Is eco-civilisation compatible with democracy?

[UndercoverElephant]

An “eco-civilisation” is any form of human civilisation which has achieved long-term balance with the ecological system in which it is embedded, and is therefore permanently sustainable: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ecological_civilization

Currently this term is almost unused in the western world, but has been adopted by the Chinese Communist Party as an explicit goal. I am interested in people's thoughts regarding ecocivilisation and democracy.

Could a democratic society/state ever create an eco-civilisation? Or does human ignorance, stupidity, greed and self-interest make it impossible? It is imaginable that people will ever vote for such a thing, given an environment of free speech where vested interests (ie the rich and powerful) will do everything in their power to brainwash people into believing ecocivilisation is either evil or impossible?

I can see arguments on both sides. You could argue that democracy would never produce such a solution, so it would need an authoritarian one-party state (like China) to achieve it. You could also argue that authoritarian states always descend into tyranny and corruption, because the people in power end up with a primary goal of staying in power (so suppressing political opposition and free speech, and therefore severely restricting the possibilities for positive development).

For the purposes of this thread, let us imagine that we are a committee tasked with planning the foundations of a future eco-civilisation. There are a great many questions about how such a civilisation would work -- for example about economics, and the inter-relationships between the state, science and religion. But right now I am specifically interested in how such a civilisation should be governed.

Do we need a (much) improved version of democracy? If so, can you say how you'd improve it?

Or should we be thinking more radically than that -- do we actually need some sort of non-democratic system which is capable of imposing necessary policies on the population even if they are unpopular?

Is eco-civilisation compatible with democracy?

[BritDownUnder]

It could be that China is telling porkies. You always need to consider that possibility. After all they said they were not going to build military bases on South China Sea but they did.

They also said a few things about COVID-19 that were not true.

China is also building quite a lot of coal power stations at the moment but to their credit they are building a lot of renewables as well.

If democracies set down rules and goals towards an eco-civilisational pathway they maybe they can pull it off. Educating the populace on the consequences of collapse is a must.

[UndercoverElephant]

It could be that China is telling porkies. You always need to consider that possibility.

It is adopted by the CCP as an official goal. That isn't a lie. What on Earth would be the point in them publicising something as a goal if they don't actually want to achieve that goal? And why wouldn't they want to achieve it?

We have to accept that China is ahead of the western world on this, even if it is only theoretical. In the west this isn't even being talked about, let alone being accepted as a theoretical goal by mainstream political parties. Obviously achieving this goal is a lot harder than just talking about it, but you have to start by talking about it.

If democracies set down rules and goals towards an eco-civilisational pathway they maybe they can pull it off. Educating the populace on the consequences of collapse is a must.

OK, I will take that as a vote in favour of democracy.

[BritDownUnder]

CCP says many things - and quite often does completely different things. They even claim now and then that China is a workers state yet have no universal health care, no effective unemployment insurance, no maximum working hours legislation and few laws relating to security of employment.
China is an ethno-nationalistic one party dictatorship that puts China's greater interests front and centre to the detriment of all other countries.

[johnny]

An “eco-civilisation” is any form of human civilisation which has achieved long-term balance with the ecological system in which it is embedded, and is therefore permanently sustainable: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ecological_civilization

Currently this term is almost unused in the western world, but has been adopted by the Chinese Communist Party as an explicit goal. I am interested in people's thoughts regarding ecocivilisation and democracy.

Could a democratic society/state ever create an eco-civilisation?

The Amish seem to be doing okay.

[Ralphw2]

The Amish are not without unsustainable emissions. Their main emission is people. They have large families and a significant minority of their young adults leave and don’t return to the Amish culture. If they weren’t surrounded by industrial civilisation they would quickly become unstable.

Amish have on average between 5 and 7 children per woman according to google.

[Potemkin Villager]

I think you need to ask first what democracy is understood to mean.
People allowed to vote every four years for a government that doesn't represent their interests
but the vested interests of those who have bought the elected politicians?

[UndercoverElephant]

I think you need to ask first what democracy is understood to mean.
People allowed to vote every four years for a government that doesn't represent their interests
but the vested interests of those who have bought the elected politicians?

That is a valid issue in its own right, but not directly relevant to what I'm asking. Even in a very good democracy, in the sense of the system actually delivers what a majority of the people actually want, we'd still have the same problem, which is convincing people to vote for ecological policies that restrict their rights or diminish their material standard of living. Fixing democracy wouldn't have much effect on this, I suspect.

[johnny]

The Amish are not without unsustainable emissions. Their main emission is people. They have large families and a significant minority of their young adults leave and don’t return to the Amish culture.

Sure. But we are talking about an eco-civilization, if the alternative is the non eco-civilization and democracy, it breaks the rules of the question. We've already got the alternative...preppers don't exist because they are thrilled with the current world...basically they themselves are interested in fleeing back to something more agrarian. If there had been no industrial revolution, folks would still be agrarian, and could also be democratic. Take away the choice of the ridiculous consumer society folks have either built for themselves or are yearning for and the model already exists. It isn't as though in the old agrarian way of doing things that they could flee to the Jetsons lifestyle on another planet.

If they weren’t surrounded by industrial civilisation they would quickly become unstable.Amish have on average between 5 and 7 children per woman according to google.

No they wouldn't. There wouldn't be an alternative of unstable industrial civilization for those not happy with an agrarian lifestyle to flee to.

[Ralphw2]

7 kids per family is only sustainable if 4.5 die in childhood

[Vortex2]

The Amish are not without unsustainable emissions. Their main emission is people. They have large families and a significant minority of their young adults leave and don’t return to the Amish culture.

What the heck is a "significant minority"? That's politician speak.

About 10% of these sort of groups leave when they get older.

Why not visit an Amish or similar community before knocking them.

[Ralphw2]

I am not knocking them as a social group. I am pointing out that they are not fully sustainable, as they have an exponentially growing population. The fact that they allow people to leave with little comeback points to them being relatively benign, compared to many religious based organisations.

[UndercoverElephant]

The fact that they allow people to leave with little comeback points to them being relatively benign, compared to many religious based organisations.

The motive for that is to keep their communities strong. If you try to coerce people to stay, you will end up with an unhappy community.

[johnny]

7 kids per family is only sustainable if 4.5 die in childhood

Growth isn't a problem when all the pampered First World sissys cry themselves to death because they can't have their semi-annual global jet setting vacations and are forced to do without their favorite coffee because of climate change.

[johnny]

Why not visit an Amish or similar community before knocking them.

Better yet, grow up in a county where they are all over place, and they let young teenagers ride their horses in exchange for a days labor baling hay. And they work like Americans once worked. As compared to the modern Americans who don't know a horse from a house cat and melt down and quit desk jobs when they don't have a Starbucks across the street from the office, or aren't allowed to take iPad breaks every 15 minutes.