Our greatest good used to be that we were all free to pursue our own greatest good within the broad constraints of the law. But now, our greatest good is supposedly in adhering to authoritarian pronouncements by the state in order to 'stay safe.'
It's be nice to see some of this analysis tied in to what's happening in the medica…
Our greatest good used to be that we were all free to pursue our own greatest good within the broad constraints of the law. But now, our greatest good is supposedly in adhering to authoritarian pronouncements by the state in order to 'stay safe.'
It's the same thing with climate change: this is essentially pseudoscience yet it's being used to justify necessary state control.
We're headed towards totalitarianism justified by necessary actions to stay safe from climate catastrophe (which change leads, supposedly, to the emergence of new diseases.) How will we avoid this? My answer is that we must understand that there's no climate emergency at all. This isn't unrelated to your concerns: we can have all the philosophy and reason and logic we want to but if people believe the planet will burn up without necessary state dictates, then we can throw philosophy out the window. Stay safe will be the order of the day.
In my view, this would mean that true science had been usurped and replaced by narrative, and this narrative is then used to empower the state. If we then have a system of track-and-trace akin to the Chinese social credit system-- in order to ensure that we're all good climate citizens-- where would we be? Many, many people believe that such things aren't fantasy at all, but necessary.
Climate change theory is actually at the very heart of current questions about the stature of the state and the necessity for individual submission to the state, and about collectivism.
See Alex Epstein's, Fossil Future, for a systematically fundamental philosophy of energy. Basic: energy is primary, problems from energy are derivative.
Thank you!
Our greatest good used to be that we were all free to pursue our own greatest good within the broad constraints of the law. But now, our greatest good is supposedly in adhering to authoritarian pronouncements by the state in order to 'stay safe.'
It's be nice to see some of this analysis tied in to what's happening in the medical field as explained by such folks as The Midwestern Doctor, and how 'stay safe' is being used to convince us that the state must have supremacy over the individual. https://amidwesterndoctor.substack.com/p/the-story-behind-sudden-death-syndromes?utm_source=%2Fprofile%2F76762071-a-midwestern-doctor&utm_medium=reader2
It's the same thing with climate change: this is essentially pseudoscience yet it's being used to justify necessary state control.
We're headed towards totalitarianism justified by necessary actions to stay safe from climate catastrophe (which change leads, supposedly, to the emergence of new diseases.) How will we avoid this? My answer is that we must understand that there's no climate emergency at all. This isn't unrelated to your concerns: we can have all the philosophy and reason and logic we want to but if people believe the planet will burn up without necessary state dictates, then we can throw philosophy out the window. Stay safe will be the order of the day.
In my view, this would mean that true science had been usurped and replaced by narrative, and this narrative is then used to empower the state. If we then have a system of track-and-trace akin to the Chinese social credit system-- in order to ensure that we're all good climate citizens-- where would we be? Many, many people believe that such things aren't fantasy at all, but necessary.
Climate change theory is actually at the very heart of current questions about the stature of the state and the necessity for individual submission to the state, and about collectivism.
See Alex Epstein's, Fossil Future, for a systematically fundamental philosophy of energy. Basic: energy is primary, problems from energy are derivative.