Deforestation in Brazil was almost stopped when Bolsonaro came into office and has surged since then. For me this is one of the primary reasons why i worry about the future of our civilisation: every nature reserve, every protected animal, every small victory against ecological destruction can so easily be lost again.

Those who wish to protect must be on guard every day and win every fight.

Those who wish to destroy must only win once and can choose the best time.

As they say, the price of liberty is eternal vigilance.

It's worth it.

There are ways to construct constitutions such that no one person in a democracy has the power to do this much damage. E.g. only a multi-participatory and diverse parliament—and crucially not any government; especially not any president—has the power to enact laws which can cause such a damage.

In a successful democracy, the people don’t have the option to vote them self a dictator.

Switzerland is perhaps an example of this. There's no president — the head of the federal government is a 7-member Federal Council elected by the parliament, with representation proportional to parliament. This means that politics is generally more consensus-driven and less subject to extreme views.

Swiss politics also makes heavy use of referendums, and any aspect of federal/cantonal/local law can be decided in a referendum if there's enough support.

https://www.eda.admin.ch/aboutswitzerland/en/home/politik/ue...

Note: I am a recent transplant to Switzerland so I'm still learning the ways in which the Swiss system has advantages and, crucially, disadvantages (I'd guess stalemate/slow progress are some).

There are quite a few theoretical disadvantages to the Swiss system, including what you mentioned. The surprising thing is though, when I compare to all other systems, I don't see that much of stalemate or progress gap. So even without understanding why, it seems to me it gets somehow evened out.

One of the core beliefs I have for understanding the world is that equality is an unstable equilibrium.

Imagine an almost perfectly balanced democracy where everyone has nearly equal agency and power. At some point, maybe at the political level of brownian motion, someone will have a tiny edge. They will naturally use that bit of extra power to garner a little more power. Because the most useful thing to with a little extra power is always to capture some more.

Compound that over many iterations and your democracy is dead.

Thus, I believe that all systems of equality and democracy need active, constant recalibration to maintain fairness. There is no perfectly written constitution that you can set in motion like clockwork and have it run flawlessly forever. There is no static equilibrium, but you can have dynamic equilibrium. Constant vigilance.

> One of the core beliefs I have for understanding the world is that equality is an unstable equilibrium.

I think this has been statistically proven[1]. So I should probably add that in addition to a well crafted constitution that prevents any single party from enacting a damaging law, such a constitution needs to be revised or rewritten whenever a single party has been deemed to gain such power.

Revising and rewriting the constitution needs to be done with the utmost care off course and have ample democratic safeguards to prevent a dictator.

A true democracy has the power to revise its constitution when that constitution is no longer able to protect the democracy it defines from a dictator.

---

1. Almost 10 years ago I learned D3 by building an interactive graph testing this in a game of capitalism. After a few rounds of completely fair zero-sum trades where all parties start with the same amount, the bulk of the wealth will always accumulate on few hands.

https://runarberg.github.io/paelingar/kapitalisk-audsofnun/

Do you have a source of this happening? This is from a report about Indonesia (http://www.fao.org/3/a-i7696e.pdf).

> Large plantations cultivate export crops on about 15 percent of the total agricultural area, but the majority of farmers (68 percent) are smallholders operating on less than one hectare.

Indonesia's population is still growing. If you're an uneducated farmer in a large family with a small farm, the only option you have to make a living may be to work in a palm oil plantation.

Are you sure the word is dispossessed here? Were those farmers working on their own land, and then had it taken away from them by force without payment?

Yes.

Armed thugs, rape, fired crops, ... everything.

How should those people living in the wild area get better life (education, medication, etc) for their next generation?

I saw the same thing in Latin America: farmers dispossessed by banana plantations.