Afterword

Ok, it’s an optimistic portrayal of the future. So sue me.

For decades, the majority of fictional futures have been dark and brooding, pessimistic. Futures you’d do your best to avoid if you had half a chance. No apologies are due for not following that trend, for trying to suggest a better alternative to the dystopian norm.

And I won’t be apologising either for suggesting that anthropogenic (man-made) global warming (AGW) doesn’t threaten the future to the extent suggested by the current ‘consensus’ view. Despite the simplistic media portrayals and viciousness of some members of both sides of the debate, not only redneck conservatives and conspiracy fanatics have doubts about AGW—even some ‘radical’ progressives like myself find the evidence less than compelling. I used to accept AGW until I bothered to look into the claims and the data. While it seems almost certain that the CO2 greenhouse effect does indeed operate, and that therefore human activities are contributing to a warming of the planet, my understanding of the theory, its computer-based models, and the long-term temperature records—not to mention the groupthink and confirmation bias that pervades all human endeavour—suggests to me (though notable others would disagree) that the ‘consensus’ models over-estimate feedbacks and climate ‘sensitivity’, and underestimate natural cycles. Consequently, I believe future warming will likely be less than the current ‘consensus’ forecasts, and also almost certainly less affected by attempts to limit AGW than is predicted. Perhaps my greatest doubt about AGW, however, is that its now widespread acceptance as the pre-eminent threat to humanity has the very deleterious effect of distracting attention from what are actually far more pressing and immediate concerns, such as the fundamental one of transforming to saner and fairer economic and political systems.

Nevertheless, while I do not share the ‘consensus’ view of AGW, I believe a horde of other perfectly sound reasons exist for developing renewable energy. Consequently, I won’t be apologising for depicting a future full of it. Nevertheless, I suspect the technology I’ve described will likely prove insufficiently imaginative: all of it is based on existing ideas either in development or largely already working, rather than speculative and as yet impractical concepts such as Zero-Point energy or Tesla-style direct radiated power—such esoterica may never prove feasible, or some of it could be dominant in forty years, but it seems to me more sensible for the novel to concentrate its attention on what now seems the most likely solutions. Besides, the primary purpose of the novel is not to depict the technical accomplishments of the future, but rather how a new economic and political system might work—all other issues such as technology and urban design, though necessary parts of that future, are of secondary importance.

A word or several is also warranted regarding my explanation of how profit ensures that some competitors must lose, and therefore that capitalism is inherently unstable. I deduced this myself over three decades ago, but have since found quite a bit to back it up. Readers wishing to explore the subject in greater depth can find more detail about this and other ideas raised in the novel, especially the failings of competitive market economies and the merits and workings of a free lunch future, in a non-fiction book I have written called A Free Lunch (available at http://home.spin.net.au/freelunch) – this gives a more formal treatment than does this complementary novel (which was actually “derived” from A Free Lunch).

Even if my arguments are somehow wrong, I would maintain that there is still a need to design a better future than the one to which we seem to be heading. The future of this novel is not a prediction, but a suggestion. Maybe not likely but possible (though metamorphic aliens and time viewers may be stretching it a bit). Forty years is a long time for institutions, systems, behaviour, and technology to evolve and change – especially if people take an interest in understanding and arranging what most needs changing.

Unfortunately, today the battle seems directed at symptoms, not the disease. What hope of ending ecological and social crises while persisting with eighteenth century economic, monetary and political systems that give birth to and encourage most of those crises? How can we cooperate to make a better world as long as we must all compete against each other economically? How can decisions be made which reflect the opinions of the whole population when we abdicate decision-making to clownish clone “representatives” ruled by worn-out ideologies, wealthy lobbyists, and archaic party platforms?

Tinkering at the edges without addressing core assumptions is like endlessly trying to repair a Model T Ford in the face of the obvious need to replace it with a new car – at best we will just drive round ever-narrowing circles until we inadvertently dig our own graves.

Fortunately, other forms of economic and political organisation – not simply capitalism or socialism – can be conceived and chosen. And other futures besides alienating hi-tech or agrarian throwback are possible. Better futures.

One possible future with a number of striking similarities to that portrayed in this novel – and equally striking differences – is the Participatory Economics Project, detailed at https://www.participatoryeconomics.info/. I first became aware of it two years after first drafting this novel, though its origins stretch back at least to 1991, about the same time I conceived the basics of freelunchism. If I didn’t know better, I’d think that suspicious.

Another possible future is that of Inclusive Democracy, detailed at http://www.inclusivedemocracy.org. Again the similarities to freelunchism are striking, even more so than Participatory Economics, but again I became aware of it, despite it being around since 1997, well after drafting this novel. Of the two, I prefer Inclusive Democracy as it seems better thought through, less anal retentive and has from the start based itself on a thoroughly revised polity. Nevertheless, I perhaps naturally prefer my own proposals. Hopefully, some amalgam of the best from all three proposals – and perhaps others I am not familiar with – will sooner, rather than later, be adopted.

It’s not either/or – the choices available for change are limited only by our imaginations. Feel free to improve upon what I’ve imagined.

Ultimately, it’s our choice.

Herman Royce

December 2011, updated November 2022