As Kim Stanley Robinson’s novel, The Ministry for the Future progresses, Robinson makes it clear that humanity has the technology required to address climate change, but the key to successfully addressing climate change is to mobilize those resources towards the greater health of the planet instead of using them to maximize individual profit.
One of the many discussions that aren’t directly related to
the characters in the novel’s main narrative debates the extent that history is driven by technology. During that discussion, one of its actors
mentions that there are “drones developed to shoot mangrove seeds into mud flats,”
implying that humans will now rapidly reforest tropical areas because they have
the technology (458). The other actor argues the opposite, that “we are the
driving force of history,” and that “that same drone could shoot a dart through
your head” (457-8). The narrative is full of examples such as these where human
invention could be used for good or ill: pumping technology could be used to continue
oil drilling or for pumping water from the bottom of glaciers to slow ocean
slide, “fission materials” from nuclear weapons “could be used as energy fuel,
burned down to nothing” or they could remain deadly weapons, and so on (267,
481). Ultimately, if humanity wants to address the climate crisis, technology already exists to do just that, and if it doesn't,
human ingenuity will succeed in creating the necessary tools for the job. It all depends on how humanity mobilizes its efforts.
Robinson demonstrates that addressing the climate crisis is
not a matter of the tools that humanity has available, but rather, a problem with
humanity’s current mindset, a perspective which seeks to maximize profit for a
few rather than the global community’s well-being. Humanity’s current
understanding of economics seeks to maximize profit. However, to properly
address the climate crisis, “not profit, but biosphere health, should be the
function” which is maximized (166). In other words, humans must take up a
perspective which mobilizes their limited resources for the betterment of all
mankind, not grind out profit for a few. To do so requires mankind to live
within the earth’s environmental constraints such that “there is enough for all”
and there exists “a floor below which no one can fall; also a ceiling above
which no one can rise,” as opposed to using more resources than one needs to amass
more wealth than what is necessary to survive (58). While this may seem like a
lofty expectation, if this change in mindset occurred, humans would be living
within the earth’s means, and everyone would be the better for it. The planet
would survive. The novel ends with Mary, one of the novel’s protagonists, saying
“there is no such thing as fate” (563). By this she means that humans are not
destined to die, but to the contrary, will survive if they begin to prioritize
the planet’s health over the well being of a few. Earth’s doom at the hands of
climate change is not inevitable; humanity not only has the tools to avoid it
but also can change its mindset towards mobilizing those tools to that end.
Your blog post reminds me of our class discussion last week. Climate change is the biggest problem humans have been faced with in history, and there is not an easy solution. Although changes are being made in order to slow the progression, there is damage that is already done to our planet. Rather than it being on individual’s actions, as a society, there will have to be a collective effort in order for the human race to continue. As you mentioned, there will have to be a shift from individual’s desires being the priority, to the lives on earth now and the future people. A shift in perspective is crucial in order for any progress to be made as Robinson brings to light, “So the upshot of that equal division would be an improvement for all. Rich people would often snort at this last study, then go off and lose sleep over their bodyguards, tax lawyers, legal risks --- children crazy with arrogance, love not at all fungible --- over-eating and over indulgence generally, resulting health problems, ennui and existential angst --- in short, an insomniac faceplant into the realization that science was once again right, and that money couldn’t buy heath or love or happiness” (Robinson, 57). Humanity is not doomed, as is seen at points throughout the novel, but rather needs to make significant changes in order to survive.
ReplyDeleteI think your post addresses the crux of the issue: it’s not that people don’t possess the tools needed to combat climate change. It’s that they are not willing to take the actions needed to succeed at doing so. Our discussions in class with regards to The Guardian’s articles also echoed this theme. Throughout history, we have always had the tools needed to succeed at what humans set out to do. Whenever there hasn’t been adequate technology, people have developed it. However, the key driving force behind human progress has been motivation. Once citizens of the world have been motivated, they have achieved great feats historically, and continue to do so today. In the book, immediately after the Indian heat waves, the government of India began employing more stringent restrictions on climate change and deployed methods such as ariel spraying to control the climate. The difference between India in the novel and India in reality boils down to motivation: In the novel, India took reactive steps as they were motivated by high death tolls and international backlash, while currently, India has a need for cheap electricity regardless the source to fund its modernization. Every country has the tools needed to succeed, but the motivations behind their decisions are not always aligned with what the world needs overall.
ReplyDeleteI found that, while reading the novel, Robinson gives us both a cautionary tale and a proverbial smack on the wrists about our future with climate change. Like you've described, there's a lot of focus put on the fact that humanity itself brings about technological innovation. While technology does influence the course of history, it is much more accurate to say that the human usage of technology pushes civilization in one direction or another. Robinson talks a lot about how contradictory notions of technological progress are compared to the actions taken with said technological progress. One example of a group of people who actually make use of their technology to develop their world, and (hopefully) the whole world further, is India. Robinson shows India, the world's most densely populated country, and the one that experiences the worst of the heat wave, actually making change with their technological advancements. There's no added use of resources when they find more efficient ways to use them, and there's no failed attempts at using technologies to remedy the symptoms, not the problem. India works at the root of the global warming issue by making use of its technology to fundamentally change the parts of its society which helped attribute to it. Robinson shows that technology can be used for reform and societal change, not just remedies or supposed solutions to problems. It is up to humanity what they do with it.
ReplyDelete