[Jackal]

On why unification should occur, I recommend Kropotkin's evolutionary theories; he puts out the idea that cooperation to survive against the environment is the most important factor when it comes to a species' survival.

Can you explain on how Pan Human Fascism can help us all survive against the dangerous environment that threatens our survival as a species better than other political ideologies (such as those more prevalent today)?

I can't believe a thread titled "Pan-human fascism." reached 8 pages. I am a bit disappointed, PoFo.

[starman2003]

Can you explain on how Pan Human Fascism can help us all survive against the dangerous environment that threatens our survival as a species better than other political ideologies (such as those more prevalent today)?

You got to be joking mister. While IMO "fascism" specifically may not be necessary, some kind of strong, global authoritarian regime can far better address environmental issues than current democracy. Saving the environment requires sacrifice--fewer kids and less consumption. People may have to do without private cars and use public transportation to reduce CO2 emissions, or switch to more expensive but lower performance electric cars. Naturally sacrifice is unpopular, hence very hard to implement in a democracy. Any politician who advocates it could get buried alive at the polls, no matter how right it is. No democratic states has a official one child policy like China.

[Andropov]

Can you explain on how Pan Human Fascism can help us all survive against the dangerous environment that threatens our survival as a species better than other political ideologies (such as those more prevalent today)?

I can't believe a thread titled "Pan-human fascism." reached 8 pages. I am a bit disappointed, PoFo.

Issues like pollution, overpopulation, meteors striking earth, etc transcend national boundaries. They threaten the survival of the human race, and the only way to deal with them is a one world authoritarian state.

[Jackal]

You got to be joking mister. While IMO "fascism" specifically may not be necessary, some kind of strong, global authoritarian regime can far better address environmental issues than current democracy. Saving the environment requires sacrifice--fewer kids and less consumption. People may have to do without private cars and use public transportation to reduce CO2 emissions, or switch to more expensive but lower performance electric cars. Naturally sacrifice is unpopular, hence very hard to implement in a democracy. Any politician who advocates it could get buried alive at the polls, no matter how right it is. No democratic states has a official one child policy like China.

[youtube]YPIsTKpAoE4[/youtube]

I never said fascism was any better or worse than democracy at addressing environmental issues, I was just wondering how Pan Human Fascism can address it better than anything else. For example, there are potential problems that Pan Human Fascism can face by a single globally unified authoritarian state and making us human more environmentally friendly like the sheer amount of funds it would cost to improve the current situation throughout planet earth.

I was really expecting more academic answers.

No democratic states has a official one child policy like China.

Yet China doesn't seem to fare as well as democratic states such as Switzerland, Iceland, Sweden, Norway, Austria, and France (all democratic states, mind you) in terms of pollution levels and eco-friendly environments now does it? Pointing out that an authoritarian state is capable of handling one problem doesn't mean it is capable of handling all problems.

They threaten the survival of the human race, and the only way to deal with them is a one world authoritarian state.

That is great, but actually tell us why.

By the way, Andropov, how centralized, in terms of governance, do you see your pan human fascism ideology?

[starman2003]

Yet China doesn't seem to fare as well as democratic states such as Switzerland...in terms of pollution levels..

That's largely because of high consumer demand in the democratic US. Had it not been for the fact that Chinese labor is cheaper, the goods, and pollution, would be produced in the democracies themselves; in any event they're responsible for it. They're also responsible, indirectly, for the loss of rainforest. Btw the Chinese have a massive tree planting program.

..but actually tell us why.

To stop pollution and overpopulation anywhere, you need authoritarianism. (The dummies won't vote for anyone who takes away their reproductive "rights" and high levels of consumption.) To stop them everywhere, you need global authoritarianism.

[Eran]

Pollution declines with rising prosperity. When China approaches Switzerland in terms of standard of living, pollution levels will decline in step.

To stop pollution and overpopulation everywhere, you need prosperity and property right protection everywhere.

[Jackal]

To stop pollution...anywhere, you need authoritarianism.

Really? Because Switzerland, Iceland, Sweden, Norway, and many other prosperous countries are the world's least polluted and "greenest" nations are they are typically at the top of the most democratic nations of the world.

I am really not trying to fight you, but you are consistently failing to show how authoritarianism would solve our pollution problems and make us more environmentally friendly. Not that it surprises me.

[Eran]

If we did establish Pan-human authoritarian regime, how can anybody be confident that the regime would be interested in reducing pollution?

[Wolfman]

Yes Eran, we get it, you're a Libertarian.

[Eran]

I am.

Now would anybody please answer the question?

[grassroots1]

When China approaches Switzerland in terms of standard of living, pollution levels will decline in step.

To stop pollution and overpopulation everywhere, you need prosperity and property right protection everywhere.

What you need is democratic control. Property rights in an of themselves don't guarantee environmental protection, as we can see in today's China. People need to be able to voice their grievances and enact sensible environmental regulation or there's no hope of stopping the "pollution problem."

[starman2003]

Pollution declines with rising prosperity.

That's fallacious. Essentially, what the democratic nations have done is just shift the pollution problem elsewhere by buying imported goods. China manufactures for their markets, and overall, pollution is as bad as ever or worse.

..how can anybody be confident that the regime would be interested in reducing pollution?

Pollution can mess up the global environment, so any regime responsible for the whole world--whose very raisen d'etre is to be able to deliver where democracy cannot--would address the problem. Btw the ability of an authoritarian system to enforce sacrifice for space expansion, as well as less consumption (and therefore less pollution) may enable it in time to shift a lot of polluting industry to lifeless worlds like the moon, where there's no biosphere to mess up.

People need to be able to voice their grievances and enact sensible environmental regulation or there's no hope of solving the "pollution problem."

This is highly naive. It is precisely because the masses have their way, in democratic countries, that we have a pollution/environmental problem, or can't effectively solve it. Try to get elected by making the dummies give up their private cars and switch to mass transit, or more expensive, lower performance electric cars.

[Eran]

Property rights in an of themselves don't guarantee environmental protection, as we can see in today's China.

That's laughable. Do you really think China protects people's property rights in land? Do you really think a Chinese farmer can effectively sue the owners of a nearby factory for polluting his land?

Pollution can mess up the global environment, so any regime responsible for the whole world--whose very raisen d'etre is to be able to deliver where democracy cannot--would address the problem.

Only to the extent that specific incidents of pollution do indeed rise to the level of becoming a material threat to the global environment - a very high threshold indeed.
The world can tolerate a huge amount of pollution without the global environment being "messed up".

But even that misses the point.

How can anybody be confident that such a regime would be interested in the global environment, as opposed, for example, to lining their own pockets, or doing everything possible to ensure they stay in control?

[Rei Murasame]

No one could be confident of it, simply because without a nationalist motivation, the whole leadership would just collapse into one of two fail-modes immediately:

• 1. An elite clique regarding itself as separate from everyone it governs would line its own pockets, or
  
  
• 2. One particular ethnic group could get control of the state and use it to allocate pollution to places where it does not have to live.

I think that #2 is extreme likely to occur because no one has yet explained how they are going to make pan-human conciousness.

[Eran]

There is no contradiction between your points 1 & 2.

The likely scenario is a combination, whereby an elite clique dominated by a particular ethnic group ends up in control.

They may favour pollution in foreign territories, or even on "their own" territory, as long as it is out with smelling distance from their homes.


More generally, people fantasize about an all-powerful, all-good government, and the wonderful things it can do for humanity. Too often, they miss the basic questions of motivation and control, potential abuse and, of course, the knowledge problem.

[Wolfman]

Now would anybody please answer the question?

Because you're talking to people who's views are basically the opposite of your own and making it sound like your ideology is automatically correct. All you're really doing it making yourself look stupid. You don't have any points to argue against them, all you are able to do is stand in here and shout into the wind. No one is responding to you because what you're saying isn't worth responding to.

[Rei Murasame]

To be fair though, Eran is one of the more conscientious Libertarian posters, where if pressed he'll try to support his argument with something, whereas many of the new batch don't actually bother to do that at all.

The likely scenario is a combination, whereby an elite clique dominated by a particular ethnic group ends up in control.

I agree there, that's entirely possible as well. Basically one of the pan-human people needs to explain how they are going to avoid that outcome, since so far no-one has tried to really explain it. (And I don't think it can be avoided, it seems impossible to me.)

[starman2003]

The world can tolerate a huge amount of pollution without the global environment being "messed up."

Global warming due to excess CO2 is messing up the environment now.

How can anybody be confident that such a regime would be interested in the global environment, as opposed, for example, to lining their own pockets, or doing everything possible to ensure they stay in control?

As I said before, the raisen d'etre of a new regime would be its ability to handle issues democracy can't. Effective solving of problems would be essential to stay in power. It's hard to maintain enough support when you're perceived as a good for nothing, especially in the face of serious problems.

One particular ethnic group could get control of the state and use it to allocate pollution to places where it dos not have to live.

CO2 output can ruin the whole planetary environment no matter where on earth it's produced; previously I suggested transferring polluting industries to lifeless planets or the moon. I doubt a single ethnic group will control the state if the US is the future hegemon, or that any other state can fulfill this role.

[Eran]

Setting aside the question of whether atmospheric CO2 concentrations are a serious environmental issue or not (I don't believe they are), I'd like to better understand the mechanism people here anticipate for the selection and/or replacement of the global leadership.

On the one hand, clearly we are not talking about a democratic model.

On the other hand, you write "Effective solving of problems would be essential to stay in power", suggesting some mechanism whereby the rulers could be displaced.

What is that mechanism?

[starman2003]

(I don't believe they are)

This may not be the right place to discuss that issue but you're certainly at odds with the virtual scientific consensus.

...mechanism people here anticipate for the selection and/or replacement of the global leadership.

Generally, people here favor a meritocratic system, in which the most capable and honest to emerge from the (free through university level) educational system would gradually rise to higher positions in the regime, with the best being eligible to replace aging (or perhaps with other issues) existing leaders. Of course, new technology may greatly modify things; the leader deemed the most capable known may be cloned so his ability (along with the best in all fields) can be perpetuated.