Question Author
Hi Chessman
You're right in asking what would be the alternative. That's the obvious question. But I just wanted to make the point about how humans will deal with the looming environmental problems: global warming, pollution, water wars, fuel shortages...
To solve/avoid these problems (if this is still possible) people will have to lead simpler lives, to go backwards materially and economically. I mean it will involve some suffering, and people won't do it voluntarily. It's up to leaders to be strong and force people to give up a lot of things they think they have a right to. But in a democracy, leaders won't do this, because it would be political suicide. Any politician who says "Vote for me, and I'll force you to recycle your rubbish, to travel less, to give up your cars..." will not get elected. So a world based on democracy is inherently designed to avoid solving these difficult and painful problems.
Throughout history, leaders were strong - they led. Some were brutal, some were visionary and benevolent, but they were actually leaders. Now we don't have leaders like that. Now the people lead by wielding their vote, and the people are never going to say, "Yes, let's tighten our belts, let's make sacrifices in our lives in order to protect the world for future generations." And our so-called leaders now, they are just wordsmiths trying to say the right things in order to appeal to people and hang on to power - that is there sole raison d'etre - to maintain their own popularity at all costs.
So my main point (I'm waffling aren't I) is: democracies are completely ineffectual in a situation like this (where people need to be weaned off things that they enjoy and feel they have a right to but which seriously threaten the future of the planet) . Does anyone agree?