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.

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.