Okay, 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.
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. Once, like most people, I didn’t
question AGW—until I looked into the claims and studied the data. The understanding
this gave me 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—left me convinced that, despite it being all but certain
that greenhouse emissions from human activities are contributing to a warming
of the planet, nevertheless the ‘consensus’ models overestimate feedbacks and
climate ‘sensitivity’, and underestimate natural cycles. Consequently, I
believe future warming will likely be less than the current ‘consensus’
forecasts, but also almost certainly less affected by attempts to limit it 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, even though 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 focus on what
now seems the more likely solutions. Besides, the primary purpose of the novel
is to depict not 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 in the early 1990s, but have since found quite
a bit to back it up, including published papers by economists. 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 decrepit 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.
But, of course, the future depicted in this novel is the one I favour most.
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 & August 2025
![]() |