Kim Stanley Robinson, an esteemed author known for his numerous bestselling science fiction works, attributes his survival to medical advancements on two different occasions. Now at the age of 72, he remains committed to his passion for imagining utopias, which he sees as an obligation to future generations.
But what does a utopia look like in 2025? After the planet recently experienced its hottest year on record, ongoing conflicts, and democracies around the world facing unprecedented challenges, it may seem like a far-off fantasy.
ADVERTISEMENT
CONTINUE READING BELOW
Robinson insists that the current state of the world shouldn’t stifle our creativity in imagining a better future. He joined Bloomberg Green’s Zero podcast to discuss global challenges as a new year begins.
He warns against becoming lost in the “soap opera” of politics and individual personalities, asserting, “Everybody actually wants their daily life to continue as best as it can in a positive direction.”
However, the increasing political tensions in various countries, including the United States where he resides, are undeniable. Many voters exhibit a strong sentiment for what they view as a better past. “Nostalgia — the ache for a lost home in Greek — is a very powerful feeling,” Robinson noted. “I feel it too, but it’s frequently a misjudgment, almost a delusion.”
Kim Stanley Robinson. Image: Gage Skidmore, via Wikimedia Commons
There seems to be a decline in far-future thinking as well. Robinson attributes this shift to the multitude of crises currently facing us, which dominate our collective awareness. “You don’t consider future greatness when living up to 250 years,” he remarked. “Science fiction is increasingly focused on the near future.”
This trend is troubling. Robinson’s earlier works from the 1990s, particularly the Mars trilogy, illustrate a vision of human settlement on Mars within the 21st century.
This vision has now inspired some of the wealthiest individuals, like Elon Musk, to attempt to bring it to life. However, Robinson’s Martian story unfolds amid an ecological disaster caused by humanity.
While it’s encouraging that many Silicon Valley billionaires have embraced science fiction, Robinson remains skeptical. “Many have amassed wealth through sheer luck,” he pointed out. “It’s concerning that 95% of them are men, raising questions about their reliability. They often show political and philosophical innocence.”
Read:
Musk is about to find out what $130m for Trump gets him
Elon Musk’s Mars ambition could be the riskiest human quest ever
Throughout their conversation, Robinson consistently highlighted a broader perspective: it’s only a tiny fraction of billionaires whose actions may endanger humanity…
…while everyday individuals strive to improve their lives.
This gives him a glimmer of hope for the future. “The 2020s have always been a crucial moment in human history,” he emphasized. “However, there’s no guarantee that things will turn out favorably, given the rising forces of disorder.”
Still, Robinson insists: “A positive outcome remains attainable.”
Listen to the full episode and learn more about Zero here.
Akshat Rathi
00:00:00 Welcome to Zero. I’m Akshat Rathi. This week, we’re envisioning Utopia in 2025.
00:00:19 One of the science fiction writers who has greatly influenced me recently is Kim Stanley Robinson. His Mars trilogy from the 1990s is still revered, but listeners of Zero are likely familiar with his explorations of potential futures concerning climate on Earth. From a submerged metropolis in New York 2140 to a United Nations agency addressing the climate crisis in The Ministry for the Future, his narratives captivate.
00:00:57 Although Robinson has appeared on Zero before, I wanted to reconnect following my recent contemplation of The Ministry for the Future. Despite being released in 2020, the story starts in 2025—the year we are currently in. It opens with a fictional COP29 summit set against a severe heatwave in India, concentrating on UN officials dealing with the repercussions of a warming planet. Now that 2025 is here, I wanted to explore Robinson’s insights regarding the events described in his book and the unpredictable path reality has taken since its release. We discussed the significance of science fiction in forecasting the future, its potential pitfalls, and Robinson’s admiration for the proactive endeavors of organizations like the UN.
Welcome to the show.
Kim Stanley Robinson
00:02:16 Thank you, Akshat. It’s a joy to be back.
Akshat Rathi
00:02:18 I revisited our prior conversation, and you seemed quite optimistic then. In 2023, that optimism felt justified due to positive developments following the Paris Agreement, such as the US implementing climate legislation and a global commitment to tackling climate change. Now, as we approach 2025—the setting for The Ministry for the Future—I thought it would be productive to reevaluate our outlook. We’re inhabiting the future you envisioned. How are you feeling about it now?
Listen to the 2023 conversation with Kim Stanley Robinson on the Zero podcast
Kim Stanley Robinson
00:03:17 Initially, I believe you have a stronger perspective to assess the situation due to your connections and extensive dialogues. I’d love to hear your viewpoint. From my perspective here in Davis, California, things appear to be accelerating. This realization hit me in 2022 when I understood that many events I anticipated for the distant future would unfold within the 2020s. Regrettably, acceleration seems to be increasing, involving both positive and negative developments. I should mention the unexpected outcome of Trump’s reelection, which surprised me.
00:04:13 While writing The Ministry for the Future during Trump’s presidency, I envisioned a scenario where the United States had a minimal role in combating climate change, with other nations taking charge out of necessity. The narrative portrayed the United States as a wealthy yet immature entity that hesitantly adapted to urgent global realities. Although this may still be somewhat true, substantial changes occurred from 2020 to 2024, creating new paths for progress. Notably, advancements in renewable energy have made it cheaper than fossil fuels, which is pivotal in a capitalist framework where investments lean toward the more profitable. Positive legislative moves, such as the IRA bill passed by the Biden administration, show that through legislation, climate actions can lead to beneficial outcomes economically and for investment.
Akshat Rathi
00:06:01 While clean energy has become more cost-effective than fossil fuels, there are still artificially created mechanisms to keep fossil fuels relatively cheap, which we may see more of in the future. Returning to The Ministry for the Future, the story highlights the need for greater equality to effectively address the climate crisis. Inequality shapes the challenges posed by climate change; solutions necessitate wealth and technology transfers, especially to developing nations. COP meetings underscore the seriousness of these issues. Your narrative frames the ministry for the future within this context, and you’ve monitored COP29’s developments. What is your perspective on this year’s COP’s effectiveness compared to your envisioned objectives for such events?
Kim Stanley Robinson
00:07:15 The recent COP29 aligns reasonably well with past COPs and the depiction in my book—a necessary but inadequate process. They foster public commitments in a climate where awareness increases yearly, but these pledges often lack urgency due to bureaucratic delays. The COP framework is essential, yet it’s not sufficient. More concrete actions are required from nations and international collaborations, focusing on tangible trade agreements and relationships beyond just COP commitments. In The Ministry for the Future, the organization begins small, seeking to garner year-round support for COP agreements. Interestingly, last September, during the UN’s Summit for the Future, a pact surfaced alongside plans to designate an envoy for the future.
Akshat Rathi
00:08:47 That sounds reminiscent of the UN’s Ministry for the Future in your book. Did your narrative influence this pact?
Kim Stanley Robinson
00:08:57 Yes, I’ve been informed that it did. The UN engaged with my work, interpreting it as a compelling idea. The UN operates under a distinct paradox, embodying both tremendous power—viewed as secretive master entities—and simultaneously functioning as a promise-based forum for nations to engage without concrete enforcement mechanisms. While the UN possesses considerable consensus-building power from its post-WWII structure, it often grapples with operational efficacy. Young diplomats within the UN, feeling overwhelmed by global complexities, see my narrative as a potential framework for a cohesive response to climate change, recognizing it as a useful approach for navigating future challenges.
Akshat Rathi
00:10:18 Fiction yields real consequences. After our last dialogue, I discovered that Oxford University launched its own Ministry for the Future at Hertford College, aspiring to inspire real-world initiatives. What do you envision this can achieve?
Kim Stanley Robinson
00:10:40 I find it inspiring because Oxford comprises a brilliant and committed cohort dedicated to enacting change. The Oxford Ministry for the Future aims to be a vibrant gathering place, serving as a platform for public events rather than a conventional research institution. My aspiration is that it will generate and benchmark ideas for restructuring political economies capable of addressing climate change. Ideally, it should promote public outreach, foster shifts in attitudes, and continuously convey a shared narrative that strikes a chord with audiences. While I am not formally involved, I hope to influence its direction and ensure its discussions remain engaging and impactful.
Akshat Rathi
00:11:36 As a science enthusiast, I’ve always viewed technological innovations as pathways to envision potential futures—not just immediate ones, but long-term. I deeply appreciate the science fiction genre for that reason, and I treasure your contributions over the years. However, from my journalist perspective, I feel compelled to focus on the present realities. I’ve noticed a trend in today’s political landscape—be it due to media consumption, politics, or societal narratives—where our imagination of the future seems to diminish, or become more restricted. Would you share this perspective?
Kim Stanley Robinson
00:12:29 I concur that climate change has certainly emerged as a dominant thought for humanity, particularly since the pandemic. The pandemic served as a wake-up call, creating a collective recognition that climate change events could be even more catastrophic. As Adam Tooze describes, we face a poly-crisis, where numerous simultaneous crises—climate change, pollution, pandemics—intersect with our social and political challenges. As a result, long-term visions are becoming less frequent. Imagining scenarios like interstellar travel or distant futures becomes difficult when we grapple with today’s pressing realities. Hence, science fiction has indeed shifted toward near-future narratives.
Akshat Rathi
ADVERTISEMENT:
CONTINUE READING BELOW
00:13:47 The challenge of confronting this overwhelming amount of information often reflects in individual sentiments. A prevailing emotion in 2025 seems to convey a sense of despair. If I were to ask you to envision a utopia, what might that look like for 2025?
Kim Stanley Robinson
00:14:21 That’s a fascinating question. One possibility could be the collective realization that we can’t depend solely on U.S. leadership—this is true for both global affairs and the forthcoming administration, which may spiral into chaos. A utopian vision could emerge from recognizing that throughout history, even under foolish leadership, effective governance often arises from the efforts of dedicated bureaucrats, technocrats, scientists, and educators. Civil society tends to be resilient, with crucial everyday support persisting, even in the face of unfortunate leadership. The majority of people seek continuity in their daily lives, aiming for positive progression amid difficulties.
00:15:24 Although current tensions exist, many individuals are navigating precarious situations. The melodrama of political theater shouldn’t overshadow their attempts to maintain normalcy. If society can continue functioning similarly, preserving the essential elements through the merits of civil society, that in itself represents a victory—though it is by no means assured.
We’re now witnessing a test of the resilience of the American political system when confronted with potentially destabilizing leadership. It’s a hybrid climate. We’re certainly facing a flawed political structure with significant threats to democracy. Yet, votes wield power, and there’s still a possibility that they cannot simply be purchased. Thus, we find ourselves at a crossroads. The 2020s were always anticipated to be a pivotal phase in human history, hinting at the potential for prolonged challenges. While a positive outcome isn’t certain, it also isn’t out of reach. Is that perhaps my utopian assertion? That a favorable result remains within our grasp?
Akshat Rathi
00:16:49 We’ve addressed numerous critical global issues, yet there are smaller developments that could gain importance. Colombia stands out for its attempt to phase out fossil fuels by becoming the first large producer to sign the fossil fuel non-proliferation treaty. I know you have engaged with Minister Susana Muhamad about these efforts, leading me to ask how a nation can reinvent its economy as it transitions away from fossil fuel dependency.
Kim Stanley Robinson
00:18:00 Thank you for that. I find the situation compelling. Petro-states, reliant on fossil fuel revenues, are caught in a dual dilemma post-Paris Agreement: they’re expected to cease sales, yet doing so risks economic instability and state failure for many, impacting over a billion individuals. We cannot afford a surge of failed states. How do we provide assistance? Mechanisms like loss and damage funds and a robust framework akin to the fossil fuel non-proliferation treaty are essential. Colombia’s scenario presents a case study as it transitions from being the fifth-largest coal producer.
If Colombia commits to ending its reliance on fossil fuels, substantial support is necessary. A combination system mimicking COP processes should integrate discounting compensation for transitional phases. This structured approach could entail staggered payments over decades, ensuring governments maintain transparency by committing funds to green initiatives, thereby creating an economic incentive for compliance. Globally, such a system is crucial to avert potential crises in the coming years.
00:20:53 I’ve discussed these frameworks with influential entities including the OECD and UN, although responses often reveal hesitation. The historically wealthy yet irresponsible approaches taken by certain nations jeopardize others. We are now at a unique juncture where a significant portion of global fossil fuel resources falls under responsible government frameworks accountable to their citizens. It’s critical to foster constructive discussions, while also considering modern solutions such as quantitative easing, which we’ve seen activated during previous financial crises. As John Maynard Keynes famously stated, “Anything that we have to do, we can afford to do.”
Akshat Rathi
00:22:06 After the break, we’ll continue our discussion with Kim Stanley Robinson. If you are enjoying this episode, please take a moment to rate and review the show on Apple Podcasts or Spotify—it assists others in finding us.
00:22:24 Today’s politics highlight a nostalgic longing for earlier periods marked by rigid social hierarchies. Ironically, if presented with a choice, I’d prefer to have been born today due to our advancements in health, communication, and transportation. Yet that yearning for the past remains. How do you reconcile this desire for a time devoid of our current advantages?
Kim Stanley Robinson
00:23:13 This longing is misplaced—a mix of nostalgia and a desire for lost comfort. Nostalgia is a powerful emotion, and I too feel its pull; however, it’s often based on misconceptions of history. People tend to view their formative years through rose-tinted glasses, overlooking that those times were often just as challenging, if not more so, than today. The past often appears better because humans inherently prefer not to confront their mortality while facing an uncertain future.
As a whole, people manage to envision a brighter future for subsequent generations, finding comfort in the potential for progress. I possess a strong appreciation for scientific advancements. Medical science has quite literally been my lifeline—having saved my life twice. I recognize the invaluable role science plays as a unifying force for good, opening possibilities and enhancing our quality of life. When some individuals protest against scientific understanding, they reveal a denial of this truth—overlooking the lifesaving achievements that science has delivered to humanity.
Akshat Rathi
00:24:56 As someone with a scientific background, it surprises me that governmental leadership often lacks advisors with a scientific perspective. However, we may witness a shift in the White House as emerging leaders from the scientific community come to the forefront. Yet, we must evaluate the risks posed by sci-fi inspired thinking. Can you articulate those dangers?
Kim Stanley Robinson
00:25:34 We must draw a line between scientists and engineers. Silicon Valley predominantly comprises computer engineers rather than scientists. Many successful individuals in the tech realm might not necessarily possess well-informed decision-making skills; they often attempt to solve problems with oversimplified solutions shaped by fortune rather than scholarly strategies. There exists a troubling gender imbalance in the tech industry, with a majority being male—a concerning indicator regarding the integrity of this sector.
Even though many from Silicon Valley genuinely intend to contribute positively, they often operate under a naïve comprehension. Good intentions frequently clash with a lack of deep understanding of intricate political realities. As individuals acquire wealth, they might assume they grasp all the necessary solutions—this arrogance can lead to misguided initiatives. While some tech entrepreneurs might have honorable intentions, dramatic outliers like Elon Musk exemplify how an individual may lose trustworthiness due to peculiar personal traits intertwined with their fortunes.
Akshat Rathi
00:27:34 Last question—one for fun. If you could have one wish—be it for a climate solution, technological advancement, policy reform, or societal change—what would you desire in 2025?
Kim Stanley Robinson
00:27:56 That’s quite a predicament! I would wish for three more wishes!
Akshat Rathi
00:28:06 The perfect answer.
Kim Stanley Robinson
00:28:08 Reflecting on political economy, I want to express my gratitude to Bloomberg Green for its outstanding reporting throughout COP29—truly the finest coverage I’ve encountered. Engaging people with the dynamic interplay between politics, economics, business, and governance is essential.
In this light, observing the European Union illustrates what can happen when nations unite as member states. The EU showcases resilience, continuing operations even as smaller nations face economic challenges through collaboration. This evolution in mindset leads to reciprocal legal, financial, and emotional frameworks for participating nations.
00:29:07 If organizations like the UN, WTO, or OECD began to function as authoritative bodies, with strict adherence to agreed-upon actions serving as a baseline, it could significantly transform our climate strategies. The US tends to ignore thoughtful solutions, adhering to a potentially detrimental doctrine of self-sufficiency. However, ensuring broader acknowledgment of cooperation’s significance may pave the way for the US’s eventual reconciliation with global realities. Maintaining these parallel virtues might help us overcome the challenges we face; climate change cannot be tackled in isolation.
Akshat Rathi
00:30:13 I appreciate you highlighting the potential for a more robust G20 influence. Thank you, Stan.
Kim Stanley Robinson
00:30:22 Thank you, Akshat. It’s been a pleasure.
Akshat Rathi
00:30:31 Thank you for tuning into Zero. And now for the sound of the week.
That was the trailer sound from a 1983 film titled End Game, set in a fictional 2025. Yet, it eerily reflects the realities of 1983 while failing to predict the advent of electric vehicles.
I am Akshat Rathi. Until next time.
© 2025 Bloomberg
Stay informed with Moneyweb’s comprehensive finance and business news on WhatsApp here.
