Link is to the interview in German. Google translation here.Here's the money quote (cleaned up Google translation):
Q: But isn't any attempt to solve the fundamental ecological problem doomed because this is a debate among the elites?
Dr
If you ask: Will there be a majority for sacrifice in order to prevent a child's Exodus
(sic!) he probably intended to say 'Exitus'
in the distant future, the initial answer will be 'no.'
But key questions such as these, as well as human rights issues should be regulated in the Constitution. That would imply that there would be judges ruling against a majority, provided that this ruling is correct according to our constitutional consensus. Thus you will also need a few people who represent an ethical elite.
My spider sense is telling me that coincidentally Schellnhuber himself will be among the
In the end, problems involving causal distance, like climate change, will not be solved with the support of a broad majority.
Western constitutions protect the individual's civil and human rights against an overreaching government and also against a possibly abusive democratic majority.
A self appointed elite is supposed to be given unchecked power. They're supposed to rule in the name of an unfalsifiable pseudoscientific ideology.
They're supposed to be given arbitrary absolute power over the individual.
This is exactly what constitutionally enshrined rights and limits to government power are supposed to prevent.
In the (not so) olden days the word for 'ethical elite' was 'politburo.'