Politics & News

Only logged in members can reply and interact with the post.
Join SimilarWorlds for FREE »

Do we need a Ministry for the Future?

No political body represents the interests of the unborn against the damage done in the here and now. What id there was? Ministry for the future is the name of the book I'm reading by KIm Stanly Robinson, set in a near future in which the climate crisis is taken seriously.

[b][i]It was getting hotter...[/i][/b]

The novel starts with a genocidal heatwave that kills tens of millions. This is scarily prescient given the flood crisis in neighbouring Pakistan. The reader doesn't just get statistics, but excruciating detail about burning skin and bodies floating in lakes. After this event, the world leaders are morally forced to form the Ministry to tackle climate change, funding it lavishly (though never lavishly enough because the resources lost by the climate crisis dwarf anything else)

The book goes heavily into the science of climate change and also solutions, such as crazy plans to thicken the polar ice caps, putting sulphur in the sky to temporarily cool the planet etc. At least a third of the book is non-fiction but this is necessary. It also deals with politics, in that having our economies based on permanent growth in a world with finite resources is self-destructive. Those on the side of the climate have to fight against corporate sabotage. Eco-terrorism is rife, with CEOs of energy companies on the hit list.

I won't spoil it but my favourite scene so far features a fractious debate between a terrorist and a well-meaning politician. When the crazed terrorist claims that working within the law will lead to species destruction, the minister cannot come up with a convincing answer to refute him.

I'm still reading it but it's highly recommended.

Top | Newest First | Oldest First

Philth · 46-50, M

Interesting. In my locality a new bridge is being built over a river. The road to the existing bridge which is Listed, becomes submerged under flood water a couple of times a year. So the new bridge includes a new bit of road, built on piers across the floodplain. There's a VAST amount of concrete and steel involved, as well as that heavy construction machinery has been burning through vast amounts of fuel every day for the last 18months.

Firstly, I ask, how much hassle is it that that road is shut for a couple of days each year? There are ways around. Does the huge cost of natural resources justify the win?

But secondly, the same outcome (reduced travel disruption) could be achieved with much lower drain on resources simply by widening / replacing the existing bridge whilst building up in height it's access road, with suitable culverts beneath. Of course, that bridge is listed which is why that's a no. However the alternative is vastly more expensive and has a much greater impact upon dwindling resources, also consider carbon cost of new steel, concrete, etc. So my question is, at what point do we bring into question, the current policy of protecting our built heritage, over and above the importance of protecting our natural resources?

Because right now the new bridge, which is a solution to a problem that's in itself caused by climate change and all the issues of land management which contribute to flash floods, is in turn, creating MORE climate change.

Yulianna · 22-25, F

sounds interesting... but i think it would be more effective, in real world, for every government department to have a junior minister responsible for future, and a grand committee of all these ministers to monitor cross departmental activities. as they progressed in their careers, you would eventually have a whole series of senior ministers with experience of future watching, running the major departments. it could change the whole thinking of how to govern.

View 2 more replies »

Burnley123 · 41-45, M

@Yulianna Yeah to the 17th century.

hartfire

@Yulianna Interesting idea and a good way to train.
But our needs are urgent and critical.
We can't afford to wait 40 years for action on climate change; if we did most species would be extinct and many millions of people will have starved, drowned or died in their attempts to migrate.

Yulianna · 22-25, F

@hartfire and you are proposing to leave the people who got us into this state in charge?

Abstraction · 61-69, M

Almost all decisions in history of humanity have been been goal directed. I need more food for my family so I will take down these trees. We need to deliver a surplus EOFY for shareholders and bonuses.

My development organisation has had some success with local developing or struggling communities by shifting the thinking to 100-200 years - a process that thinks about the land, the consequences, five years time, the next generation. This has enabled forest regrowth or better agricultural practices.

It seems too complicated for western nations due to clamouring interests that choke the conversation. Short-term policy thinking is somehow locked into our election cycle, our way of planning.
Norway is the closest in this thinking with its future fund forcing it to think beyond policies to get reelected and pay back party donors with big profits. Mining wealth belongs to all future generations - not to be spent by any single generation.

Burnley123 · 41-45, M

@Abstraction Btw, I think you would like this book.

hartfire

Yes, I'm certain we do need a ministry for the future in every country.
It would need to help guide and coordinate every other ministry, and coordinate with the IPCC and the latest in scientific consensus.
Climate change is here and affecting every country across the planet.
We need to rethink architectural design and building regulations to withstand the increasingly unpredictable and catastrophic weather events.
We need to shift to renewable energy for everything,
including electric transport. (Plus bicycles, dirigible balloons, and boats with sails).
We need to ban the deliberate burning and felling of forests. Plant wildlife corridors to link national parks.
Grow hemp and bamboo for paper and building.
Reform agriculture to restore and protect soil biomass and natural fertility.
Create healthy, delicious and eco-sustainable diets for all.
Protect and foster species diversity and natural genetic diversity.
And reduce waste, reuse, recycle in everything we need.

Ballou · 56-60, F

Hello, that sounds like an interesting read. Have you ever read Margot Piercy, HE, SHE, IT.
She wrote about a future with corporate bodies ruling iso of countries and a parallel story of the creation of a golem, set in the past of the jewish ghettoes of Poland (I think). The future scenes were set in a New Israel , who were actually independent of the global corporates. There was a form of cyber terrorism of blowing up installations via this 'Internet'
I read it years ago before the internet, need to re read it as it should be interesting to see in retrospect what she described as a future she saw from the eighties !

Burnley123 · 41-45, M

@Ballou It sounds interesting. Thanks for the recommend.

beckyromero · 36-40, F

Ministry for the Future?

Sounds like the Federation agency in [i]Star Trek[/i] that enforces the Temporal Prime Directive.

Ballou · 56-60, F

@beckyromero Yes ! It could be a short story by ... humanity.
MINISTRY FOR THE FUTURE
....25 years ago, Cordovan Brown was in the running to be the top agent of the Ministry for the Future until he went silent in the field. No communications, no leads, a complete blackout. Until now that is. He HAS just walked right in to the ministry's head office in Oslo, accompanied by 12 floating orbs of light ......................
to be continued by whoever wants to continue !

spjennifer · 56-60, T

I think our biggest problem is caused by overpopulation, the more babies are born, the more they consume, food, water, natural resources, land, and the more we produce, waste, CO2, pollution etc. We need to start reducing population increase as this will help in all aspects of climate change. A "Ministry of the Future" would accomplish little if there is no future to guard. It took since the beginning of time till 1804 for our population to grow to 1 Billion and only about 200 years more for it to grow to the 7+ Billion we are now and expected to reach 8 Billion before this year ends and 10 Billion by 2050 is expected.

Philth · 46-50, M

@spjennifer definitely. An infinitely growing population on a planet of finite resources is, quite obviously, unsustainable, but unfortunately no democratically elected organisation will survive saying that. Thus, we seal our own fate.

spjennifer · 56-60, T

@Philth Agreed, China did this decades ago, albeit for different reasons but they are still criticized for it even today. I believe that at some point nature will right itself and there will be a mass extinction event, as you state the current situation is unsustainable...

Ballou · 56-60, F

@Philth sad but very true.

dale74 · M

The problem is environmental concerns should be taken seriously to the point of wasting them and not replacing the resources like trees and such when they are used. We have had people saying life will be destroyed for the last 50 years in the 60s we were headed into an ice age one that will be the worst the world has ever seen. In the seventies were running out of oil and we will have to revert back to an aquarium society. In the '80s the ozone later we will all die of radiation poisoning. The 90s global warming 2000s it's climate change it's unpredictable. Remember in 2012 we would have no more polar ice caps and the seas will have risen by 20 to 40 ft.

Now actual facts weather changes weather is unpredictable a single solar flare can have more impact on the world's environment then all the men made polish in history. A volcano will produce more particulate matter than all of the particulate matter made by humankind since the industrial revolution started. Yes we should all care about our environment we should make sure that we're not destroying and wasting valuable resources we should be good stewards of our planet to leave a good planet for our children.

Burnley123 · 41-45, M

@dale74 This is bollox

MartinII · 70-79, M

Perhaps also a Ministry of the Past, whose staff would spend their time studying history and suggesting contemporary lessons.

Ballou · 56-60, F

@MartinII I like that idea, educational and a clear handing over of knowledge by elders to the next generation. Perception is everything, it is often interesting to listen to people much older tell you their past and their stories from their elders.

dale74 · M

You can believe what ever you want or become educated.

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=https://www.epw.senate.gov/public/%3Fa%3DFiles.Serve%26File_id%3D4A86454F-4287-4D1C-AE5F-85A01B8C78B8&ved=2ahUKEwji3fTO5_T5AhWBomoFHX3wBecQFnoECCAQAQ&usg=AOvVaw3gcgTkG08qovUVMpUDLZ92

https://www.aei.org/carpe-diem/50-years-of-failed-doomsday-eco-pocalyptic-predictions-the-so-called-experts-are-0-50/

https://www.google.com/amp/s/nypost.com/2021/11/12/50-years-of-predictions-that-the-climate-apocalypse-is-nigh/amp/

https://cei.org/blog/wrong-again-50-years-of-failed-eco-pocalyptic-predictions/

The first is from the US Government

Burnley123 · 41-45, M

@dale74 It's from a (obviously Republican-dominated) Senate committee, not the US govt. So its bullshit at first base. This is assuming it's even credible at all because the PDF is posted in isolation and not linked to a website.

Your other sources are right-wing websites funded by American energy corporations. This is worse than I expected.

sarabee1995 · 26-30, F

Sounds like a great concept. And not just for climate change, but for all "future concerns."

I've added the book to my reading list. 🙂

PicturesOfABetterTomorrow · 41-45, M

I mean it is not a bad idea but like every other post it would likely be made somewhat useless since all ministries and departments in a parliamentary system think and operate according to election cycles and the next party tends to cancel the plans of the previous party for no other reason than it not being their idea.

sarabee1995 · 26-30, F

Just added it to my list! 👍

Human1000 · M

Reminds me of “What We Owe the Future” by William MacAskill

In What We Owe The Future, philosopher William MacAskill argues for longtermism, that idea that positively influencing the distant future is a key moral priority of our time.

Burnley123 · 41-45, M

@Human1000 Sounds interesting.

SW-User

MiniFu

Burnley123 · 41-45, M

@SW-User ok....

Add a comment...