3 ms·

You know, nearly every generation that proceeded you made some form of the “preserve the earth and society for when we are your age” argument. Your generation

You know, nearly every generation that proceeded you made some form of the “preserve the earth and society for when we are your age” argument. Your generation seems to be the only one that I can think of that wants to make it happen via authoritarian means. Once upon a time, us liberals argued against that sort of thing. Probably because we saw first hand what it does to a society. Good luck, like you said, you will need to live under the fist in that world you create, I’ll be thankfully gone.

acdha 3y ago
> Your generation seems to be the only one that I can think of that wants to make it happen via authoritarian means. This is hard to support if you study much history. Every environmental law has been criticized as authoritarian. In the middle of the previous century, Los Angeles had smog so bad it was common not to be able to see across the street and some conservatives argued that doing anything about it was tyranny and would devastate the economy; California’s air quality laws were so effective that they were widely copied and it devastated the economy into 5th place globally. Very few of the critics ever admitted being completely wrong about that, even if they will admit that it’s easier to breathe now. That pattern repeats for water quality, bans on all kinds of pollutants, anti littering campaigns, etc. because there are a lot of industries which have a financial incentive in preserving the status quo. Often those pushes cut across industry lines, too: for example, a decade ago there was an astroturf campaign arguing that DDT restrictions were responsible for malaria deaths (based on people not knowing that evolved resistance was already a major problem in the 1950s), and that appeared to be funded not by the chemical industry but by the tobacco companies who were looking for attacks on public health agencies in Africa in response to successful anti smoking campaigns.
- kcplate 3y ago
  But in all those cases the political process ultimately prevailed to create the laws it needed create to resolve the problem. It was not necessary to toss out the political system and move to an authoritarian one just to make it happen. People may describe things as authoritarian in process, but once the law is established by elected representatives, it is by my definition NOT authoritarian.
  - acdha 3y ago
    > It was not necessary to toss out the political system and move to an authoritarian one just to make it happen. Where? When? It’s by definition not applicable to the topic of this thread.
    - kcplate 3y ago
      Well it’s exactly what I was talking about from the very start of my comment thread. People not having patience for the political process to play out leading them to desire and adopt authoritarian means as their solution to get their way scaring the fuck out of me.
      - acdha 3y ago
        The comment you started with reads like it’s supporting the democratic process in evidence here and I haven’t seen any evidence that the poster had something else in mind. Failing to pass a carbon tax and finding other legislative paths which get more support is pretty much the opposite of authoritarianism.
        kcplate 3y ago
        “Force”

acdha 3y ago

> Your generation seems to be the only one that I can think of that wants to make it happen via authoritarian means. This is hard to support if you study much history. Every environmental law has been criticized as authoritarian. In the middle of the previous century, Los Angeles had smog so bad it was common not to be able to see across the street and some conservatives argued that doing anything about it was tyranny and would devastate the economy; California’s air quality laws were so effective that they were widely copied and it devastated the economy into 5th place globally. Very few of the critics ever admitted being completely wrong about that, even if they will admit that it’s easier to breathe now. That pattern repeats for water quality, bans on all kinds of pollutants, anti littering campaigns, etc. because there are a lot of industries which have a financial incentive in preserving the status quo. Often those pushes cut across industry lines, too: for example, a decade ago there was an astroturf campaign arguing that DDT restrictions were responsible for malaria deaths (based on people not knowing that evolved resistance was already a major problem in the 1950s), and that appeared to be funded not by the chemical industry but by the tobacco companies who were looking for attacks on public health agencies in Africa in response to successful anti smoking campaigns.

kcplate 3y ago
But in all those cases the political process ultimately prevailed to create the laws it needed create to resolve the problem. It was not necessary to toss out the political system and move to an authoritarian one just to make it happen. People may describe things as authoritarian in process, but once the law is established by elected representatives, it is by my definition NOT authoritarian.
- acdha 3y ago
  > It was not necessary to toss out the political system and move to an authoritarian one just to make it happen. Where? When? It’s by definition not applicable to the topic of this thread.
  - kcplate 3y ago
    Well it’s exactly what I was talking about from the very start of my comment thread. People not having patience for the political process to play out leading them to desire and adopt authoritarian means as their solution to get their way scaring the fuck out of me.
    - acdha 3y ago
      The comment you started with reads like it’s supporting the democratic process in evidence here and I haven’t seen any evidence that the poster had something else in mind. Failing to pass a carbon tax and finding other legislative paths which get more support is pretty much the opposite of authoritarianism.
      - kcplate 3y ago
        “Force”