Over the course of The Ministry for the Future, Kim Stanley Robinson imagines a future where the devastating effects of climate change wreak havoc on the world. The book details the international Ministry for the Future, which is tasked with “defending all living creatures present and future who cannot speak for themselves, by promoting their legal standing and physical protection” (16). Robinson’s pervasive idealism and creative postulations beg the question: how much is enough? Robinson argues that this concept of “enough,” a veritable human right, cannot be achieved when both the ultra-wealthy and the impoverished exist (58); therefore, “enough” occurs when one has the means to support oneself without harming others.
First, it is important to clarify what constitutes “enough.”
Enough, to Robinson, occurs when “all the necessities for a good life are
abundant enough so that everyone alive could have them” (58). Robinson further
elaborates on this by detailing the necessary requirements that everyone ought
to have access to: “food, water, shelter, clothing, health care, education… [and]
security” (58). With Earth’s current natural resources, theoretically enough
resources exist to secure these basic needs for the global population. However,
due to the uneven distribution of wealth, shelter, and food, significant
portions of the population live in poverty and are unable to sustain
themselves.
With this definition in mind, it is important to explore the
ramifications of not having enough. In the opening scene, Robinson details a
poignant scene in which a heat wave linked to climate change kills many people
in Uttar Pradesh, India (2). Robinson notes that “people were dying faster than
ever. There was no coolness to be had” (12). In this eviscerating chapter, those
without access to the necessities are particularly exposed to the effects of
climate change. Through the widespread quietus, Robinson illustrates how
poverty reflects insufficient resources to cope with one’s environment. This
depiction of poverty continues throughout the book as Mary notes the “thirty
poorest countries” which included “at least ten so-called failed states,” “immiserate[ed]
people,” and “wicked problems” (482). Once again, the lack of access to
resources to secure basic needs manifests itself as poorer nations are particularly
affected by world events. Robinson explicates that these countries do not have “enough”
because they lack the resources to sustain themselves or their people.
The abject deprivation of poverty is contrasted with the
wealth of those with means. Specifically, Robinson points to the culpability of
the rich: “they still burned carbon. They drove cars, ate meat, flew in jets,
did all the things that had caused the heat wave and would cause the next one”
(228). In essence, through their carelessness and unsustainability, the wealthy
are responsible for the deaths in the Indian heat wave. In this
way, Robinson reiterates his point that enough “should be a human right, a
floor below which no one can fall; also a ceiling above which no one can rise”
(58). Because the wealthy harmed others, Robinson asserts they have more than
enough–rather, they have too much.
I’m thinking back to the psychology class I took my freshman year of high school — more specifically, Maslow’s hierarchy of needs, which Robinson seems to be clearly referencing on page 58. The hierarchy is a layered pyramid of things a person needs in order to reach their full potential (self-actualization), and, ideally, each level must be fulfilled before the next can begin. At the base of this pyramid are physiological needs: food, water, warmth, and rest. Immediately above physiological needs are safety and security, and Maslow then groups these tiers into the category of basic needs. He asserts that these things are vital and must be achieved before the next category of psychological needs, which includes things like belonging, love, and self-esteem.
ReplyDeleteI want to attempt to answer the question in context of the hierarchy: how much is enough? Is it enough for a person to have access to food, but only in the form of one meal a day? Or if a person must filter rainwater in order for their water to be safe to consume? Speaking in the most technical terms, yes, these things are “enough.” They satisfy the lowest tier of the hierarchy, but satisfaction is not equity. The bare minimum is not a quality of life.
And I think this is a crux of Robinson’s points. I think he even goes as far as to accuse the wealthy to think in terms of technicality solely when it isn’t to their detriment (228). It’s a clear cognitive dissonance, another freshman year psych concept — it’s only a problem when it negatively affects me personally.
This question of enough greatly stands out to me, given the ever increasing wealth disparity among developed and developing nations as well as even within the United States. As you and Robinson bring up, the difficulty with defining enough is the fact that everyone has different definitions depending on their familial history and current status in careers, their societies, political ideologies etc. I think one of the greatest flaws in the ways our current global market operates lies within the notion of scarcity. I believe that in order to fix many of the underlying problems attributed to these disparities we must realize there is enough. Human greed appears to be inevitable and therefore the idea of scarcity is inevitable yet as Robinson’s book implies, if we do not fix our current way of operating by stripping the earth of its resources and exploiting impoverished populations, we are doomed.
ReplyDeleteA passage which does an excellent job of representing this sentiment comes in Chapter 45 when Mary is speaking to bank representatives. She remarks, “If we don’t fund a rapid carbon drawdown, if we don’t take the immense amount of capital that flows around the world looking for the highest rate of return and redirect it into decarbonizing work, civilization could crash. Then the dollar will be weak indeed” (188). In this passage she is demonstrating the fact that there will be an end to the current system if actions are not made with the environment in mind. In other words those constantly seeking growth must reckon with enough before there is nothing.