Throughout The Ministry For the Future, the author, Kim Stanley Robinson offers many different perspectives on how to solve the climate crisis. He does this through different characters, stories, and world events that happen in the various chapters. Two of the biggest perspectives that are shown in the novel are those from the two main characters, Mary and Frank. Mary, named after the biblical figure, works for a major world organization against climate change, the Ministry For the Future, and she believes that the most effective route to solving the problem is through legal legislative changes in world governments. Frank, however, believes that humanity needs to be more aggressive in their push for reform. Frank, when first confronting Mary about the main people responsible for climate change, says, “If they started to die, if a number of them were killed, then the others might get nervous and change their ways” (Robinson 99). Frank believes that the best way to change the world is to kill the people ruining it, as it will save millions of lives as a result.
As the story goes on, many events happen which would fit into both Mary and Frank’s ideology. For example, world leaders and rich people who play a large role in hurting the environment start getting assassinated through plane bombings. While this kills hundreds of civilians, the terrorist group is satisfied because it killed the target. As a result, people become scared and plane travel goes to a halt, which benefits the environment. While this tactic worked to improve the fight against climate change, I believe that it was an unjustified act. Killing one person does not stop their company or legislation from hurting the environment, as someone else will step in their place. The argument that it saves lives because of the damage avoided by killing the person is incorrect because that person’s company will still pollute. While this caused a temporary solution in the novel through scaring the public, it did not create a permanent, effective solution.
I think that in the end, Kim Stanley Robinson is trying to show that the most effective method to solving climate change is through major legislative changes and a change in how our society operates. One of the major reasons why countries actually started to change and cooperate in the climate crisis is because it started affecting them. For example, the US started having major heat waves in Arizona and Texas, causing millions of people to be affected. In the end, Robinson writes, “word had come in that the latest CO2 figures showed a global drop, a real global drop, which had nothing to do with the season, or the economy tanking—all that had been factored in, and still there was a drop” (445). This had been due in large part to “reforestation and the greening of the ocean shallows with kelp”, as well as to the carbon coin that was proposed by the Ministry. Robinson’s novel tries to show a positive and realistic way that humanity can deal with climate change, and I believe that it shows that Mary’s ideals are the best way to do it.
I agree with you in terms of Mary having the best ideas to solve the problem. The best way to enact change is through legislation by leaders who actually care. Frank symbolizes the radical problem solver. He believes that violence is the best way to enact the change. In reality, violence adds to the problem, supporting Mary’s sentiment on page 99 when she says, “Violence begets violence… It cycles forever.” However, since the world is so chaotic, there are several events in the book that fit both Mary and Frank’s perspectives. Mary’s employer, the Ministry of the Future, implements legislation for coal, although it is illegal. Even though this is illegal, it is still a non-violent way to enact change. Additionally, several terrorist attacks and killings take place, supporting Frank’s violent sentiments. Mary represents order, and Frank represents chaos. Order and chaos are on opposite ends of the natural law spectrum. In this novel, Mary and Frank demonstrate the conflicts of order and chaos in an attempt to save humanity from this spiraling comment crisis. I like what you said about Frank’s ideas being “temporary solutions” because all of the violence ultimately renders as ineffective in the end. Mary is ultimately correct, and Frank’s opposing perspective helps solidify this fact.
ReplyDeleteYour blog post complements discussions we have pursued in class on the role of governments and institutional authorities in fighting climate change. When viewed through the lens of Mary and Frank, Mary is clearly a woman in a position of institutional power. Through her work with the Ministry for the Future, Mary has the access to interact with world financial powers and establish impactful programs like the carbon coin. Yet even with her institutional authority, Mary struggles to access the urgency and humanity of the issues at hand until she is provoked by Frank. Frank represents the common people of the world, those most directly oppressed under current institutions and most exposed to climate change. It is Frank who implores Mary to do more with her power, insisting that "'you're not doing anything about it. Even with your job'" (96). Robinson's clear point in the juxtaposition of these two characters is that authority should work for the best interest of the people, yet it remains tragically out of touch with reality in current society. Through the narrative interactions of Mary and Frank, Robinson showcases the need for urgency and even the dismantling of our current governing bodies, as they are driven by profit for select individuals instead of the vital social and environmental progress that benefits all.
ReplyDeleteYou bring up a big part of the book in your blog post. Currently, the legal process makes change slow. That is the way it is designed. You want to discuss, debate, and come to a consensus on different topics. If change happens fast, there is not enough time to consider the pros and the cons. However, when it comes to a global crisis, in this case global warming, Kim Stanley Robinson proposes that going through legal processes may not be effective enough. He proposes that we may need black wings to kill the people destroying the environment. However, that will not stop companies from polluting or simply stop them from replacing those executives. Black wings will only be a stitch or band aid to the issue. He shows that the real way to make steady progress is for people to change their mindset. People need to realize that climate change is a real thing and should do something about it. Robinson says, “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” (29 - I have the online version so the numbers are different). People need to stop driving after profit and start caring about the environment. Once there is a mindset change, policies can be implemented such as the carbon coin and other environmental policies, which will lead to more steady progress towards reversing climate change.
ReplyDelete