperor of Dune) and Fantasy (Bran&Sauron arguably).

The consensus is that such a system is unstable at the best when the King dies, gets sick, gets human emotions (like falling in love). It's not an accident a lot of Sci-Fi and Fantasy end up settling on an essentially immortal Philosopher King whose humanity is crippled in some way (God Emperor, Bran Stark, Rand al"thor, Cerry the Great/Dorrin/Lerris or any of the black/grey chaos mages that figured out how to be immortal by essentially freezing aging of the Saga of Recluse series)

while a selected fews (the top 1-5-10% of society) selecting their leaders every generation, which is what nut nut dislikes, historically is the most functional form of government (see one of the most succesful polities in all history, the republic of venice).

Universal democracy is still TBD, but it doesn't look better than a more limited franchise for any aspect, it looks pareto-worse than democratic institutions but the franchise limited to most more prosperous, intelligent and educated people within it. Which should be obvious for any long term consideration requires the ability to delay gratification which is lacking in the masses.

Are you one of the selected fews or part of the masses?

By your own admission, you're too lazy to gather the expert opinion to understand the depth and timing of the climate crisis we are facing. So that makes you an uninformed and incompetent citizen with respect to what humanity needs in the form of a government.

fyi - We can have a democratically elected king.

A democracy doesn't require a legislative and judicial branch.

Edit: A democracy can have a judiciary which reports into an executive branch. This exists in the US where the POTUS is allowed to pardon those convicted of federal crimes.

What I'm saying is that the world periodically needs strong personalities to guide us through crises.

Lincoln led the US through the Civil War. FDR led the US through the Great Depression & WW2. Gandhi led India into independence.

We need strong leaders to guide us through environmental breakdown. This is a task which will take generations to solve and will require a succession plan of good leadership. No one person will be able to see it through to the end.

I believe the persons selected for the job should be arrived at in a competitive fashion. Currently there is no competition for the position so I'm willing to throw my hat into the ring to commence the necessary competition.

fyi - I don't consider myself a philosopher. I consider myself a pragmatist and a survivalist with an appreciation for math and science. This is all about life and death. I prefer life.

https://www.gatesnotes.com/work/accelera...

Here's an article which Bill Gates posted about geothermal energy.

In my opinion, he's one of the people who should throw his hat in the ring and compete for the role of king. An intelligent man who has a body of work trying to make things better for the masses. Trying to find cures for diseases and carbon free solutions to our energy requirements.

Depending on the filters i could be in or not. I think i would be in any filter that only reduces the franchise to 30-50% of what it is now, while instead if it got reduced more to the only the top1-5% i might easily not qualify.

One of the things that makes it difficult to communicate are labels.

I define myself as a survivalist. Survival > death.

I am for an environmentally focused communist dictatorship.

Dictatorship simply means one person is accountable for the aggregate outcome and has the authority to implement the policies necessary for our species to survive.

Communist involves a recognition that certain Earth resources (atmosphere, ocean, soils, fresh water, biodiversity) belong to everyone and are not free for individuals to despoil.

Neither of these concepts is incongruent with democracy. A dictator can be chosen by a democratic process.

These concepts are not completely incongruent with capitalism. A smart dictator will reward those meet the demand for solutions to the world's problems. So those who have the means to contribute more will have an incentive to capitalize on their talents and willingness to do the necessary work.

Alright, you definitely back in your comfort zone

How does one throw their hat into the ring and compete for King? Because right now this feels like 9 year olds playing King of the Hill on a playground structure.

You posted all that blather about rich people dictating who does what and then state that you want to promote Bill Gates as King?

My rules would be very simple.

The liberty to despoil the collective Earth assets (air, oceans, soils, fresh water and biodiversity) would be eliminated.

People would be free to do whatever else they wanted which did not impinge upon the freedoms of others.

Who wants to argue against those rules?

The oligarchy doesn't allow conversations like this to even be entertained on mass media. Questioning their liberty to destroy Earth's collective resources is forbidden. So here we are on a playground structure having a healthy debate about how the world should be run.

You may belittle yourselves as the equivalent of 9 year olds, but I find you all to be a valuable focus group which is helping me hone the message.

As far as Bill Gates is concerned ... yes, he is a rich dude. But look at what he helped create and what he does with his wealth. He's not a perfect person. No one is.

Lol you talk about "experts" then you talk about political science in a way a 16y old after the 4th joint would.

A dictator MIGHT be chosen by a democratic process the first time, then when he has all the power *he changes the process so that he stays in power* jfc this is like political science 101.

And that would be ESPECIALLY TRUE if the reason for the installment of a dictator is to fix a very long term problem in a way that requires worldwide authority.

Keep in mind the word dictator is from latin and the role lasted 6 months (which they thought was short enough not to allow the dictator to change the rules and stay in power).

It's kinda psychotic for someone who wants to strip all non experts of power to then discuss societal organizing without even the vaguest shread of an idea of what literature about political power and processes teaches us.

And this is why no amount of "expertise" about the climate justifies giving even the smallest amount of power to "climate experts". Enacting policies has ZERO TO DO with being a climate (or traffic, or housing or medical and so on) expert.

Experts should be consulted, then decisions taken by people who have absolutely nothing to do with experts but are actually good at executing policy, which is a totally diffferent skill set that is antithetic to the life of an "expert", who never has to deal with real world TRADEOFFS as he only studies his narrow field.

I'm going to keep putting this up to the top of the thread ahead of Lucifer's attempts to distract from the essence of the conversation.

only a psychopath collectivist would claim that "soil and fresh water" are "worldwide resources", as if indians had any right to the soil and freshwater of , say, Colorado or Ukraine.

I don't think people here would agree with you.

Same as i don't think people here would agree with you that Spain can tell Argentina what they can put in the ocean on their shores because "they share the same ocean" lol.

And no you don't own any of brazil "biodiversity" either.

You just invent commons that don't exist to justify your thirst for power