III Publishing

Do We Need a Green Draco?
July 14, 2017
by William P. Meyers

Site Search

Also sponsored by Earth Pendant at PeacefulJewelry

Popular pages:

U.S. War Against Asia
Democratic Party
Republican Party
Natural Liberation

Draconian measures are hard to enact in a Democracy

The world is dying. Instead of doing something meaningful about it, the governments of the world are dithering. Some environmental measures do get passed, which is good, but they are inadequate.

Focusing on global warming, which is the single most serious problem, there are two big variables worth considering, and one lesser one. The big variables are the size of the global population and the greenhouse gas (typically shortened to carbon dioxide or CO2) emissions per average person.

The third, lesser variable is the type of energy production used. Even if we ignore the negatives of wind and solar power (like the power needed to manufacture them), they are still not being produced fast enough to match the net increase in energy demand, much less replace the old energy sources. Pollyanna Progressives tend to double count solar, pretending it is both replacing fossil-fuels and creating energy for increased demand

But either you know all that, or are one of the people in denial because of defects to your personality (which manifest in choosing a religion or political ideology in denial off the facts).

So for the human race and the world of life to survive, we need draconian measures.

Draco was an ancient Athenian lawgiver. Click the link if you need to know more. I could have said Mosesian, but that is not a word, yet. Or choose any other person who has been able to establish a harsh rule of law. Don't leave out women like Catherine the Great, while you are thinking about it.

The problem is getting a good Draco. A good Draco would be harsh about what needs to be done to save the planet, but not unnecessarily cruel, or otherwise crazy. Bad Dracos abound in history; good Dracos are rare.

What would be on the agenda? It might change, but here is a short list:

1. Set a long-term sustainable population goal, like 2 billion global, 100 million in the United States.

2. Set a maximum of one-child per family, which could rise back to 2 (the replacement value) as the population goals are reached.

3. Meanwhile, no frivolous energy use. No air-conditioning except in hospitals, nursing homes, or in high-heat emergencies. Only highly efficient transportation. No new buildings. No consumer purchasing not directly related to survival. No military expenditures. Focus productivity on restoring the environment, educating and taking care of the people.

That was easy, right? But getting there through the U.S. democratic process would be nearly impossible. We are a nation that does not like to be told what to do. Whatever reasonable methods are used to achieve the above reasonable goals, there will be defiance and resistance.

So I say, sterilize the resistance. Would you rather have one child, or be sterilized and have none for your sect to prey on?

Was that me? Did I say that? I meant to say what we might expect from our eco-savior, Draco the Great. We might end up with stuff like that.

Or the crazy people could wake up and admit there is global warming and evolution and overpopulation. Then join the rest of us in voting for measures that will reduce the average number of children per family to one. Like no tax breaks after the first child. If we could do that, there would be no need for harsh measures for the occasional accidental second child.

Monstrous? Perhaps. But the only other choice is a global meltdown.




III Blog list of articles