"This does not help us imagine realistic positive outcomes to the climate crisis. Robinson correctly diagnoses the threats we face and immerses the reader in a very plausible near future. Unfortunately, any happy ending feels unearned as the world is essentially saved through magic, as humans/society respond in vanishingly unlikely ways."
https://bookwyrm.social/user/skyfaller/review/381179/s/compe...
But, when the head of an international organization takes a week and a half to get to a meeting on the other side of the planet, and thinks that it's nicer to take a sequence of trains and sailing ships than it used to be to fly ... that seemed totally alien. When subsistence farmers were surprised by the large amount of money they were paid for getting more carbon into their soil, that seemed really implausible. When KSM glosses by how easy and quick it was to make giant wildlife corridors across North America, and talks about whole communities packing up and voluntarily abandoning towns to ceded those areas to nature ... that seemed wildly implausible.
There were a lot of these moments for me, and while I get the people that use these as a criticism against the realism of the book, I also think that gap is a criticism against all of us.
I'm not advocating for violence, to be clear, and in the novel KSM seems to take the stance that at some point violence is really counter-productive. But certainly there have been places and periods in which e.g. targeted kidnappings of rich people, assassination attempts on politicians, and terrorist attacks against high-profile targets have all been around -- why do you think is it impossible for those to be directed at people in power in the future? Especially if there are progressively more climate victims, it seems like we're setting the stage for a generation of people to be ripe for radicalization.
Submarine accidents not withstanding, I'm not convinced the UN in our current timeline could be transformed into one that engages in this behavior.
I'm going to go back to my comparatively easy computer engineering tasks after writing this comment, and have the greatest respect for those willing to confront coordination problems in the political sphere. That's playing the game on hard mode.
The whole thing reminds me of this thread [1] from a few weeks ago referencing Orwell's critique of Dickens:
>> The truth is that Dickens's criticism of society is almost exclusively moral. Hence the utter lack of any constructive suggestion anywhere in his work. ... His whole ‘message’ is one that at first glance looks like an enormous platitude: If men would behave decently the world would be decent.
> I can't help but feel like TS Eliot's "public-spirited pigs" are the same thing as Dickens' "good rich men".
The good news is that we've developed systems of governance and economics that are not exclusively worse than uneducated tribalistic hunter-gatherer anarchy - a very large number of people live in significant comfort in relatively ordered, mostly polite societies, generally free to do what they want, and for the most part those societies build things like roads, landfills, electric grids, and fire departments together that make the community better. It's not perfect, for sure, and we're really missing the ball on this particular externality of global warming, but I have some hope that we'll figure out a way to address the problem that doesn't rely exclusively on weak moral appeals.
> The ways in which we fail to address societal issues are not in fact our responsibility, they're a systemic issue that is a function of human nature ... - that will not be solved by morose feelings of condemnation.
Are we not society? Do we not make up the system? But more importantly, you're refuting a statement of responsibility by saying the underlying problem won't be solved by feelings. Whether a statement of moral responsibility is _true_ and whether concurrent emotions on their own solve anything are fundamentally different propositions, and denying one implies nothing about the other. If I murder someone by stabbing them, perhaps that reflects part of human nature -- but a jury telling me I'm guilty is _correct_, even though their condemnation will not bring back my victim. It would be absurd for me to say "oh your moralizing emotional condemnation won't solve the issue of murder which has always existed in human societies, and certainly won't bring back the person I killed -- therefore I'm not responsible."
But somehow, if a few generations knowingly trash a whole planet, aware that this would cause chaos which results in a large number of deaths, illness, property damage, etc you want to believe that the fact that morose feeling will not suck carbon out of the atmosphere somehow implies that responsibility cannot be assigned.
One can argue about whether moral statements can meaningfully be "true" (I think they can), but one can't jump from "moral condemnation doesn't on its own solve problems" to "therefore moral responsibility can be denied in any instance".
If anything, I think the reluctance to fully face the problem and acknowledge our role in it, and to recognize the ways in which our own lives will need to be different to stop exacerbating the problem, is part of the foot-dragging.
> The whole thing reminds me of this thread [1] from a few weeks ago referencing Orwell's critique of Dickens:
>>> The truth is that Dickens's criticism of society is almost exclusively moral. Hence the utter lack of any constructive suggestion anywhere in his work.
But The Ministry for the Future is basically nothing _but_ constructive suggestions put in a nice palatable narrative container. We're not talking about a moral judgement in the absence of specific ideas about how to address climate change, environmental justice, and even wealth inequality. We're talking about acknowledging responsibility when, though opportunities stare us in the face, we do little or nothing to fix the situation we've created.
A population or corporation should be expected to be moral. Collective behaviors are a function of incentives and penalties, of pure economics.
If your plan to fix the problems in society relies on every member selflessly cooperating and fails if one member defects, if you create a system that is trivially exploited by rich amoral sociopaths not behaving like rich amoral sociopaths, then the defector is morally to blame when it fails, but that's still the expected outcome.
The sad reality is that the world's actual response to something like that happening will probably be about as disappointing and anticlimactic as the rest of the book was to read.
But of course, weather isn't climate. https://www.axios.com/2023/08/14/climate-change-heat-wave-ca...
b. Your own source is making a different point that the one you're making..
> What they're saying: Climate scientist Zeke Hausfather summarized the volcano's contribution to 2023's record high temperatures this way: "So, not nothing, but only a small part of the story in the exceptional warmth the world is experiencing," he told Axios via email.
> Andrew Dessler, a climate scientist at Texas A&M University, also thinks the significance of the volcano's warming role pales in comparison to human-driven climate change and other influences.
> Dessler likens climate change to a "rising tide" that is elevating the baseline temperatures from which heat waves begin. "This means that our heatwaves become hotter, essentially 'floating' on the 'rising tide' of our warming world," he said via email.
You're really convinced I made some sort of argument blaming the fire on Climate Change when I did nothing of the sort..
Honestly, that just makes the book better in my eyes and I haven't even read it.
Leto II, God Emperor of Dune, Frank Herbert
Like Termination Shock?
https://www.amazon.com/Termination-Shock-Novel-Neal-Stephens...
> shows people taking positive action to change the world for the better
You might be interested in the Volts' podcast.
The recent interviews with Saul Griffith ("use our sunlight and iron ore and rare minerals to transform Australia into the world's forge"), Tim Latimer (Fervo Energy pioneered advanced geothermal, now scaling up), and Ramez Naam (climate tech investor) were quite uplifting.
Lots of gems in the Volts archive too.
I believe you can find recordings from e.g. his interactive discussion of it, in the archives of "SF in SF" which are typically recorded and available, maybe at SomaFM as Rusty usually runs sound. Strongly recommended and it should give you a frame for understanding why the narrative takes the path that it does.
TL;DR it's overdetermined and the opposite of naivety or wishful thinking; it's strategic.
You may disagree with the strategy, of course.
That is, if we're to successfully address this challenge, with minimal global disruption (and where "minimal disruption" means all aircraft falling from the skies), then something like KSR's path is required.
I've seen your criticism voiced elsewhere (a major publication review that I'm lapsing on presently). This particular critique misses the book's point entirely.
For evidence, look at the deaths in the USA from gives and cars every year. Yet there is zero momentum toward doing anything about those from a policy standpoint.
It's remarkably how quickly people incorporate tragedy as normal when it doesn't fit their worldview. If you travel to 2000 and told people "in 2020 a pandemic will kill over 1 million Americans, and a good portion will brush it off as a 'nothing burger'" people would think you were being ridiculous and would dismiss it as unbelievable fiction.
It's one of our greatest strengths and weaknesses. It let's us keep living, but also allows us to normalize that which shouldn't be accepted.
If the opening of MFTF happened, within 2 weeks people would be posting graphs showing how per capita all cause deaths are actually going down over time.
A million people die a week, worldwide, from all causes.
Last I checked people are quite considered with global HIV death, especially since they can obviously be reduced dramatically.
0. https://www.hiv.gov/hiv-basics/overview/data-and-trends/stat...
We haven't entirely banned cars, and carbon emissions weren't totally banned after the wet-bulb event in Ministry for the Future.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Motor_vehicle_fatality_rate_...
We will normalize climate related deaths the way we have normalized traffic related deaths.
If cars save me just 10 minutes per day, my life is improved as compared to the just under 7 minutes per day of life lost to the lifetime risk of dying in a car accident.
We normalize traffic deaths because there is a net benefit. Just like we normalize other negative outcomes from overall positive-utility activities.
What would you call a success? No death, total ban on driving?
What I would do about traffic deaths is irrelevant to my point.
Your original point was:
>Yet there is zero momentum toward doing anything about those from a policy standpoint.
This is clearly false. There are many effective regulations and travelling by car continues to get safer.
Yes people still die, yes we already somewhat normalise people dying from e.g. air pollution (not something that will happen, we already do it)
There are people who do think about these things every day. There are people who dedicate life to working on problems and progress is being made.
Saying that a major event would have no impact on the zeitgiest is questionable given history.
> There are people who do think about these things every day. There are people who dedicate life to working on problems and progress is being made.
Exactly. Despite that, here we are with 35K traffic deaths a year. Here's what would actually be necessary to "fix" the problem:
- 20 year project to build a tremendous amount of passenger rail - Manhattan project for self-driving cars - 10 year project to upgrade all city and highway signage to be self-driving car friendly - Close roads to human-driven cars when self-driving upgrades are ready
This probably sounds crazy to you. It sounds crazy to me too. And that's why I'm blackpilled on climate change: if we can't and won't do what it takes to fix traffic or gun fatalities on a national level, we definitely won't do it for a problem several orders of magnitude more difficult on a global level.
> Saying that a major event would have no impact on the zeitgiest is questionable given history.
There will be an impact. Just most likely not a positive one. It could highly negative (see post-9/11 wars), or completely insufficient (our current response to climate change).
Success could have USA/Canada/[insert other poorly faring nation] looking more like the low casualty numbers of other wealthy nations (eg. Norway) as well.
Honestly no death is a pretty good goal. Cynically one could say it's not achievable but trying is nonetheless worth while. In my jurisdiction in Canada I don't see the government even lifting a finger to implement the lowest hanging fruit of policies that would move the needle in the right direction, such is the status quo and politicization of the traffic safety issue. They're not even trying.
Efforts to implement various traffic safety concepts well used elsewhere in safer jurisdictions would be politically attacked here I'm quite sure.
Might be different when a lot of people die in a whole region and it's very obvious. But who knows, I made detailed predictions at the onset of COVID and believed it would be handled like SARS and the likes and stopped in about 3 months. Well, I was completely wrong.
As far fetched as any science fiction ever written
A heat related mass death event most likely would trigger a response. The real question is would it be organized and tidy response, or civil unrest?
When 4% hunt anymore and no one can grow a carrot? Suddenly logistics are interrupted worse than covid because, what, Phoenix burns down?
Oh, it’ll trigger a response.
Pandemic response was effective at avoiding healthcare system collapse and churning out a vaccine. It’s as good a plan as we can get with 30% of 300 million intentionally indifferent, centrists too absorbed in low effort consumerism, and anyone espousing concern being called a tree hugging pussy.
What else do you want? Too many seem to think the MCU should hop on saving them from themselves.
Say something useful yourself or get over it. You were never going to make it out of this life alive anyway.
Perhaps you missed the analogy in my original between climate deaths and gun+traffic deaths.
> It’s as good a plan as we can get with 30% of 300 million intentionally indifferent, centrists too absorbed in low effort consumerism, and anyone espousing concern being called a tree hugging pussy.
You're so close to getting it. We will be talking about "sensible solutions" that maintain our current lifestyle until the planet turns into Venus.
> What else do you want?
I reluctanty have to admit I'm black pilled at this point. I see no reason to believe that our species is capable of the kind of collective action that's needed. There are no positive examples and so many negative examples.
> You were never going to make it out of this life alive anyway.
You don't have kids do you?
My whole effort here is throwing your low effort back at you; including your misuse of sighted for cited.
Frankly I think I get you a lot better than you get me. You are your own generalization/analogy/metaphor.
You’re doing nothing substantive while complaining about lack of substantive effort in the part of others.
Functional illiteracy in the raw, dog
> Functional illiteracy in the raw, dog
Not your dog, dog
So if a mass death event were to occur, and policy were to change course drastically, the changed climate would continue to pound our biosphere for many decades (if not centuries). Or hit tipping points and get worse & worse no matter what we do.
To put it blunt: at some point, prolonged mass suffering & death is practically guaranteed. Just with a decades-delayed fuse. That fuse is already lit, while we can't see (with any certainty, that is) how big a powder keg it goes into.
Almost all politicians are also owned by the car and oil industries, so that would explain the lack of action with the high number of RTCs.
First, one of the most popular arguments against action addressing climate change has been that climate change is simply fake. A mass-casualty event would make that argument less effective.
The gun control debate in the United States is linked with people's perceptions of personal agency. Often, a mass casualty event perpetrated with a gun is ended by a gun being used on the perpetrator (sometimes, it's the perpetrator killing themselves, and sometimes it's police killing them). Many people imagine it would be possible to end those events as a bystander with a gun. But I think that it would be much harder to get people to fantasize about being a hero that stops a mass casualty event resulting from extreme heat. Such an event starts and ends when Mother Nature says it does, and it seems like it should be pretty clear to people that the only way personal agency is relevant is in the act of preparing the environment.
I would have bought this 10 years ago. But following the recent rise of conspricism, especially far out things like Qanon and Pizza Gate, I've come to realize that it's possible for vast numbers of people to just decide to believe something is/isn't true because it suits them.
The Trump administration has banned the use of bump stocks, devices that let rifles fire like machine guns, after promising to do so earlier this year.
It's true that our system of government and industry is set up to preserve itself and resist sweeping change. It is further true some incredibly wealthy and influential individuals within the system are aligned with those goals, making change all the more difficult and unlikely (this applies to climate change as it does to gun laws, car culture, throw-away consumerism, etc). It is a mistake to equate trying and failing to change massive and powerful institutions with doing nothing.
I get it, from a cynical and pessimistic perspective, doing nothing vs trying hard but failing to do something all looks the same in the end (when society is roasting canned spam on it's own embers, as we might imagine). But fatalism becomes a self-fulfilling prophesy, and mostly appeals because it has the "benefit" of requiring no action of the individual. Just a lifetime of depression, apathy, and/or moral bankruptcy.
Even if the fatalist is wrong, it means people made things work out for them in the end and they didn't even have to lift a finger. What a deal! It certainly has its appeal to those parts of our brain that we share with lizards and other creatures that look to avoid personal risk and conserve energy at almost any cost.
I haven't read the book, but if the event the book describes kills hundreds of people or more, it seems like a plausible seed that news coverage can accrete around.
In the book, people galvanized around it kind of like 9/11 as it was clearly climate change, as opposed to other things that already existed and may or may not be due to climate change (more hurricanes, etc).
Be careful what you wish for. 9/11 galvanized Americans to start two disastrous wars. The effect of a mass fatality event like in MFTF could easily be a bunch of pointless, ineffective wars. There's precedent for that, but not for anything like a Ministry for the Future
I think it's going to take more than hundreds of deaths to go beyond a few news stories that get lots of clicks for a week or two and talking points for politicians to bring up when it's convenient and forget when it is not.
What is the benefit of vehicle transportation? Immense! They move goods around the country, provide people with rapid transportation, improve the movement of people of people around the country, etc, etc.
It's like looking at surgical deaths and saying "look at the death toll from surgery! such a tragedy!" all the while completely ignoring it's benefits.
It's probably already too late, but I keep seeing people confusing the concept of "web bulb temperature" (all temperatures have a wet bulb temperature, even ones very pleasant for people) with "the human survivable maximum wet bulb". I frequently see people saying things like "when we reach wet bulb temps..", which feels a bit silly.
This always feels like talking about a "Kelvin event" or "Kelvin temps" referring a temperature reaching absolute zero.
Reminds me of Ex Astris Scientia complaining about bad script writing in Enterprise, specifically "deuterium can burn almost as hot as plasma, when it's ignited": https://www.ex-astris-scientia.org/episodes/ent2.htm
Every following chapter- terrible, not worth your time.
What prep did you recommend to your parents? I’m interested for what I can reuse or adapt.
Other commenters criticizing the book for the ending and the positivity turn it takes are missing the point of why the book is valuable, I think.
Like for you maybe, it was the first book that got me serious about climate. The value isn’t in the ending, but in the first half with unpleasantly accurate the early “oh sh*t” disasters were and same for the totally inept societal responses.
Made me realize we were likely procrastinating our way into an emergency, and any magical way out we find IRL will be at a high cost of suffering. We will probably get disasters, we will get climate terrorism, and it will get much worse before we get saved (by magic blockchain carbon fediverse haha?).
Spoiler, I found the ending very unsatisfying. It feels like a cliffhanger into a second book, but there is no second book it just ends without much resolution. The actual climate change/societal terror in the first 75% is great though, it was on pace to become a favorite book of mine.
I sometimes get very dark about the future we're headed into.
The passage was vivid enough for me to suggest preparatory measures to my retired parents. I wholeheartedly recommend the book to anyone interested in near-term climate impact!