Originally posted by The Transhumanist
I disagree with you about martial law. I think you underestimate just how powerful our military is. This isn't a bunch of guys running around with
muskets anymore. I don't think the citizens could ever really expect to take on the army, marines, air force and navy and win.
We'll have to agree to disagree on that, then. I have a sneaky suspicion, and nothing more, that the ranks of the military, and paramilitary outfits
like the police forces, would have a bit of dissention in their OWN ranks to quell before being turned loose on the populace. No telling how it will
shake down in the end, but there is a window of opportunity present there for the resourceful.
There are just too many variables to make an objective prediction as to which "side" would emerge victorious. One has to factor in various
parameters, such as but not limited to how many of "them" will blindly follow orders, how many will kick up a fuss over wrong-doing, how that will
be handled, how long it will take to handle it, who will be left, what will the unit cohesion be like in the wake of it, raw numbers between the
"establishment" forces and the "civilian" forces, available weaponry and weaponry sources, which outside powers will choose to meddle in it, and
how they choose to meddle, defections from one side to the other, etc. The list goes on and on.
All any of us can really do is pick a scenario and run with it. Having seen first hand what a disturbed population can do to a military force if
they're determined enough, and vice versa, I can tell you that in my opinion it all falls down to the initial conditions when it kicks off.
Nothing is EVER a "sure bet".
In the event that it were shown to be necessary, under NO circumstances would I entrust that sort of engineering to the mind of one "specialist".
All you have done so far is tell me who you wouldn't trust. So who would you trust? I am not advocating leaving things up to one specialist. Or even
a team of specialists. I'm talking about an interdisciplinary think tank with multiple specialists from relevant fields.
I'm not sure that I would trust anyone, to be honest. A personal failing of mine. My main point, however, was that a determination of NEED should be
rigorously undertaken before action of any sort. I've yet to see any data that supports the imminent NEED for any sort of "green economy", just a
lot of emotional rambling about how SOMETHING needs to be done RIGHT NOW. I'm always suspicious of the motives of those who urge rash action before
thought has a chance to take hold.
For example, I hear about nebulous claims of CO2 levels rising to make Earth uninhabitable in some ill-defined "future", if action isn't taken
RIGHT NOW. Rarely is there any mention of how much higher CO2 levels have risen in Earth's past (in the neighborhood of 500% higher than now, in
pre-human times), with the result that not only was all life not wiped out, but it actually flourished on a much more lush, greener planet, in a far
more diverse biosphere.
Snail-darters, spotted owls, and polar bears may or may not be on the ropes, but if so, all indications are that it's part of a grander scheme, since
we are in the midst of an extinction episode that has been going on for somewhere between 8,000 and 12,000 years. In comparison, the dinosaur
extinction episode went on for around 20,000 years. Other extinction episodes have similar durations.
It;s just a fact of life on Earth that periodically, some species go extinct, and others take their place. This happened long before the advent of
man, or the use of fossil fuels, and will likely keep occurring long after those factors are gone.
Should the necessity be conclusively proven, however, I'm with you on the interdisciplinary panel sort of set up. Not as law-makers, but rather as
advisors. Furthermore, punishments for emissions will not be workable, while at the same time maintaining current "civilized" living standards,
without providing alternatives to those emissions concurrently. In a carrot-and-stick approach, one needs the presence of the carrot. Liberal
application of the stick without the carrot will result in massive resentment, and calamity.
Right now, socialist policies advocate coming down with the stick (in the form of cap-and-trade), but the alternative carrot, in any sort of workable
form, is nowhere to be seen. Windmill farms? no one wants them in THEIR back yard, but they'll be glad to use the energy if someone else has them in
THEIR back yard. Ditto for nuclear power, and any number of other suggested alternatives. Hydroelectric? don't forget the poor snail darters...
See what I mean? we are currently being presented with a no-win situation under socialist policy. Ideally, I think it may eventually boil down to
individual production of their own power for each household, thus taking them off the grid entirely. That will open a whole 'nuther can of worms. The
collective thinking of everyone being "on the grid", with centralized production, will be a thing of the past.
Water distribution will be somewhat more problematic, given the currently entrenched municipal systems. Rural folks will be a bit better off in that
regard.
Come to think of it, collectivist/socialist thinking is already a huge part of urban life in the United States, and I harbor severe doubts as to the
viability of urban environments in the future, especially if the current brand of socialist thought is allowed to proliferate.
Think of it... Rural folks produce food. They produce it in abundance here, but that's about ALL they produce. Most all other goods and services are
produced in urban environments. What happens to that production if the urban environments are allowed to degenerate because of our current brand of
socialism, which they like to call "progressivism".
The end product appears decidedly RE-gressive, to me.
[edit on 2009/11/3 by nenothtu]
