Doron Bracha Apr 28, 2014 04:36
Member
|
Interesting proposal yet somewhat scary and not very realistic.
The idea of controlling other nations and 'spreading democracy' has pretty much proven to fail, and to come with a tremendous cost to human life and to economies.
The premise that military strength is essential is also questionable, when the hope is to promote a greener world. Just think about the carbon footprint and the environmental damage caused by the weapons industry and military operations around the world.
If we keep focusing on the threats to the western world by dictatorships, we may miss the bigger picture, which is that the whole world is threatened by environmental issues. Our planet cannot sustain so many people, consuming and polluting at this rate; Mother Nature will have to keep finding ways to keep the human population under control, and it won't be pleasant.
And even without natural disasters, when resources are depleted, there's not enough food and fresh water, and there's a lot of hunger and suffering.
I think above all- we cannot and should not try to control other countries or impose our way of life, a lesson to learn from too many wars we've had.
Please clarify and elaborate, and try to think of ways to go green, not by controlling and threatening with military actions, but by encouraging peacefully. One important aspect is educating people and raising awareness. I agree with the statement that oppression is counterproductive, and hope we can find better ways to promote a more sustainable global future.
Cheers !..
|
Anna Förster Apr 29, 2014 03:53
Member
|
The proposal is indeed interesting, but somewhat unrealistic. Particularly these two points:
1. Stage one is what is currently the "official" path of many industrial countries. e.g. Germany. But the process is too slow and industrial lobbies have too much power to allow real changes. So, willingness alone will not change anything.
2. Military actions are never a solution, only a short-term remedy. Everything which comes by force will be ignored and attacked from people.
However, I believe your idea of having stages which develop slowly into a green economy is correct. But you need to elaborate further how to achieve especially stage one.
|
Michael Womersley May 1, 2014 04:17
Member
| Proposal contributor
Neither commentator (above) seems aware that both policing and military strength have provided the conditions required for them to even express these kinds of thoughts. As remedy, I suggest a reading of Hobbes, followed by a concerted study of 20th century history.
|
Lyjn Lyjn May 1, 2014 01:24
Member
|
Someone famous said "I"ll fight for your right to criticize me", or something like that.
Everybody seems to agree with this, why nobody complains that we should not fight because we should use diplomacy and not force ...?
The reason is that sometimes force is necessary, as the author noted.
|
Michael Womersley May 3, 2014 06:18
Member
| Proposal contributor
I should mention that I was not in any way advocating the direct control of other nations such as China or Russia, just that I saw no reason why we should trade with them at prime rates if they are neither democratic nor fulfilling climate obligations. Neither do I believe we should allow either of them to become militarily supreme. There's a vast difference between what I actually argue and what the first two commentators seem to read. Their reaction is primarily emotional. They react to the ugliness of the understanding that military and economic supremacy and democracy are intrinsically linked and linked to climate emission reduction. This is an admittedly ugly way to view the world. But that doesn't make it less true. Visions of a world of peace and light, where we could imagine climate solutions without also having to deal with state power and terrorism might be prettier, but counterfactual.
Also, I can easily imagine that if Climate Colab goes "viral" as its originators intend, one consequence will be that both the Chines and Russians will use paid personnel as hackers to criticize suggestions like mine.
|
Tom Morris May 7, 2014 02:50
Member
|
I would agree that nations will not make changes unless they feel it is in thier best interest. Political pressure may have to be applied to obtain compliance in some areas. As far as coomentators remarks on forcing ones way of living on others.
i believe we are at a point in human history where we must decide if we want a free society where exchange of ideas results in progress an a raised stanard of living for all or a regression into endless arguments and posturing. we remain in intellectual adolescemce and mankind slowly withers on the vine or we grow up and become responsible stewards of our own destiny. No heaven awaits; no escape to another earth. Here and now we must work together to make this home, the only one we have, better.
|
Paulo Borges De Brito May 13, 2014 09:19
Member
|
I would say that economics is part of the solution to change behavior. People don't change their attitudes solely using economic mechanisms. It's more than that. It's necessary a multi-disciplinary approach. Cultural norms are so embedded that it needs to go deeper than just tariffs or the like. You should create a culture that values nature and then this free trade should be based on demand and supply of environmentally-friendly products such as in countries like Denmark.
Sources: http://gggi.org and http://www.greengrowthknowledge.org
|
Michael Womersley May 16, 2014 07:24
Member
| Proposal contributor
Considering it took hundreds if not thousands of years to create the cultures we have now in the democracies, I have no idea how commentator number seven imagines we might change culture in time to solve climate change. My answer to the first comment applies, so he probably shouldn't have posted his, since if he'd read the answer he would have known what I would have said in response. Additionally, his comment is clearly intended to funnel visitors to his webpage, for which he helpfully provides links, so I think we are free to discount his statement.
Could we have some comments or questions from thinkers who are prepared to challenge my idea on serious realistic grounds, please?
|
Michael Womersley May 17, 2014 09:10
Member
| Proposal contributor
On re-reading the comments above, although I still think they are utopian and unrealistic, it occurred to me that they were primarily reacting to some of the ways the ideas were originally presented. This made it appear as if my primary aim was western military domination of other countries, when instead my aim is better democracy in all countries including the west. I rewrote with a view to making this clearer.
But I'd still like some comments from readers who are more seasoned in geopolitic thinking, ie, folks who have a more robust, less idealistic or utopian view of how we are to simultaneous confront the likes of the Chinese Communist Party, the United Russia Party, Al Queda, Boko Haram, or other aggressive dictators and brigands, at the same time as we neutralize the political power of anti-democratic, fossil-fuel owning western elites such as the Koch brothers.
In other words, more realism, please. Less utopian nonsense.
|
Alex Krotz May 27, 2014 12:11
Catalyst
|
I do not think anyone would argue that if this plan was implemented and went accordingly it would not work. Rather I think that the problem the commenters thus far have had is that as a side product of many of the very drastic and strict actions that are proposed ther are many detrimental effects. What would happen if a large non democratic state like Russia simply said "no" and then made threats? It truly would require the entire democratic world to team up against them, but that may not even stop them. Even the UN has a hard time enforcing its decisions, how do you propose that all these actions be completed, factoring dissenting governments, and weak political alliances that exist, and how long would it take for them to have an effect?
Best,
Alex
|
Michael Womersley May 30, 2014 05:31
Member
| Proposal contributor
What drastic and strict actions? I'm proposing nothing more than what is currently required to join the EU. This is a voluntary association. A large non-democratic state like Russia can make all the threats it wants. It isn't going to get to join the climate free trade area unless it can demonstrate meaningful progress towards both democracy and climate emissions reductions. Its exports would then be taxed before they could enter the free trade area.
For the record, Russia is not so far from democracy right now. The problem they have is that Putin's United Russia party controls state patronage and the press, not the ballot.
|
Michael Womersley May 31, 2014 07:32
Member
| Proposal contributor
In a yet further attempt to make this proposal clearer to these commentators, I edited again thoroughly, making it clear that membership in the global free trade area would be voluntary, and that there is no effective action that can be taken by large non-democratic states, if the democracies unite and hold firm.
I must however make the observation that none of the former commentators have returned to make further comments after reading edits, so it's hard to see if I'm succeeding.
|
Michael Womersley Jul 30, 2014 06:05
Member
| Proposal contributor
I moved this proposal to the "Global Plan" contest.
|