Everything in life is instantaneous. Humans have become lost in a desire for speed, which causes detrimental setbacks to living a prosperous life in harmony with the climate of the Earth. As Kim Stanley Robinson reveals in his novel, The Ministry for the Future, solutions to the greedy economy and resulting destructive lifestyle lie in humanity’s history and past innovation.
Frank May, one of the novel’s main protagonists, thought about the energy consumption of different countries, and was struck by the knowledge that the United States. uses 12,000 watts of energy per person on average, as opposed to an ideal 2,000 watts. This wattage would aid in saving, or at least slowing the rapid destruction of, the Earth’s climate. The United States has this power-hungry reputation of being the “country, the great whale in this as in everything, slurping down the world.” (196) It is ironic that Robinson utilizes a whale analogy to depict the negative impact the country has on its own environment, as the ocean and the sea life within it are included in that which is destroyed in the Earth's mass energy consumption. Robinson commonly uses these types of contradictions to help the reader internalize effects on humanity in a striking way. So, what solution does Robinson suggest through his futuristic novel of science-fiction? Turns out, his solution is the opposite of futuristic.
Mary Murphy, the novel’s second protagonist, is frequently engaging in global travel. Toward the end of the novel it’s explained that container ships, particularly from Swiss ownership, have been a recent target of eco-terrorism due to their CO2 emissions. Immediately, the Swiss started to come up with alternate ideas to save their dying fleet of ships, and the “first attempt at transitioning to ships the saboteurs wouldn't sink involved altering the ones that already existed.” (417) Ideas included electric motors, and the most radical because of its sacrifice of speed: large sails for wind power. By using wind power to move large ships across the oceans, energy consumption equalizes at where it would if an individual was spending a regular day at home. Mary is fond of a trip she takes on this new ship from Lisbon to New York, even if it was nine days long, because she was able to take a break and check items off her to-do list. She questions where “this obsession with speed had come from, why [everyone had] caved to it so completely[.]” (419) The answer is the lifestyle the market encourages. The United States economy has made speed, no matter the consequences, the norm. Robinson aims to bring light to this situation through Mary’s experience to show that a slower lifestyle can be enjoyable and beneficial to the Earth as a whole.
Overall, The Ministry for the Future brings light to a variety of issues that constitute the world today, and showcases that with proper recognition and implementation of previous innovation, society can take two steps forward by taking one step back.
This idea resonates with Robinson's observation, as conveyed by Fredric Jameson, that it's “[e]asier to imagine the end of the world than the end of capitalism” (28). Western powers, deeply rooted in their pursuit of supremacy and control, seem inherently averse to relinquishing their dominant positions. The demise of capitalism would mean a level playing field, something I find hard to imagine us embracing willingly. Our history is marked by an entrenched sense of pride and selfishness that obstructs such a transition. I agree with Frank's assertion that "America . . . is the main problem" (489). Our upbringing in a capitalist economy places profit-seeking above long-term sustainability, fostering the exploitation of natural resources, escalating greenhouse gas emissions, and the production of environmentally detrimental goods. As Robinson highlights, America's fixation on wealth accumulation makes it improbable to redirect our priorities. Our success as a capitalist powerhouse has propelled our economy far beyond that of other nations, yet we fail to equitably distribute this prosperity due to an ingrained belief in the necessity of "earning it." Despite increased discourse surrounding climate change's impacts and the implementation of various technologies and strategies to mitigate these effects, it remains insufficient. We all talk about climate change and the detrimental effects it has on the environment and still here we are with multiple corporations unwillingly to change. People are stubborn and like I’ve said in class, no one is ever going to be happy or satisfied no matter what we do. There is never going to be a global agreement because we are human beings with free will and varying beliefs and morals.
ReplyDelete