4 ms·

Why is that? Also, I detest fascism - but devil's advocate - is fascism worse than literal extinction?

by CalRobert 7y ago

guscost 7y ago
“Live free or die”
- deleted 7y ago
  [deleted]
- rficcaglia 7y ago
  This is why we will never have consensus on remediation climate change. It’s not just individual anarchists but whole governments who will adopt this “me or not you” attitude.
RobertRoberts 7y ago
Lebensraum ("living space") [0] was an argument used to justify the same thing. We don't have enough room for everyone... [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lebensraum https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lebensraum
throwaway5752 7y ago
"Also, I detest fascism - but devil's advocate - is fascism worse than literal extinction?" Why in the world do you think that democratic structures will make it intact through a descent into extinction. I'm not going to cite Mad Max as a sociological point, but society will break down under unmitigated global warming. When food and water safety cannot be met, law loses its authority. You can see this on a small scale after cyclone landfalls.
- CalRobert 7y ago
  I don't. You and I agree.
moduspol 7y ago
Presenting the choice as between fascism and "literal extinction" is exactly why public support isn't there.
daenz 7y ago
Because I don't believe people and businesses can accomplish the individual environmental goals, much less fast enough, on their own. If human contribution to climate change is a result of aggregate behavior, then we're talking about drastically changing the micro behaviors (what you can eat, how you travel, no black markets, etc etc) of everyone on earth. I believe that can only be accomplished through extreme authoritarian control. As people start realizing they can't do it on their own and the various climate deadlines approach and pass, I believe they'll be more pliable to extreme forms of government. >but devil's advocate - is fascism worse than literal extinction? That's the question everyone will have to answer, and it probably boils down to the core of that person's philosophy. People who say "no" though should really consider all of the ugly side-effects that result from all-powerful authoritarian entities being able to control lives on a micro level.
- CalRobert 7y ago
  Those side effects are hideous. Slavery, etc. But I said "extinction". Meaning everyone - you, me, my kid, etc. dying, maybe horribly.
  - daenz 7y ago
    The decision has biased ambiguity. There is no such guarantee that a climate change extinction event will kill off all life, but if you are artificially adding that constraint, you should add a similar artificial constraint to what the fascist government is guaranteed to do or not do, or remove both constraints.
briantakita 7y ago
Fascists use the threat of "literal extinction" (or something like it) to "convince" their audience & opponents.

Why is that? Also, I detest fascism - but devil's advocate - is fascism worse than literal extinction?

guscost 7y ago

“Live free or die”

deleted 7y ago
[deleted]
rficcaglia 7y ago
This is why we will never have consensus on remediation climate change. It’s not just individual anarchists but whole governments who will adopt this “me or not you” attitude.

RobertRoberts 7y ago

Lebensraum ("living space") [0] was an argument used to justify the same thing. We don't have enough room for everyone... [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lebensraum https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lebensraum

throwaway5752 7y ago

"Also, I detest fascism - but devil's advocate - is fascism worse than literal extinction?" Why in the world do you think that democratic structures will make it intact through a descent into extinction. I'm not going to cite Mad Max as a sociological point, but society will break down under unmitigated global warming. When food and water safety cannot be met, law loses its authority. You can see this on a small scale after cyclone landfalls.

CalRobert 7y ago
I don't. You and I agree.

moduspol 7y ago

Presenting the choice as between fascism and "literal extinction" is exactly why public support isn't there.

daenz 7y ago

Because I don't believe people and businesses can accomplish the individual environmental goals, much less fast enough, on their own. If human contribution to climate change is a result of aggregate behavior, then we're talking about drastically changing the micro behaviors (what you can eat, how you travel, no black markets, etc etc) of everyone on earth. I believe that can only be accomplished through extreme authoritarian control. As people start realizing they can't do it on their own and the various climate deadlines approach and pass, I believe they'll be more pliable to extreme forms of government. >but devil's advocate - is fascism worse than literal extinction? That's the question everyone will have to answer, and it probably boils down to the core of that person's philosophy. People who say "no" though should really consider all of the ugly side-effects that result from all-powerful authoritarian entities being able to control lives on a micro level.

CalRobert 7y ago
Those side effects are hideous. Slavery, etc. But I said "extinction". Meaning everyone - you, me, my kid, etc. dying, maybe horribly.
- daenz 7y ago
  The decision has biased ambiguity. There is no such guarantee that a climate change extinction event will kill off all life, but if you are artificially adding that constraint, you should add a similar artificial constraint to what the fascist government is guaranteed to do or not do, or remove both constraints.

briantakita 7y ago

Fascists use the threat of "literal extinction" (or something like it) to "convince" their audience & opponents.