“As the global
community sank deeper into a new age of post-development, the last remaining
tribes native to the jungles of the Amazon found themselves forced to face the harsh
realities that those living in the outside world had already become accustomed to. Over the course of the twenty-first century,
the rainforest had been rapidly hacked away until it was nothing more than
scattered patches of woodland, some completely out of sight from one
another. The once mighty Amazon River
now barely reached the Atlantic, as much of it had been diverted to quench the
thirst of cities hundreds of miles away.
Ironically enough, many of those rich enough to afford convenient access
to safe, clean drinking water had come to envy these tribes, despite the fact
they could not drink from the water source that their ancestors had relied on for
centuries without the fear of contracting illness or disease. At least they could still experience what was
left of the natural world. Trees had
seemingly become a lost aspect of towns and cities, and were now simply thought
of as a crop, harvested to meet the growing demands of an overpopulated world. While the months were quickly approaching the
beginning of a new century, the year 2200 seemed to bring nothing worth
celebrating.”
Although this mini future
scenario seems extremely bleak, I really do not feel this pessimistic about the
future, especially in terms of how environmental issues might be dealt with
down the road. However, I felt that it could
potentially provide a possible description of how the world might have been
before the one that Bacigalupi imagines in The Windup Girl. While I will admit that I was unable to reach
the end of the novel by the time I started writing this blog post, while
reading it I could not help but feel that the theme of the story was quite pessimistic,
and offered a pretty ominous outlook of what the world will become. Many of the fears that we have in concern for
environmental issues today seemed to become a reality in the book, and in some
cases seemed to exceed them. Sea level
rise had reached the point where coastal cities required flood gates, GMOs had
gotten way out of hand, and resources that are heavily relied on today had been
completely depleted.
These
are all obviously valid concerns, and arguably possible scenarios of the
future, but in coming across them throughout the story, I could not help but
question whether any effort had been made to stop these issues from occurring before
Bacigalupi’s world. Although efforts of environmental
conservation are made apparent in the present tense of the novel, is it
possible that previous generations had simply given up in their efforts to
combat these problems? This question may
possibly deal with pessimistic views held by society in concern for pursuing
environmental efforts. It may also
center on the argument that people are not willing to work on solving issues
that do not have immediate impacts, and do not start until it is too late. While I feel that it definitely important to maintain
a level of caution in regard to what the future might hold, I also believe that
optimism will be a valuable tool in helping to combat environmental issues, and
ultimately get things done.
Is it about giving up or not trying? Right now we have the best science pointing to climate change and a large activist network, yet we see little (if any) action.
ReplyDeleteFor a similar scenario, look into what happened at Easter Island. The island used to be covered by trees and had a thriving population. At some point the last tree was cut down and the people living their had to flee since they didn't have any tree cover. They must have known this would happen and yet they still did it. While you are correct that something CAN be done about climate change, etc., this doesn't mean that something effective WILL be done. Or at least this is Bacigalupi's argument in the novel.
I think you bring up a good point that optimism certainly goes a long way. If the mentality is that nothing can be done to solve a problem, science isn't going to solve it. It also kind of goes back to the idea we have talked a little bit about in class about being reactive rather than proactive. I think Bacigalupi is writing about a world that was very reactive to the crisis that appeared. I think its difficult for action to occur if we are not directly affected, which could happen when its too late.
ReplyDeleteI don't quite know if Bacigalupi was writing about a world that gave up or didn't try. Stories are certainly more interesting when the situation at hand is more desperate. It does make me think that it would be really interesting to read about the time between today and when The Windup Girl took from his perspective.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/post-politics/wp/2014/04/16/jimmy-carter-comes-out-against-keystone-xl-pipeline/ I stumbled upon this article today and it reminded me of professor Shirk's comment. Basically, several nobel laureates wrote Obama a letter urging him to deny Keystone XL. They argue that with all of our knowledge about climate change and the impacts the pipeline would have, Obama should deny it and send a positive message to future generations, setting a more proactive precedent for climate policy. This reminds me of the debate between what CAN be done and what WILL be done; I feel that decisions like these are predictive of environmental trends for the future.
ReplyDelete