Margaret Atwood: So, I write about some­thing called the future, which is a won­der­ful thing to write about because nobody can fact-check it. But I try to base my futures on real­i­ties that are with us today. So I’m not writ­ing about Planet X. I’m not writ­ing about a galaxy far, far away. I’m writ­ing about this Earth in the near future. And every­thing that I’ve put in has a basis in real­i­ty, some­thing we’re doing now, some­thing we’ve already done, some­thing we’re think­ing of doing.

Eveline van der Ham: So you write about pos­si­ble futures?

Atwood: I write about prob­a­ble futures. [laughs] Possible and prob­a­ble.

Van der Ham: How do you think we could change the world?

Atwood: We have already changed the world a lot, not always for the bet­ter. Some of it’s for the bet­ter, as far as we human beings are con­cerned. But every time we invent a new tech­nol­o­gy, we like to play with that tech­nol­o­gy, and we don’t always fore­see the con­se­quences. And every time we change the source of our ener­gy, we change our whole soci­ety and our whole set of val­ues. By which I mean that amongst hunter-gathers there was one set of val­ues, amongst agri­cul­tur­al­ists there was anoth­er set of val­ues. Amongst carbon-based fuel peo­ple, which we are at the moment, cheap ener­gy, there’s anoth­er set of val­ues, and we will now have to devel­op a fourth because we could not con­tin­ue burn­ing car­bon fuels at the rate we have been burn­ing them with­out killing our­selves.

Van der Ham: So do you see tech­nol­o­gy as a curse or a bless­ing?

Atwood: It’s always a double-edged sword. [laughs] Cuts both ways. You can’t say it’s a curse or a bless­ing, you have to look at each piece of tech­nol­o­gy, see what it accom­plish­es on the pos­i­tive side, and then what the side-effects are on the neg­a­tive side.

For instance, our abil­i­ty to dis­cov­er and invent has allowed us to open the biggest Pandora’s Box in the world, which is the abil­i­ty to cre­ate new bio­log­i­cal species. That can be a good thing: bet­ter pota­toes. It can be a bad thing: more destruc­tive microbes. So you can’t say good or bad with­out say­ing specif­i­cal­ly what.

The most impor­tant thing for the world as a whole is to main­tain the oxy­gen lev­el that allows us to live on land. And how are you going to do that? Well, first of all, you’ll have to avoid killing off the ocean. Because the blue-green algae in the ocean pro­duces 6080% of the oxy­gen that we breathe. And the oxy­gen that we breathe was cre­at­ed by the blue-green algae 1.9 bil­lion years ago. Before that we didn’t have oxy­gen in the air. So I’d say for the world as a whole, that would be num­ber one pri­or­i­ty. And then we can talk about the rest, as long as we know that we’re still going to be alive and that oth­er life forms on the plan­et will be alive, too.

Van der Ham: Thank you very much.

Atwood: Thank you.

Further Reference

How to Change the World?, the 2012 Nexus Conference event page


Help Support Open Transcripts

If you found this useful or interesting, please consider supporting the project monthly at Patreon or once via Square Cash, or even just sharing the link. Thanks.