Environmental theory and collection of ideas/Political environmentalism warning

Politics could change the world much, but accordingly, politics is not without risks. Many interests collide there and people are competing there with all their talents, which is not always ethical. Politicians can make people believe that other politicians are worse than they are in reality, so the people would hate politicians more, which would make things worse. Politicians can also mislead or trick people to win support, which would make the way of a righteous politician harder. Generally, politicians are just as good as human nature is, that is why it is not advantegous for an enlightened person to compete with them. If an enlightened person wants to change politics, it may be enough for him/her to share thoughts and ideas, and if those thoughts and ideas are proper, probably there will be people who use them anyway. It is better for a politician to consider a philosopher's idea than to make a biased decision, and it is better for philosophers, too, if their ideas are double-filtered by politicians.

In a democracy, political power is just for 4–5 years, which is not as secure as the power of a wealthy person. That's why it seems to be more noble to seek economic power instead of political one. A wealthy person can hide more easily than either a politician or a celebrity, which may be important in the age of technology. The life of the wealthy is desired, because they do not have to work if they do not want to, and they can satisfy their desires easily. The life of politicians, on the other hand, is many times about struggle and danger, at least in those ages when mankind is not meek enough.

If a politician makes an error, then many people will hate him for it, but if a wealthy person makes an error, he/she usually loses only money. To be unsuccessful, however, is not always the same as to make errors, so it is possible that the people will hate a politician even if that politician is good, e.g. if it is a necessity that the living standards fall, and politicians cannot do anything to prevent it from falling.

A politician usually has to follow the philosophy of a party, but a rich person can choose his/her own philosophy. This, however, does not need to be the case in an ideal political system where it would be a civil right to enter into and remain in any party, and the elections inside parties would be democratic . However, we do not live in such an ideal political system, so it is probably better for a free mind to be rich than to be a politician.

Politicians should usually make an oath, and the text of the oath may be imperfect or it may demand too much from a righteous person. This, however, does not need to be the case in an ideal political system, where no oath should be made, only obligations shall be formulated. However, we do not live in such an ideal political system, so it is probably better for a righteous person to be rich than to be a politician.

In a small country, the power of the politicians is bounded by international agreements just like the power of the rich is bounded by laws. If people have to act according to fix rules anyway, then it is more worth in a small country of being rich than to be a politician because a rich person can affect not only one country, but other countries, too.

The rich can decide freely whether to invest their capital into environmentalism. Countries, however, are obligated to do what is the will of the people anyway, and they cannot differ from it much...

Call for more arguments to support or disprove this theory or ideas!