The Ministry for the Future by Kim Stanley Robinson explores the idea that real change is inspired by drastic measures sparked by violent actions or extreme events. Time and time again, Robinson hammers into the readers that change is needed, but no one is acting, "Everyone alive knew that not enough was being done, and everyone kept doing too little"(228). These acts serve as wake-up calls that compel the individuals at the top that can start real change to do so.
One instance is when Frank kidnapped Mary, who is the head of The Ministry for the Future. In an act of extreme desperation, Frank took matters into his own hands, resorting to the drastic measure of kidnapping to force a direct confrontation with a key decision-maker in global environmental policy. By holding Mary captive, Frank aimed to emphasize the gravity of the situation and demand immediate action which was not presently being taken by the ministry. This intrusion was a desperate call for action, conveying the frustration and urgency felt by those who believed that the current efforts were not enough. Frank's extreme actions highlighted the failure of the ones in power to bring about meaningful change. After this ensued, Mary more urgently brough about change through the ministry. There was more effort on her side to push those in power to do the right thing: stop carbon emissions. Robinson showed that sometimes it takes disruptive and extreme acts to make those with the power to change, to realize what is at stake.
Another instance is when the terrorist group, The Children of Kali, fly drones in commercial flights to riot against the dangerously ensuing carbon emissions ignored by the world. By utilizing drones to obstruct flight paths, The Children of Kali sought to disrupt the routine and force the world to realize the environmental consequences of unchecked carbon emissions. The chaos served as a wake-up call, compelling individuals to reconsider their high carbon-footprint lifestyles, "Later it was shown that clouds of small drones had been directed into the flight paths of the planes involved, fouling their engines... stop flying. And indeed many people stopped. Before that day, there had been half a million people in the air at any given moment. Afterward that number plummeted"(229). The decline in air travel following the incident reflects the potential impact of extreme events in awakening public consciousness and pressuring society to reevaluate its unsustainable practices. This was done by making climate change a problem of the present, not of the future. Since the people of the world were forced to have immediate consequences rather than talks of future downfall, they were more eager to fight against carbon emissions. Although the way it was done, was struck from fear. Robinson shows that the immediate fear was far more effective in creating change then the far, out of reach, doom that was not directly hindering the average person.
Multiple events highlighted in the book show that drastic measures spark motivation for change. Without the problem right in the face of those with the power to enact policies and change the world, they can become complacent, without the urgency needed to keep the world and people safe.
I completely agree with the notion that in order to provoke change or force people to actually act, strict measures must be taken. Along with this theme, I would argue that the idea of “actions speak louder than words” is extremely prevalent. For example, Mary’s role, at least initially, revolves around the law, which relies on attempting to fix climate change using words and written legislation. Yet, a law cannot truly be productive or impactful if it is not strictly enforced. While laws are not necessarily completely useless, much more action is needed, given the gravity of the situation. Robinson writes, “Words are gossamer in a world of granite” (352). This perfectly encapsulates the idea that words are fragile and easily malleable, when compared to the rough reality of the world in which climate change is so dreadful. Frank is a vital driving force in order to actually make some tangible impact with the impending threat of climate change. He recognizes that unless something is done physically and forcefully, the situation will only worsen.
ReplyDeleteI agree that it seems that the people need to resort to extreme actions to see results, but this opens a greater conversation that should be explored as what those limits are, and who the collateral damage should be limited to. As we have seen in both real life and in The Ministry for the Future, while drastic action may gain the attention of those in power, it also creates a vacuum for punishment that continues to marginalize the community who is demanding for rights. In class discussions, some students champion the idea of "eco-terrorism" and when analyzing this word, it is interesting to see the difference in connotation when describing what is essentially terrorism. In an article published by IU's Khalil Azar, he says, "Also,
ReplyDeletethe perceived political grievances of occupation, poverty... are often
precursors to terrorism. The reasons for the complaints
by the aggrieved parties are based on factual evidence,
as well as beliefs, or are fabricated by the strong" (1).
Now, it is clear that the results of climate change is not evidence fabricated by the strong, but rather the voice of the majority based on factual evidence. What is more interesting is that if terrorism is connotated with negative labels only, why might we not push for the label "uprising" or "civil war" or "earth fighters". Even mainstream media pushes the idea of eco-terrorism, full knowing the extreme negative implication of the word terrorism.