Saving the World vs Democracy

We all operate under assumptions. It makes our lives easier. I've even read that a psychologist (don't ask me who) theorises that our experiences make up a system of assumptions that help us cope with data overload.

I assume that the drivers around me will decide to signal before passing(no matter how many times they don't), just so I don't drive under constant stress.

One of the most fundamental assumptions in the world today is: we can trust people to make the right choices.

Democracy is all about giving choice to people, to experience life the way they want to, to think and express freely without fear. It also gives a tremendous room for mistakes to be made, though this is subjective. Maybe there are certain things that most can agree are horrible mistakes, such as running a red light or killing innocents.

The entire raison d'etre of an awareness campaign has always been to convince people that the choice that they fight for IS the right choice to make, whether it's an ideology or just a simple act, whether it's climate change denial or turning the lights off for one hour (8:30 March 28 2009 is Earth Hour by the way). A major part of environmentalism has been awareness, it's a catchphrase. It not only implies knowing what the subject is defined as, but also what it means for the person who is now aware and what they can do about it.

The question now is: Has it really worked?

No, this isn't a Yes or No question. My answer would be: Sure, but not to the extent we need. With climate change scientists now calculating that the Arctic ice cover will be gone in 5 years, and the goal of 350 ppm still far-off, can we seriously claim that all these awareness campaigns the past 20 years have accomplished much?

So is it really a question of people not knowing? There are efforts to deny that climate change is happening, or even that in this case, it's man-made. We've heard that it's just part of the "natural rhythms of the Earth". As far as I'm concerned, we're winning the battle of misinformation on those grounds at least, at least since the administration in charge of such a policy has been kicked out of office for a while already.

No, the problem is that even when people do know, they exercise their free will and make the choice NOT to do something about it. We can't call them crazy or uncaring, as that just turns people off the whole idea in the first place. Should we perhaps fault the system that lets people make the kind of choice that incrementally dooms others to poverty and natural disasters? The fact that it's incremental helps people get over whatever residual guilt they might have, in comparison to actually giving a person the ability to kill another. They won't, because it's too big a step for them.

Authoritarian governments usually have negative connotations, simply because they enforce their rule through violence and coercion. Personally, I am a pacifist, though I do enjoy the guilty pleasures of a few violent video games here and there. But as a way of life, I've been wondering: wouldn't it be a lot easier if Big Brother just ordered obedience in dealing with climate change? With such a short time-limit it would certainly be ideal, and is most certainly wishful thinking.

I once read a DC Comics storyline where the superheroes actually took over the world and enforced a kind of peace on Earth, at the cost of killing a few supervillains and coercing everyone to comply. I mean, who can beat Superman? But we can't hope for a superhero to do that, nor can we give people the options of acting or ELSE.

But at the end of the day, isn't that the choice that is never actually spoken?

I don't want to end on a pessimistic note, because I believe that because even though there are no real superheroes, we are the only ones that can depend on ourselves, and there is no other choice but to fight on. Plus, it's always fun being the underdog.