In the book, some groups represent violence, such as the Black Wing in The Ministry for the Future, the Children of Kali, the secret Organization Frank May met. There are similar organizations like CIA, MI6 and KGB in real life. Is having such organizations a must in a revolution? In other words, is having violence a must?
Violence is a threat that forces change. Even though it was not moral to kill random rich people to reduce carbon emission, the world got rid of airplanes in one night because of the drone attack. It could take much longer if people tried to negotiate peacefully. Similarly, Saudis were erased from their countries, which accelerated the promotion of carbon coins and kept the coal in the ground.
Violence brings death. Death brings actions. Actions sometimes get good results. If Frank May did not experience the heatwave in India and did not see everyone around him die near the lake, he would not kill. He did not achieve much by killing one climate criminal, but he greatly impacted Mary Murphy's life. After Tatiana's death, Mary felt more determined to make more changes in the world by creating global citizenship and combating terrorism.
Violence is how ordinary people gain negotiation power. Mary Murphy is an opponent of violence. She had a different set of problems to consider. She needed to incorporate economy, ecology, geology and technology into her proposals. She had the power to change because she is the head of the ministry. However, ordinary people like the members of Children of Kali do not have that power. They got a seat on the table by creating violence.
Violence is a natural reaction. As discussed above, Mary Murphy loves peace, but she even turned to violence when she encountered death. When Tatiana died, Mary told Badim that "when we find them, we'll kill them" (453). Anger naturally leads humans to violence. It's normal to have the tendency. We should not accuse the members of these organizations because violence is the probability their only tool to express anger and agony.
Of course, violence could be catastrophic. The Children of Kali argued, "The worst criminals are not dead, there are many more of them... They always find replacements." (390) They were unwilling to stop at the end, they were just killing to kill. Excessive violence creates disorder in society. I believe, violence, in its best form, should impose pressure without causing much damage.
Violence is definitely a common tactic in revolutions that is used to increase the speed at which political and ideological changes take place. The targeted murders done by drone attacks and secret groups in the novel were effective in creating lasting change through the severity of the consequences of those acts. The drone attacks on airplanes were effective in greatly reducing flights within a day, which shows the power of violence to create quick changes in society. The attack was also effective in showing the world the climate related dangers of flying. Robinson says about the attack, “One message was fairly obvious: stop flying” (Robinson 228). In this case, violence resulted in the effect wanted by the attackers which was to reduce carbon burn by limiting flying.
ReplyDeleteIn the case of climate change, the speed of change is a big factor that influences the decisions of these groups. I interpreted their violent actions to mean that the global climate catastrophe is such an imminent threat that normal moral rules no longer apply. However, you were correct in saying that excessive violence only causing distress to a society. I think that some examples of violence in the novel were effective in putting pressure on people to change, such as financial pressures, but outright violence can also cause harm to a society.
The concept from the novel of violence becoming the “answer” for solving the massive implications caused by neglecting to listen to the scientific warnings of the harmful effects of carbon emissions is a fascinating insight into what reality might look like as climate change implications become more frequent and severe. The Black Wings, the Children of Kali, and other secret organizations act in swift violent ways to stop major actors in global pollution. The discussion from class about “good” terrorists and “bad” terrorists is a valid point to make when discussing this predicament from the novel. Is it morally acceptable to condone violence if that means more human life is saved as a result of that violence? The Ministry For The Future, does a phenomenal job at portraying a future in which violent actors act as global saviors by taking matters into their own hands in the form of violent acts against the carbon emitters who refuse to comply with achieving a carbon neutral globe. The idea that there is an appropriate time and place for violence is hard to wrap one’s head around, however, the novel helps the audience understand why it might be the better alternative to no action at all. Until unrestrained capitalism is eliminated, violence from these eco terrorist groups is one of the best solutions for saving the most human life in the end.
ReplyDeleteAs we know when people close to us die, we go through the stages of grief. It is common for anger to be one of those. As you mentioned in Mary’s case she briefly made that turn to violence when Tatiana died. If one were to put themselves in the shoes of those in this futuristic world, seeing so many people around you dying, friends and family, knowing that you will keep losing people you care about and lives will continue to be lost as a result of the actions of those in power- they could see how people would turn to violence. As you said- death brings actions, and that is clear in the book when they say, “I wanted the world to suffer like we had” (144). The suffering and loss that occurs throughout the novel was bound to lead to violence. These people had to be stopped, had to feel what their victims were feeling, but of course it begs the question- is violence the right answer. Logically one can connect the dots of how one thing led to the other, but does it really make anything better. Mary’s eyes may have been opened, but as we saw she briefly considered violence. In the case of someone less compassionate this would all just end in a bloodbath either way. So, it is now in our hands to find the better way to make change, before it goes too far.
ReplyDeleteYour analysis of violence both in the novel and in real life are as complex and on target as Robinson intended. Robinson does not commit to a side in his novel, instead opting to explore the changes both the legal (and “ethical”) route and the vigilante (violent) route can cause. Chapter 33 is written from the point of view of a member of the Children of Kali. This allows the audience to analyze the mindset of someone who would kill people to get results. Robinson doesn’t write these people as blind murders engulfed by rage and bloodlust. Quite the opposite, actually. The member of the organization goes into describes how they handle the risk of killing innocent people: “the only thing we worried about was what the guilty ones always call collateral damage. In other words, the accidental killing of innocents to kill your target. The guilty do it all the time, it's one sign of their guilt, but we don't. It's a principle. […] If to kill one hundred guilty you had to kill one innocent, no. It’s against the law” (Robinson 136). This ideology sits firmly in the gray area Robinson explores throughout the novel, always circling back to one of the central ideas: do the ends justify the means? Is killing some people to save others fair? This is the side in opposition to Mary and The Ministry. The Children of Kali and their use of violence allows Robinson to offer up another side of the debate without firmly saying “yes, this is okay” or “no, violence is never the answer”.
ReplyDeleteThe question posed in this blog is very important because it is so prevalent throughout the book. The black wing and the Children of Khali are both great examples of groups that work outside of the normal moral box. The children of khali use violence to make a difference in the problem of global warming. The question that comes to my mind is how should society balance the protection of human rights and the protection of our earth. I do not think there is an exact answer to this question within the book. Throughout Robinson’s work, there is not a balance. It is different groups working on their own to carry out their desires of change. I agree that seeing mass death changes people and their moral compass. I have never experienced the trauma that Frank experienced in India, so I do not know how my views might change. There is a definite shift in Frank’s character though. I also think the violence experienced from the Children of Khali is unprecedented because the book says, “And the Children of Khali are not going away until all the guilty are gone” (137). This statement is nearly impossible to fulfill in that everyone is guilty of contributing to global warming in some way or another.
ReplyDelete