The Ministry for the Future encompasses a future with the detrimental effects of climate change. The novel forecasts what the future will look like given the current state of the world, especially given countries that contribute more to pollution worldwide. Within the novel, Robinson poses the question, “A just civilization of eight billion, in balance with the biosphere’s production of the things we need; how would that look? What laws would create it? And how can we get there fast enough to avoid a mass extinction?” (321)
In this portion of the novel, Robinson is urging readers to examine how the future would look given the population at hand. Throughout the book Robinson mentions how capitalism has been a root cause for many of the current economic problems, including climate change. In doing so, Robinson argues that having enough is a basic human right. He states, “To be clear, concluding in brief: there is enough for all. So there should be no more people living in poverty. And there should be no more billionaires. Enough should be a human right, a floor below which no one can fall; also a ceiling above which no one can rise. Enough is as good as a feast - or better” (pg. 58). Robinson reasons with the idea of each individual deserving the basic necessities to live. He concludes that having “enough should be a human right” and that as a result there “should be no more people living in poverty.” Overall, Robinson’s argument regarding climate change revolves around the equality aspect of human rights in terms of wealth.
Additionally, to demonstrate to readers Robinson argues about the wage discrepancies. When talking about large corporations he states, “The top executives in these companies earn in ten minutes what it takes their starting employees all year to earn” (83). With this at hand, he is stating to his readers that large corporations are giving big payouts that are more than “enough” to big executives when it is not needed. As result this ties into the question he poses about the avoidance of mass extinction. If individuals do not have enough, which Robinson relates to a “feast,” then it would be hard to avoid a mass extinction because individuals are not being treated as equal. Additionally, after the occupation, Frank states “Of course, there is always resistance, always a drag on movement toward better things” (248). Robinson acknowledges that there will always be a group of individuals who are going to resist avoiding mass extinction, and additionally it will cause the movement towards a solution to be slowed down. All in all, answering how the world would look like given the goal of balancing the biosphere’s production of the things we need and understanding the basis of economics in each country, as well as challenges such as resistance, is what Robinson contemplates within the novel.
Your blog post reminded me of a discussion we had in class last week. While, of course, the ultimate goal is to save our planet for future generations, we can not lose sight of the people who are currently on earth. As you mentioned, capitalism is in a large part, the cause of climate change. In capitalism, there will always be people at the top who have a vast sum of money, as well as people who live in poverty. With this, there is an inequality in society that is seen throughout the novel. Robinson explains, “Possibly some of the richest two percent of the world’s population have decided to give up on the pretense that “progress” or development” or “prosperity” can be achieved for all eight billion of the world’s people” (Robinson, 57). Robinson gives the perspective that the wealthiest people in the world do not care about the collective wellbeing, solely about themselves. As the novel progresses, he continues to show that without a joint desire to improve the earth, no progress will be made. If there are people in the world who only care about their wealth, and in general, themselves, there will be no real change made, especially without the expense of human lives, who do not have the same resources as the top two percent.
ReplyDeleteI think you wrote a very strong post about how Robinson has built an argument throughout his novel that capitalism is largely to blame for the extent of climate change, but I also think it is worth noting the extent of the blame Robinson places on human nature and the tendency of individuals to struggle to work together to resolve the issue of climate change. Robinson writes, "There is no single solution adequate to the task. And so what can we expect to see? Failure" (505). Shortly after he adds "Such as the way like- minded people working to solve the same problem will engage in continuous civil war with each other over methods, thus destroying their chances of success" (505). Robinson's initial statement shows his lack of belief in people to solve the issue of climate change saying all the current solutions are hopeless. He doesn't think that each of the individualistic solutions people have created are adequately going to address the climate problem. Robinson's view that the lack of cooperation and exchange of ideas between individuals is a significant roadblock to solving climate change is exemplified in his second statement. He implies that everyone is solely fighting for their idea rather than working together to work towards the best idea. The effort which is being wasted on conflict to see whose idea will actually be implemented is the reason that nothing has been implemented yet.
ReplyDeleteI think you do a good job at summarizing Robinson's point of view, as well as demonstrating the answer to his question, "What would it look like?". The idea that the creation of a feast, where everything is equal aligns with his Marxist views. I think you highlighted the value of his point and the message he is trying to get across. You show that he thinks it would have to look like a world where no one is above another. Everything everyone would have would need to be equal, and no one could possess more or less over another. While, in theory, this makes sense, it is important to recognize that methods like this have been attempted before, and resulted in massive failures, and also caused many additional problems. To enact something such as this, which appears like Communism, people would need to take into account what does and does not work from it, and learn from history to see what they should not do. Factors of communism do appear to present a possible solution to the problem when explained by Robinson, however, it has been proven before that Communism does not work. Additionally, maybe people, especially in the United States, oppose it. So even if it was the "saving grace", it would be hard to get an entire nation on board with the idea. Therefore, I personally think it would need to look like something different, and utilize methods more people are able to align with. However, I am not sure what that method would be, and I think that consideration about this needs to take place first, before people adopt a full-blown communist regime.
ReplyDelete