In Kim Stanley Robinson's novel, The Ministry for the Future, the author contemplates the future of the Earth with the steady rise in climate change dooming the world. Robinson argues that most of the world lives in a reactive state, where people do not act until something terrible happens. America is a prime example.
The United States government is "one of the most reactionary in the world" (Robinson 286), but only when it comes to internal threats. For example, Robinson showcases worldwide tragic events such as a heat wave in India that kills twenty million people. This natural hazard is historical because there are more deaths "than in the entirety of the First World War" (Robinson 23). Something to this magnitude should get the world's attention, but this event is like "mass shootings in the United States- mourned by all, deplored by all, and then immediately forgotten or superseded by the next one" (Robinson 25). Americans had minimal reactions to this catastrophe since it was not close to home, even though it was "Europe and America and China who caused this heat wave… no one else is fulfilling commitments" (Robinson 19).
In stark contrast, when Los Angeles, California, has intense rainfall causing a flood that kills over seven thousand people, Americans finally realize the severity of climate change. Robinson writes, "[California's government] and the US Federal government…both were making efforts to help. Love it or hate it, LA was important to them" (Robinson 286). The U.S. responds when its citizens are harmed, but when millions of people worldwide are dying from their actions, they do nothing to help.
In the end, the United States serves as a bystander in the efforts to combat climate change until internal threats occur. This situation is ironic because the United States is a top contributor to carbon emissions. These arguments contribute to Frank May's opinion that "America…is the main problem" (Robinson 489). Altogether, this narrative is a science fiction novel, and many of the book's events and scenarios are not far off what could happen in the future. As a result, Robinson wrote this novel to help generate conversations in the political and scientific community about the kinds of change needed for the world not to end due to climate change.
I also believe that the main point that Robinson makes about America in the novel is that our nation is reactive rather than proactive. Though the majority of the events of the novel occur outside of America, Robinson makes a point to identify America as a central identity in the climate change crisis. America is the face of western civilization, one might even call it the pseudo leader. Therefore, America being reactive in the novel and the negative implications of that reactiveness is Robinson's way of proving how detrimental America is to the world in the scope of climate crisis. Robinson does this mainly to parallel the real world, where America is at the forefront of issues but chooses to not act before a crisis, only after it.
ReplyDeleteThere is also an extension of the example of Los Angeles in reference to this idea of American complacency that can be made. Los Angeles is a city that drives enormous profit for America, especially America's elite class. The sudden notion of America caring about Los Angeles may not be just because it's an internal threat, but because it is a monetary threat. The novel constantly references that those in power only care about their own interests and money, and LA is important this system.
I agree that America is a reactionary country, but that it only reacts when there is a severe and widely accepted problem. What prevents America from being more forward thinking is also what has allowed America to remain a democracy for so long: checks and balances. These checks on power prevent any one person or branch of government from becoming too powerful. However, they also make it significantly harder to create change in the government. The current two-party system also doesn’t help. This country is nearly a fifty-fifty split between Democrats and Republicans, and both of the parties are drifting further apart ideologically. This has led to much less cooperation between the parties, and therefore has led to less change being made in the government.
ReplyDeleteGiven that America has a grid locked two party system and checks and balances, the reader is left wondering what realistically can be done by America to avoid the climate disaster laid out in the book. Robinson proposes big changes to the economic system, such as changing from a Capitalist to Socialist country, creating new currency that rewards removing and not burning fossil fuels, and “shifting all money from cash to digital forms tracked by blockchain technologies” (Robinson, 421).
While these ideas are interesting, it leaves readers wondering: what can be done within the next five to ten years to combat climate change? This is the most frustrating part of the book for me. Robinson proposes a lot of problems, but very few realistic solutions.