The novel creates an “us” vs “them” mentality. Whether Robinson states that “the top executives in these companies earn in ten minutes what it takes their starting employees all year to earn” or critiquing the concept of billionaires, you’re supposed to route for the Ministry of the Future, or the ones actually trying to save the planet. On “Crash Day” sixty passenger jets were essentially attacked with one message “stop flying” (228). Even though these were disproportionately private jets, some were passenger ones. Thousands of innocent lives lost. But it did essentially stop flights, which is a huge polluter. As readers, we are left to think if this was necessary. In a time like that, zombie years as they’re called, we can put ourselves in that mindset. That it is logical to do whatever it takes to save the future, to save the planet. It’s not good, killing innocent people, but if you can also take out big polluters, is it worth it?
Robinson also poses these elites as climate change “mass murderers.” On page 99, even though Mary is opposed to violence, Frank believes that is the only way to solve this climate issue because, without reactionary violence, you’re only allowing elitist violence to continue. We see these polluters and big businesses doing the absolute most to not stop climate change in our current age. We think of our Robert Murdachs and our Jeff Bezoses who only accumulate wealth at the expense of the population. A lot of people today don’t bat an eye when it comes to what they’re doing to ruin our environment. But in the novel, these elite few are still polluting the earth without consequence (to them): “they still burned carbon. They drove cars, ate meat, flew in jets, did all the things that had caused the heatwave and would cause the next one” (228). To get legislation done and get people to start listening to climate change, do we need to go to the extreme? Do we need to create a counter group like the MotF in order to get people in line? Robinson advocates for the use of violence and anger as a tool for change. There aren’t any “good guys,” but when change needs to be brought about through violence, you have to root for the morally grey.
I really like the way you explain the concept of “morally grey.” In this futuristic world of order and chaos, it is very difficult to define what is truly right and what is truly wrong. Even though Mary loves peace, her employer still enacted an illegal legislation, and even she desired for violence after the death of Tatiana. After Tatiana dies, Mary states, “when we find them, we’ll kill them” (453). Mary knows this violence is not moral, nor is it the proper way to deal with this problem. Yet in this moment, it seems like the right answer. Additionally, while conveying the conflicting opinions on how to deal with the disintegrating climate, Robinson also points out how socioeconomic inequality places a factor. There are so many problems described in this novel. Therefore, it is extremely difficult for every single issue to have a just, moral solution. Frank believes violence is the answer because it stops elitists from murdering the climate when they can just be murdered themselves instead. I like the hypothetical question you pose when you ask, “It’s not good, killing innocent people, but if you can also take out big polluters, is it worth it?” In other words, what is the quality of a single life for the greater good of the economy? What best solves the problem is not always what is moral. Morally grey is a perfect concept for this novel because problems need to be solved, but they must never lose sight of humanity.
ReplyDeleteWhile reading this novel, I kept going back and forth on whether or not violence is "right" in this sort of scenario, but like you said, the issue is morally grey. There is no true "right" or "wrong", especially not in a universal sense. The morality of resorting to violence often depends on your individual perspective and the stakes of whatever you are fighting for. In this situation, progress is not being made when efforts are being made peacefully, so violence really does seem like the only option left. I do not think that violence is the "right" choice in terms of morality, but I do think that in this situation violence is the "right" choice in that it is the only option that will produce the desired result. It is a sad situation to be placed in, but it is better than the loss of life that may occur from inaction.
ReplyDelete