Are democracies capable of dealing with the urgent challenges that face us in the next few years?

Question

During the past 20 years or so ,several major problems ,which will have catastrophic consequences for us , have become clearly visible to us. And yet "too little , too late," remains the only way we seem able to deal with them.

For instance , nothing can now stop Global Warming and Over Population from having a catastrophic effect on our planet during the next 20 years.Yet far too little action has been, or is being , taken to deal with either one of them.

The UK is an already over crowded island -- yet little or nothing has been done to control immigration, or effect changes to the size of our population generally, to help us get through the problems that lie ahead.

Our whole infrastructure needs urgent attention, yet even obviously urgent decisions concerning such as the future of our electrical energy supplies, continues to be ignored

We are a country that is heavily in debt and the world's economy is moving rapidly eastwards.Our economy,however, remains grossly unbalenced and our work force lacks the skills, to compete in this new world order .So our prospects are for a steady increase in unemployment and a relatively rapid decline in wealth.

Despite this , our politicians continue to "fiddle" and play the game of Party politics.

Democracy is failing us . Do we need a better way to get through the next 10 - 20 years ?

Answer 1

I believe that Democracy is the only viable political solution for us at this stage of our development as a global society. The main problems with democracy is that it has changed so little since it has been established and it has always been heavily tied to free market capitalism. Corporate vested interests have always undermined the core of democratic values. I believe that a decentralisation of government power combined with a peer reviewed assessment of government policy by un-biased academics and independent economists is the way forward.

Answer 2

Democracies (if we really ever had them) are not capable of 'dealing with any challenges' that they encounter - there are far too many separate political agenda's out there - all demanding 'their salvation idea' is the answer to all of the ....challenges etc.!!



If thats not the case - why are we (the world) in the huge mess its in now - these currant world financial problems should have been sorted out 'years ago' and decisions taken to stem the flow of all the trouble thats engulfed us all - but no democracy/governments did anything about it - all just 'hoped and prayed' the problem would go away (get better) which it didn't .



Your posting says it all - and surely cannot be argued against (unless by dreamers) as the points in the posting made are 'absolutely true' - all western countries peoples have been lied to/misinformed etc by their elected governments for the last 50yrs+.



With no countries leader admitting defeat on their policies - and/or a new direction-attitudes - financial policy found - the situation can/will only get worse.



The truth is these western governments 'haven't got a clue' as what to do next - none have 'any experience' in solving these (self-inflicted) financial problems - so all will choose too ignore them - and carry on with the policy of 'throwing more money' at that problem until (as will happen real soon) there will be no money left to throw anywhere.



A total new start is needed - but it cannot happen - unless the US and other (defaulting) loaded debt countries 'tear-up' these loan agreements etc and risk the 'wrath' of these lending financial groups - there is no other way - because the debt crisis can 'never ever' be paid-up - and these debts will last the lifetime of every single person on this planet now ....and way beyond into the future.



This policy of all governments of 'throwing money' at a problem has 'never ever' yielded a satisfactory result - its just got worse - as is/will happen way into the future.



The worldwide financial crisis is/will become the 'norm' - there is absolutely no way out - no matter how these western political morons 'dress-up' this huge out of control world problem. They are the ones who caused the financial mess that we're all in now (not the peoples) the peoples were/are the 'suckers' who have had to 'pay-out' for these political morons mistakes etc - and they (politicians) take 'all take the blame' for failed/fruitless/whimsical/non progressive policies of their countries that 'they' implemented - and the worse feeling of all is the fact we the public 'voted' these political morons into power across the world.!!



Its time to go back in time 65yrs the end of WW2 - and start all over again - and hopefully learn from all the mistakes that were made during these last 65yrs.

Answer 3

Hi. Terrier here, there’s a word limit here hence my use of a separate account.



I *think* I understand where your impression that us liberals are indecisive comes from. With respect though, I disagree. It looks as though I’m making excuses for our politicians – & well, I suppose up to a point I am. The focus is though, that I think we need to look at ourselves and our own impacts rather than rely on politicians – hence the requirement for people to understand the issues themselves.



If the electorate can understand the reasons behind political inaction, if they can understand the costs associated with action (vs inaction) then perhaps we can combat it. Politicians get too little praise for the things they get right on environmental issues – (how much praise did the coalition get for their green investment bank, for example?), and too little condemnation for the things they get wrong (absolving airlines of fuel duty) it’s little wonder that they favour a small benefit now vs a larger benefit later.



As for whether we should wait for scientific certainty – I can’t stress this enough… ABSOLUTELY NOT!!!



Of course we should continue to strive for that certainty, although we’re virtually at that point already. Research shows that we can be very confident that the world IS warming, AND that man’s actions are causing it. Even whilst we’re not entirely certain (and like you say, science tends to deal in probabilities rather than certainties, e.g. we still don’t have scientific certainty that smoking increases the risk of lung cancer, but the weight of evidence is such that nobody doubts that to be the case) – we should deal in the “precautionary principle”. We should act now, because the risk of disaster if we don’t act is so great.



(oh, and the abortion analogy - I could give an answer to that *very* quickly!!)

Answer 4

Terrier UK has it spot on. We have to adapt to compete in the world market that actually exists, not the imaginary one we're trying to prop up by artificially high fat-cat wages and dividends which are really only subsidies. The West over-pays itself and so cannot possibly compete on the world market; not only that, by we have declined so far in real terms that protectionism would no longer work either. And in the background to all of this is the depressive 'end-times' pseudo-scientific debate concerning Global Warming ... a problem that doesn't appear to affect countries which declaim: "Oh but it's so unfair... the West exploited us before and we only want a level playing field".

OK... so one China could be like 5 USA's and really pull the plug on the airconditioning.



At present the West is going into a phase like Russia did after the Soviet Union collapsed, only Russia still had plenty of raw materials and the ability to run a command economy as a basic backbone with free enterprise at the edges.



I wonder, are we about to see reverse migration of the reverse colonisers? Is the system going to balance out or tip to a new world order of fascist capitalism?



And one of the saddest things of all... what if our ability to get into space and spread life to new worlds was a once-only chance brought about by evolution? Looks like humanity was a failed experiment doesn't it!

Answer 5

Democracy isn't failing us. Our Republic isn't ready to fall yet. We need more 3rd party candidates (Green, Libertarians, Socialists, Christian Right, etc) to bring the political conversation up to a level necessary in our complex modern world. The only way to get this is through Instant Runoff ballads. This would be an easy upgrade, and would help men like Ross Perot and Ralph Nader make their statements nationally, and build a local and state base of politicians, while not injuring the national political scene.

Answer 6

If the tens of millions of rats interior the cage referred to as London who concern that intercourse, funds or homicide are what all strangers want, controlled to vote for an fool that even there own social gathering contributors are embarrassed approximately, then they gets what they deserve. How London will arise to the Olympics i do no longer understand. London has enjoyed extra efficient public transport in modern cases and an strategies-set of world progression, the form of element that have been given it the Olympics which extremely would not have took place if it had only been the funds grabbing centre of neurosis that's its underbelly. i do no longer assume that fool will win through transferable 2d vote; some human beings in London are smart, inspite of the region. if so, it is going to could desire to observe out for national politicians attempting to harness it and make it into the cut back throat capital of the international. no longer a place to be un til 2013.

Answer 7

It's all been coming for many decades. A lot of us have been warning about it for much of our lives but few listened. They were too busy partying to hear us.



It's all like a speeding train. The earlier you change tracks or apply the brakes the better the chance of avoiding a crash. The party train sped with passengers yelling "faster, faster."



Now huge Asian hordes of excess labor have torn up the wage "tracks" and taken away the industry "trestle" to their lands, while the train rushes onward as the passenger finally awaken to the situation just ahead.



All we can do now is brace ourselves. It's many years too late to do much about it now. Only brand new technological advances can save us again but those could be immediately sucked away to Asia and probably will be.

Answer 8

You said, "nothing can now stop Global Warming and Over Population from having a catastrophic effect on our planet during the next 20 years."



I'm a little confused by that. Last I saw, the science is uncertain as to whether we've already passed the point of no return, but that the general consensus was that we are not. I would have thought we'd have heard something by now if we really had passed that point. Did I misunderstand you?



If we could be sure that we had already passed the point of no return - then there would be no point in combatting it. We would just have to wait for the famines to hit - and no doubt protect our own interests and let the vulnerable starve. We would have to fight for the remaining resources, and fight I am sure we would.



The Stern report in 2007 suggested that we are not yet past the point of no return. It also suggested that even for the rich - reducing emissions would be significantly cheaper than dealing with the consequences of global warming.



You mention overpopulation. It's undoubtedly an issue, but I'm not convinced it's the greatest issue. Already, as uncomfortable as it is for us to read - most people in the western world are consuming far more than their (our!) fair share of the world's resources. I seem to remember that a child in the USA uses as much in terms of resources as 200 Indian children. Is 3rd world overpopulation the biggest problem here?



Bear in mind also - there is little understanding of just WHY people in poorer countries have so many children. Over here, we have a welfare state, most of us have a pension. Few (if any) poor countries have any such welfare state or pension provision. They need their children to look after them.



There is also the issue of high infant mortality. Already these people need somebody to look after them in their old age, but unless they have a lot of children, it's likely that they won't have any to survive into adulthood.



Quite apart from the lack of basic education about contraception.



You're right that we deal with things too little, too late. It's a classic "catch 22". Whilst the effects of climate change and loss of resources are not yet devastating, lack of action becomes easier - action is harder because there are other more immediate problems to deal with. Once the consequences of climate change and lack of resources begin to bite - it may be too late to prevent the worst things happening. same goes for resources, be it fuel for transport, or for heating our homes.. etc



Politicians continue to fiddle and play party politics, but then - what else can they do? Dealing with these problems now means pain in the short-term. Pain in the short-term = you get voted out. Hardly surprising that politicians are concerned only with issues that will bite during the 5 years of their own parliament. Let the next government take the blame for our inaction...



For that - the electorate need to be more aware of the issues. Then the politicians might be able to act.



BTW - I *HIGHLY* recommend the course that goes with these books:

http://www.amazon.co.uk/Warming-World-D-Humphreys/dp/0749216360/ref=sr_1_11?ie=UTF8&qid=1312499055&sr=8-11

http://www.amazon.co.uk/Environmental-Issues-Responses-W-Brown/dp/0749216379/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1312499187&sr=1-1

http://www.amazon.co.uk/Prospects-Possibilities-P-Jehlicka/dp/0749216387/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1312499217&sr=1-1



Even if you don't take the course - the books are well worth a read.



More locally - I certainly agree that we urgently need to address the skills shortage. We need to become more self sufficient, I firmly believe that we should be investing in technology and agriculture. We need to shift our economy towards products that will increasingly be needed in the world (in this case food and energy) so that our supplies are secure for as long as possible, minimising negative effects wherever we can.



"So our prospects are for a steady increase in unemployment and a relatively rapid decline in wealth."



Unless we deal with it that's exactly what we're looking at - yet the electorate are notoriously short-sighted. A "want it now" culture is very prominent.



ETA: Edited above for clarity. (thanks for the compliment btw) See Skellington's post for remainder of my answer.

Answer 9

I'd say this is a misuse of government and politics.



Some of the "urgent challenges" that you speak to are not suited to be resolved in the political arena. And I'd ease up on the catastrophic thinking. In fact, attempts by government to intervene are often worse than the original problem.

Answer 10

Well I don't know much about the UK, but I wouldn't say the USA is a functioning democracy. I rename it the "Democratic Republic of Mcdonalds and GM owned stated of AMerica inc.