He’s the internationally respected scientist and environmentalist who invented the Gaia theory during the 1960’s – the idea that the earth itself behaves as a giant self-regulating organism.
Still going strong aged 90, his point in this interview is essentially that human beings as a whole are not yet evolved enough appreciate complex situations and make good decisions about them vis-à-vis climate change. So he concludes that we will be unable to make the significant and difficult changes that need to be made to avoid catastrophe until there actually is one, as politicians are of course continually slithering cynically around the limits of what the masses are prepared to tolerate while secretly or brazenly doing exactly what they want for personal gain...
But interestingly, he leads this to conclude that this is therefore a flaw of unfettered democracy – that there are occasions in which sometimes the will of the people cannot be trusted to make the right decisions to ensure its own survival. He suggests that wartime is another example in which this might apply as he puts aptly:
"Even the best democracies agree that when a major war approaches, democracy must be put on hold for the time being. I have a feeling that climate change may be an issue as severe as a war. It may be necessary to put democracy on hold for a while."
Of course, political leaders routinely patronise the electorate, and it seems the ongoing effect of holding power imbues an almost inevitable corrupting arrogance on those that hold it - that whatever they are doing is for the ‘greater good’ of the people, regardless of the feelings of the people. The modern age is littered with examples of those who imposed their will against the masses with an iorn fist, from Stalin to Thatcher, from Hilter to George W. Bush.
But here is perhaps something new. Not a power drunken despot on a quest for personal blood and glory – but an attempt at a reasoned and logical argument made by a modest scientist who invented the hippy-friendly Gaia theory during the 60’s essentially making the case for an occasional dictatorship.
I can’t help but wonder what its like to look on despairingly over 40 years at a world mostly continuing to ignore or begrudgingly accept this most elegant and beautiful idea of Gaia, of the earth acting as a living organism itself – and how treating this one-living-world with disregard and focussing on our own selfish self interest could lead to our own demise. A 40 years that spans the entirety of my own life. Maybe waiting that long for change could make almost anyone a sympathetic to a bit of facism, I doubt it something I can fully appriciate. I have had the privilege to see him interviewed on TV, and remember well feeling quite in awe of this articulate, modest and seriously intelligent man calmly and with great sadness and resignation – explaining the plain and simple facts of our likely environmental doom.
But from my own very modest position compared to Professor Lovelock, I have to disagree. For this road, of finding legitimate reasons to deny the will of the people even temporarily – to impose things on the masses regardless is I think a very dangerous one. Some say that the road to hell is paved with good intentions, and I wonder if this is such a road. While I agree with the analysis that the good Prof makes – I suspect that ignoring the primacy of democratic consent for one cause however sympathetic I personally am to it – would make it far easier for someone else to come along later and do the same….for a different cause, and who may take far more frightening actions in the name of the good of the people – against the will of the people. The day may yet come that what Tony Blair did taking us to war in Iraq and Afganistan may look timid compared to what some his successors may choose to do in office, given ever more power.
Who decides when a democracy should or should not be restored – or a dictatorship maintained or what such a dictatorship is allowed to do ? Just how easily is absolute power relinquished ?
Darth Sideous (star wars - revenge of the sith) as you may or may not be aware, used the dark side of the force as an unfair advantage to become emperor and impose an empire on the universe – granted. Pope Benedict acts (and more worryingly looks) suspiciously like Darth Sideous in real life – granted. But in real life surely a modern, compassionate, caring and temporary dictatorship would’nt need to be so full of the dark side of the force – surely ? Though we have been blessed in the western world with relatively stable and peaceful societies in recent times – the past and present of other continents such Africa, South America and Asia I think does not do the pro-dictatorship camp many favours.
Of course, our democracy is floored, imperfect and dysfunctional. Barely a democracy you could even say. But at least we have a principle how ever imperfectly or cynically we try to achieve it – that the will of the people is supreme. Somehow, weirdly, I just think this is our best bet to keep us inching millimetre by millimetre towards the kind of level of human development that Lovelock and so many of us are eager to reach. Perhaps also, better an understanding that emerges from below, rather than one that is imposed from above.
It may well be, that the will of the people will lead the people to disaster. With the likes of global warming, peak oil, Bibi Netanyahu, Jordan (page 3, not country), Pope Benedict, corporate and personal greed, political apathy and the erosion of social society to contend with - the prognosis does not look good. But heck, I’ll take my chances with that crazy bunch any day than accept we need a benevolent dictator to save us from ourselves – despite the fact that we probably do.
interesting article, The bottom line.... it does not matter what political or social systen we adopt or have forced on us. Due to the nature of man it is inevitable that we are DOOMED!! Unless the entire population is blessed simultaniously with a blessed spiritual paradigm i dont hold out much hope. Pessimism or reality?
ReplyDelete