A paper to be published in March in BioScience, the journal of the American Institute of Biological Sciences, titled “Social Norms and Global Environmental Challenges” is discussed here. The article is relatively long, but that’s because there are a lot of examples of a call to totalitarianism from people who claim to be “scientists.” They are anything but. They believe their opinions are not subject to the basic requirement of scientific method: the possibility of falsification.
This entire publication is a clear and unmistakable sign that a scientific dictatorship is emerging under the pretext of environmentalism. More government control through regulations and fines combined with a proactive scientific community, brainwashing people into accepting this increasing governmental control where they would otherwise reject it.
That is not an exaggeration, based on the paper’s content. It is a call to abandon Constitutional government in the United States in favor of the UN. The group of scientists involved include two Nobel Prize winners. They have Nobels in economy and political science. One wonders why there’s no Peace Prize winner. Perhaps Mr. Obama was too busy hobnobbing with Tiger Woods. And Yasser Arafat, of course, is dead.
I thought the scientific dictatorship had actually emerged a long time ago, when the “consensus” of scientists was supposed to make us stop asking any questions about global warming/climate change – or whatever they’re calling it today. The effrontery of publishing this indicates the current political environment is encouraging to these statists, and that their privilege blinds them to their hubris.
As to consensus, no such thing must be tolerated from the citizens in a democratic republic if it disagrees with these ivory tower savants. This totalitarian impulse is not new, it is a foundational principle of the eugenicists and the core idea of socialism.
Aldous Huxley wrote about it in 1931. In the introduction to the 1946 edition of Brave New World, he said this:
Unless we choose to decentralize and to use applied science…as the means to producing a race of free individuals, we have only two alternatives to choose from: either a number of national, militarized totalitarianisms, having as their root the terror of the atomic bomb…or else one supra-national totalitarianism, called into existence by the social chaos…and developing, under the need for efficiency and stability, into the welfare-tyranny of Utopia.
All things considered, it looks as though Utopia were far closer to us than anyone, only fifteen years ago could have imagined. Today [in 1946] it seems quite possible that the horror may be upon us in a single century.
By the time he wrote Brave New World Revisited in 1958, he had though more on the subject of a world governing scientific dictatorship:
The older dictators fell because they could never supply their subjects with enough bread, enough circuses, enough miracles and mysteries. Nor did they possess a really effective system of mind-manipulation. In the past, free-thinkers and revolutionaries were often the products of the most piously orthodox education. This is not surprising. The methods employed by orthodox educators were and still are extremely inefficient. Under a scientific dictator education will really work – with the result that most men and women will grow up to love their servitude and will never dream of revolution. There seems to be no good reason why a thoroughly scientific dictatorship should ever be overthrown.
That appears to be the plan.