The premise of representative democracy is that we have leaders who are tracking the issues that are important to their constitutents, and making the best decisions for them because those constituents don’t have time or inclination to understand those issues and make their own decisions.
What a heaping shovel-load of crap.
Dismissing representative democracy as fundamentally anti-democratic, and therefore a contradiction in terms, is easy, given that the best case representative democracy does not happen. In fact, the best-case representative democracy would make exactly the same decisions as a direct democracy which, “are you kidding me?” comes to mind. In the US, when Joe Manchin (who takes huge amounts of money from fossil fuel lobbyists and owns stock in coal and fracking companies) poses self-importantly about the importance of democracy, he’s talking about the thing he’s wiping his ass with. If representative democracy was anything but a sham, we wouldn’t need lobbyists, after all.
This week the IPCC is releasing another report that is, frankly, horrifying. It’s similar to their last one: “we are on track for hell on earth if we don’t change our stupid ways” except that now there’s some “no matter what, we’re going to get a bit of that hell for maybe 1,000 years or more.” And, like the last IPCC report, there are worst case scenarios and best case scenarios and the worst of the worst is probably not where we’re headed; we’re headed toward the second-worst, which is not necessarily extinction but implies the collapse of civilization as we know it. For example, we’ll have 140 million Americans relocating within the boundaries of the USA. How’s that going to fit with the neo-fascists’ anti-migrant attitude? Just great. Because they’ll be migrants, too – they’ll be trying to come up to the beautiful Appalachian mountains (where I live, well back from the coast) [No, that was not an accident] and they will become wage-slaves, because the land up here will be the new agricultural heartland. That’s not Permian extinction-level fuckedness but for all intents and purposes it’s fuckedness enough for everyone. We’re seeing, with the pandemic, that our pseudo-democratic leaders are not capable of an effective response to a global crisis, and all we can expect is more of that incompetence. Witness: [guard]
We’re on the brink of catastrophe, warns Tory climate chief
Well, look at that; a tory who is not utterly stupid. Right? Not really. This is the first paragraph:
Alok Sharma, the UK minister in charge of the Cop26 talks to be held in Glasgow this November, told the Observer that the consequences of failure would be “catastrophic”: “I don’t think there’s any other word for it. You’re seeing on a daily basis what is happening across the world. Last year was the hottest on record, the last decade the hottest decade on record.”
Never mind that the consequences are not just “catastrophic” but are “now inevitable.” The current sham is that the warming will be held to +1.5C, when, in fact, every government’s actions point toward +4C to +6C (Permian-level extinction event) increase. +2C would be “incredibly good” but it still means a billion or more humans die and 2-3 billion are displaced. That is what will “affect the economy of the future” not $15/hr wage increases or even a bit of inflation. In the US the representative jackasses are arguing over the table’s place-setting while the building burns down around them. And the pretense remains that something can be done.
It’s just that none of them are going to do it. Second paragraph:
But Sharma also insisted the UK could carry on with fossil-fuel projects, in the face of mounting criticism of plans to license new oil and gas fields. He defended the government’s record on plans to reach net zero emissions by 2050, which have been heavily criticised by the UK’s independent Committee on Climate Change, and dismissed controversies over his travel schedule.
They’re taking climate change seriously, all right, at least they’re talking about it. But that’s all that is going to happen, while we charge forward to +4C – +6C or even worse.
Meanwhile, as California burns, Gavin Newsom says that he’s going to stop oil and gas extraction permits by 2024. [kqed] But he’s fucking lying. What he really said is he’s going to stop new oil and gas extraction permits, i.e.: “get ’em while you can” – and under his governorship [apnews] permits being issued have jumped up considerably:
The agency that oversees oil and gas drilling in California issued 2,691 permits to drill new wells or rework existing ones the first half of this year, according to an analysis of state data by Consumer Watchdog and FracTracker Alliance.
That’s what’s going on everywhere: “get ’em while you can” – let me make you a prediction: what we are seeing is the prep-work for an industry consolidation. There are companies, right now, that exist only to get permits, which then become valuable assets, and the company expects to sell itself to the next Enron energy roll-up which will do the dirty work. The permitting process is establishing a market for permits and these assholes know it, because – like Joe Manchin in Virginia – they’re going to cash out on the backend when the energy companies take care of them, personally, for representing them so well and democratically.
I just felt like I had to share that amazing juxtaposition. How can Tory asshole say in one paragraph, “this is a real problem” and in the next, “but there’s money to be made so we have to do it.” The KQED article about Newsom also pointed out that the fossil fuels industry in California is worth $132bn/year. Well, what’s the “gigantic fucking fire and drought” industry worth, Newsom?
If these people were serious, and they are not, they would be talking about shutting down existing permitted extraction operations. “Sorry, but you’re out of business.” But that’s not how any of this is going to work. They’re all thinking they’ll be safely dead and in their graves, or relocated to their millionaire bunkers in New Zealand, while everyone else pays the price.
… the best-case representative democracy would make exactly the same decisions as a direct democracy …
Just what a direct democracy of >300M citizens would do, or look like, remains an open question.
I suspect the predominant faction would create something like a Kardashianocracy.
We’re past the point of no return…maybe we passed it a long time ago. And, somehow, I can’t bring myself to be all that upset.
I just turned 33 a few days ago. I will likely not live to 50 because of this. And you know what? That’s okay. I’ve had enough. From childhood on there have been varying degrees of abuse, deprivation, betrayal, and injustice, all of which has to my knowledge gone completely unpunished. I just don’t care anymore. Humanity is obviously not capable of living harmoniously with external reality, and I suspect on the other side our extinction will come as something of a relief.
I just wish it didn’t have to be like this. There was no need for it to be this way.
“Representative democracy” is a very peculiar way of spelling corrupt cleptocratic oligarchy with democratic set-dressing.
Snark about American myopia aside, actual representative democracies exist, and they aren’t as horrible as that shitshow you have (source: live in one). Not that that helps much, your Manchins and McConnells are going to doom us all anyway.
It was pointed out somewhere that those 1.5 C and 4 and 6 C temperature rise figures are average figures. They represent more like 10 to 20 C increases over land.
Much like we’re seeing in all of the semi-arid and Mediterranean areas, such as the USA West and, well, lands around the Mediterranean. Several years ago, someone who was a lot more familiar with Syria was saying that the fighting there was in large part driven by droughts due to global warming. And now everything is burning.
Easy. Clue’s in the third word.
Absolutely not. Direct democracy – the people get what the most of them vote for – would result in the kind of backward, mob-mentality dystopia that thinks a state-mandated death penalty has a part in a justice system. #shithole countries like Saudi Arabia and the USA spring to mind as examples. “Best case representative democracy” would be where the representative looks at what “the people” want, does it if it’s reasonable (e.g. lowering/raising taxes, whichever’s in fashion that week), and if it’s not (e.g. having the state murder in cold blood people who are already securely incarcerated) then they patiently explain why they’re not going to do that, and move on. Like they do in civilised countries.
@2:
I’m 52, and when I was 15 didn’t think I’d live to see 30 (or if I did it would be in some apocalyptic wasteland). The apocalypse of choice that decade was nuclear war, and popular culture taught me was inevitable, unstoppable, just a matter of time. In reality… not so much. The threat hasn’t gone away, even may be worse than it was when I was a kid, but the eye of pop culture has moved on and the apocalypses kids are taught to worry about now are scrotum-chinned purple giants in blinged-up mediaeval cosplay items.
That said: I’d be suprised if anyone I know personally or via this channel actually directly dies because of climate change. People will… just not rich people. And if you’re reading this, you’re rich people.
I hear this argument a lot from people around your age, and I’m starting to think that’s a not insignificant factor in how our current climate emergency got so dire.
After all, the evidence for global warming got pretty clear and incontrovertible right at the same time (early 90s) that inevitable thing you were fearing your whole life kinda just didn’t happen. And of course if that didn’t happen, why would this new thing I keep hearing about.
Now it’s three decades later and all the people who made up their minds back then are CEOs and government ministers and the like and intent on running things as they always have.
But global warming isn’t like the nuclear annihilation that destroys the world in hours, it takes decades to unfold. And it’s been unfolding for quite a while now. Climate change has been visibly disrupting people’s lives for a good ten years at this point, it’s already causing wars and other sorts of devastation worldwide.
It’s time to pull your head out of the sand and start paying attention. Global warming is not some nebulous future threat, global warming is now and it’s already too late to stop it, which is why we have to work as hard as we can to limit its effects.
I’m not sure that a direct democracy in the USA would necessarily act much differently than an elected government, at least on climate related issues. Despite everything that’s going on, I don’t think that the large majority of people really look at climate change with the urgent seriousness that it deserves – if they did, beachfront property wouldn’t be so expensive. Perhaps I’m wrong, but I doubt you can blame representative democracy for this problem.
For the longest time, I’ve thought that a major problem is that the system elects people whose main skill is being good at being elected, rather than actually being good at doing the job.
Not much of a fix, but I reckon a probationary period should apply; fuck up after (say) six months, they’re out. (As if)
@Dauphni,6: I think you’re right.
Another factor is that when I was a kid in the 70s,the other apocalypse that was definitely coming was climate change… Global COOLING. Glaciers were going to roll over Europe by 2100,and so on. So when the tune changed to “oh, did we say cooling? We meant warming…” there was a strong sense of there being some wolf – crying going on in pursuit of grants.
Again, rationally that feeling should have gone away by the mid 90s but public opinion corners like a supertanker.
John Morales@#8:
For the longest time, I’ve thought that a major problem is that the system elects people whose main skill is being good at being elected, rather than actually being good at doing the job.
Yes. Our habit of treating politics like a dumping-ground for those who aren’t socialized enough to make it onto the football team keeps coming back to bite us.
There’s a weird thing, which is that the absolutely least desirable people for politics are attracted to politics because they’re creepy manipulative amoral bastards who recognize that it’s a great way to get their Cuomo on without having to have any other qualifications, at all.
I used to say that we need minimum qualifications for some government positions. I.e.: to be on the supreme court you need to have argued cases at the supreme court a certain number of times – not “boofed” after chugging a 6-pack of beer. But when I’ve pointed that out, the usual rejoinder is “if we had qualification minimums, congress would be empty. Well, yeah, that’s the point. Actually, it’s not true – there are qualified people in government, they’re just marginalized by being talked over by the rest.
And that is why I titled this posting “The Best and The Brightest” – unlike Kennedy’s Vietnam War-era cabinet, which had some really smart people in it, we’ve stopped even bothering and now we have near idiots with sub-par education.
Dauphni@#6:
I hear this argument a lot from people around your age, and I’m starting to think that’s a not insignificant factor in how our current climate emergency got so dire.
No, it’s the old rich bastards who did it. Not only that, but those people sewed up the situation so that it’s hard for the younger generations to come along and stop the juggernaut. That’s why we’ve got old farts like Joe Biden in power, talking about doing something about climate change while protecting fossil fuel extraction and expanding exploration. Obama, who is my age, also deliberately gamed the climate crisis movement. Etc.
If we had 30-year-old presidents and congress, I’d be more inclined to see this as something we can blame on young people. But, in fact, the young people who try are pretty quickly mooted – e.g.: how old fart Nanci Pelosi worked to sideline “the squad” or how the right wing demonized Greta Thunberg. That Extinction Rebellion is illegal and new pipelines aren’t, is all you need to know. It’s not young people pushing for pipelines: that’s old fat cats in expensive boardrooms. The Yippies were, perhaps, right when they said “you can’t trust anyone over 30.”
springa73@#7:
I’m not sure that a direct democracy in the USA would necessarily act much differently than an elected government, at least on climate related issues. Despite everything that’s going on, I don’t think that the large majority of people really look at climate change with the urgent seriousness that it deserves – if they did, beachfront property wouldn’t be so expensive. Perhaps I’m wrong, but I doubt you can blame representative democracy for this problem.
I’m not sure about the electorate. You’re probably right that they’d choose to be idiotic against their own self-interest. But it also seems to me that the “representatives” exist to manage the discussion and will – in order to maintain power – defang any real attempt to do anything about the environmental crisis. You can tell where the problem is, by where the lobbying dollars are flowing.
According to Pew Research, [pew] 2/3 of Americans think the government is not doing enough about the climate crisis. I’m somewhat skeptical of surveys, but if that’s about accurate, then it illustrates how the “representatives” are no longer representing the will of the people, and are instead representing their pay-masters. Right there, that’s enough for me to reject the idea that representation is happening.
John Morales #8
That’s certainly part of it, but I think another part is the fact that some people are just assholes and they vote in other assholes. Some part of the human population just aren’t very nice people and they have no interest in a fair and decent society. Not really sure what to do about that.
It’s really starting to look like we’re staring the solution to the Fermi Paradox right in the face.
Evolved life is incapable of regulating its behaviour on the kind of timescales during which intelligent life can royally fuck its entire ecosphere. Intelligence may be a self defeating strategy, over a sufficiently large timespan.
Ian King@#14:
It’s really starting to look like we’re staring the solution to the Fermi Paradox right in the face.
Evolved life is incapable of regulating its behaviour on the kind of timescales during which intelligent life can royally fuck its entire ecosphere. Intelligence may be a self defeating strategy, over a sufficiently large timespan.
I share your thoughts. On another angle – it may be that technological civilizations don’t evolve without a readily accessible store of local energy. That would almost certainly entail some kind of ecological problem, even if it was only shortages. I imagine a rising technological civilization, even if it rose on a planet that had perfect hydrogen/oxygen batteries growing on trees, might be able to invent rocketry but would then fall to struggling over who controls the battery supply.
Peter Hamilton, in his Pandora’s Star solves that problem by hypothesizing a life-form that accretes and is eventually the only life-form on its home-world. And, because of how it grew up, it’s really paranoid. I really enjoyed that series, FWIW.
So my thinking is, what if the most likely path for intelligences to survive, is for them to be satisfied. They build some tech, build their equivalent of the Hubble space telescope, take a look around, and conclude that their versions of Isaac Newton and Einstein were right, and space-time is not going to let them “fold” it or travel faster than light. Exploring outside their system becomes a nearly-impossible slog and they decide not to struggle about it and turn inward and work on being contented. Their art is great, and so is their music, but they quickly collect their Elon Musks and put them into therapy, to achieve a level of contentment that is appropriate. It seems to me that war and desire for inequality are what drives a lot of development of human technology, and the ecological consequences of that are what’s killing us. So a species might avoid the “great filter” by being smart enough to be content with what they have, and not bother looking out to conquer the galaxy.
The thing is, I really strongly suspect that evolution is incapable of selecting for contentment.
Any species which is content is going to be rapidly out-competed by its neighbours.
I suppose the counter argument is isolated ecosystems where everything rolls along until some outside force disrupts it, but even in those examples I would expect the various species coexisting are still trying, daily, to wipe one another out.
In my more pessimistic moments I believe that misery is the default state of evolved creatures, because if you’re not miserable, you’re not motivated to stop being miserable.