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

Because you have expressed doubt about the severity and timing of the climate menace which gives rise to the need for the adaptation I'm proposing.

Because you claim that you haven't yet sought out the expert opinion and you claim ignorance.

but have you asked the right experts about it?

I like Bill Gates, if he becomes King it would be whatever I guess. We are definitely just cosplaying out a living room fantasy at this point - well at all points, but the process of how this is going to go down is a obviously a bit cloudy.

Also, the next King could be Luciom, or Trump because there are a lot more of those guys in this world than you, or maybe just another boring centrist who now has unchecked authority over the laws and peoples lives.

...and no, we aren't already living in that situation now.

At this point, I wouldn't necessarily criticize Nut Nut for not having shared enough about his background. I was curious about his education level because he kept referring to himself as a scientist, but he certainly doesn't have any obligation to dox himself.

I would easily argue it by stating that a King is a person who cant swapped or voted out. If our King decides to not follow your very simple rules, what do we do then?

Here is what I said:

I stand by all of that.

I don't think it is necessary for us to go through the exercise of determining exactly where we agree and disagree on climate change in order to discuss whether your proposed solution -- a global communist dictatorship -- is likely to be a feasible or effective means of addressing something that we both agree is a serious problem.

I never said that it would be impossible to create a global police force. If you were able to create a global government, then eventually you would be able to create a global police force.

But it wouldn't be nearly as simple as what you wrote above.

I don't know what you mean when you say that "regions" will be allowed to maintain rules related to their cultures. In your global communist dictatorship, I assume that there would be no countries with their own laws. If we are maintaining separate countries with their own borders and their own idiosyncratic laws, then we don't really have a global government. (It's true that laws vary by state in federations like the U.S., but not to the degree they vary between Saudi Arabia and the United States generally. And certain baseline rights are uniform across all fifty states because they are constitutionally mandated.)

In our new global government world, we presumably will have to pass a new set of laws about everything. Then we have to train our global police force to apply this new set of laws. Presumably, some things that used to be illegal in some jurisdictions will no longer be illegal. And some things that were not illegal will now be illegal. The police will need to be trained on all that. And police procedure will be different. Will police be allowed to search people and places willy nilly? Will they have to meet some sort of threshhold in order to proceed with a search? Will they have to obtain some sort of outside approval before conducting certain types of searches? Will people who are arrested have a right to counsel? Will they be advised of their rights? Police will need to be trained on all these things as well. And we have to decide who will police the police. In other words, we need to decide who will be empowered to decide whether the police have acted in accordance with the law.

I could go on and on.

Is all that literally impossible? Given enough time, probably not. But it certainly isn't easy.

I do not share your certainty that there would be a big decline in the demand for police.

But take all this with a large grain of salt. After all, you are the person who has the expertise to opine on these issues, not me.

Breathing and other human biological functions produce green house gases such as carbon dioxide and methane and arguably run afoul the first rule.

I named them earlier in the thread.

How likely is it that the next King will have similar enough standards to yours on how the world needs to be and is that a risk worth taking for you?

Where is that written ?

Why can't we have a democratic monarchy ?

The citizens don't get to tell the king what he can and cannot do. But, they can replace him with another king if they don' t like the way he rules.

Imagine the USA without a legislative branch and a judiciary that reports into the executive.

In order to be elected, a candidate for king has to prepare an agenda and the people will have an opportunity to evaluate the different agendas before they vote.

The king and his administration can provide progress updates and an independent citizen media can be permitted to investigate and also report to the public.

One thing I haven't figured out .... how to handle sensitive information which might cause public disorder were it to be divulged.

My personality is to be completely authentic. It's like a sprinkle of autism. I'm not skilled in concealing important information.

The future is probably going to involve a lot of triage. There may be situations where we simply can't save everyone. This is going to be the hard part of being king. Look at the images of how Lincoln aged during the carnage of the Civil War. If there is advance knowledge of such a tragedy becoming likely, a decision has to be made about whether and how to inform the affected. Do we provide people substances which lead to relatively painless self euthanasia if they want them ?

This job of king is not going to be a fun job. It's a massive emotional burden to be responsible for so many. People are going to either love or hate this person. If 10% of the population hates you, that's 800 million people who hate you.

A typical human being exhales 800 lbs of CO2 per year.

The gas guzzling machines which have CO2 exhaust "exhale" about 10,000 lbs of CO2 power per year per person around the world.

In the USA, that figure is closer to 30,000 lbs per person per year.

The human exhalation fraction of total CO2 emissions is less than 10% of global emissions and less than 4% of US emissions.

That small fraction isn't going to be interfered with.

The judiciary and legislature don't currently report into the executive branch in the Unired States.

What happens when the citizens don't want the policies you believe are necessary to prevent social collapse?

If they didn't want those policies, then they wouldn't elect that person king in the first place.

The better question Rococo .... is what if the king doesn't do what he said he was going to do ? What if the execution of his plans are failing because of his poor leadership ?

There must be a competitive process in place. The one thing that a king in this system must be able to do is to periodically compete with other king aspirants in debates and democratic elections when public polling indicates that this is necessary.

For what it's worth ... these are good questions you're asking.

lol this is like talking politics with a dumb 12y old

I don't think your proposed king has any chance of getting elected in the first place. I was just contemplating the miraculous scenario in which it had somehow already occurred.

I'm curious about your vision for the future Rococo.

How do you imagine human civilization will organize itself 50 years from now ?

I mostly think that we are going to muddle along and govern ourselves poorly but similarly until we get to wherever our technology ends up dragging us. I am not optimistic.

I'm imagining that human civilization will be organized in groups similar to a military structure.

Everyone would belong to a group of 200 people. This is a group size which allows everyone in the group to know each other and the group can elect a leader who is responsible for communicating the needs and status of its members further up in the hierarchy.

Then I would increase the group sizes by a multiple of ~ 5. So, in theory, you have ~ 7 levels of community hierarchy on Earth at it's current population of 8 billion.

The level 1 would be 200 people with an elected spokesperson.

The (5) level 1 leaders would elect a spokesperson at level 2 to represent the ~ 1,000 people and it would continue all the way up.

In this matter, a king could obtain grassroots information about the condition of his (or her .... I'm OK with a queen) people and learn where resources must be allocated.

As a hopefully wise king, I would delegate a lot of local authority to locally elected leaders.

That's very vague.

I am supposed to have a highly detailed prediction of what human civilization will look like 50 years from now? I'm not a prophet. If I were extremely confident about what human civilization would look like fifty years from now, well, let's just say there is a lot that I could do with that information.

it's too contingent on technology, while guessing ex-technology wouldn't be too hard.

ex-technology advancements, things wouldn't be much different than today, except ofc for the consequences of the dramatic drop in fertility rates, which should be that some countries basically depopulate in full, many rural areas do as well, and cities keep doing fine for the large part.

It could all happen exactly like this. Or it won't.

I still don't know how a King is going to accomplish anything even with his "grassroots" information to learn where the resources need to go for 8 billion people.

He'd be more of just a symbolic figure head, like most kings, because very important decisions, by a substantial amount of people, are going to have to be made on the fly around the world in different economic situations, religions, languages and needs, like always.

Again, each to their own acting for their area's own good.

So .... in order to try and determine how we will be governed in the future, it is important to look at the trends we will facing.

One trend I have discussed at length is environmental destruction which will lead to the collapse of present day global supply chains.

We may encounter a future fertility crisis associated with contamination by environmental toxins.

We are already experiencing wars in places like Gaza and Ukraine which represent a trend toward consolidation of power.

We are seeing advances in AI and robotics which are reducing the need for human labor in many sectors of the economy. This includes the use of drones in the military which are reducing the need for human soldiers.

We are witnessing the decline of the US as a dominant superpower. The ability of the US to continue to service its debt is coming into question.

Sea level is beginning to rise more rapidly and there will be a recognition that migration away from many coastal locations is going to become necessary.

Global weather which underpins the current agricultural system and habitability of certain regions is becoming increasingly unglued from its Holocene norms. The stoppage of the AMOC would be catastrophic.

All of these things taken together point to a breaking of the current paradigm. Left to our tribal instincts, the natural outcome is a deadly war. I'm simply trying to avoid the war and adopt the solution in a less bloody and more practive manner.