Do we have the future in our hands and can influence?

Current debate

Nobody wants the future anymore?

The development looks bleak on many fronts. Climate crisis, polarization and discrimination are some of the negatively charged words that face us almost daily. How do we respond to this development? What is the way forward and is there hope? Or is it simply that no one wants the future?

Mattias Svensson asks just that question in his leader, when he points out that the rhetoric politicians use today in many cases expresses a nostalgic longing for what has been. These reactionaries characterize a large part of the political debate today, he says. The technocrats are their opposite. Those who put their trust in technology and its ability to solve our problems - the technology that has not yet been invented.

Torbjörn Tännsjö agrees, with a wonder if we are not already too many on our globe. So many that our lifestyle becomes too limited. The solution proposed by Torbjörn Tännsjö is a global democracy, a world government that is above all nation states. This would drastically redraw the political map and treat our globe as the entity it actually is. Something that Mattias Svensson believes was the belief in the EU in the time around the turn of the millennium, supranational government would make us stronger and better equipped to face the future - but how well has it actually played out? Now that we are in the middle of the Brexit chaos, this is a reasonable and highly relevant issue.

So are there any positive prospects? Obvious! In their debate article for Svt Opinion, four researchers highlight how the change we need to make will open many new doors. For investors, entrepreneurs, entrepreneurs and consumers worldwide. This will mean a chance for development and changes in structures as they look today, which in the long run will improve public health and strengthen welfare globally.

Three other researchers would like to see a global carbon tax introduced. They thus agree that a supranational solution may be the answer, while high-income countries would account for a larger share of the bill, which may seem reasonable. Incidentally, they believe that 'climate panic' is a greater threat than the climate crisis itself.

Emilia Bjurgren and Tamim Alameddine want to emphasize that those who live off a little, are the ones who are the real climate heroes, even though those who can afford to spend money on organic products or an electric car are the ones who paint themselves as such. "We want to see a climate and environmental policy that assumes that climate change is happening now, but at the same time finds answers to people's concerns about the present and the future", is the sentence that may end their debate article.

A change will take place and the future will reach us regardless of whether we want to go there or not. A change is - considering what the world looks like today - maybe not so bad after all.


Are we too many on our globe?
Torbjörn Tännsjö, Dagens ETC

"Nobody wants to be in the future anymore"
Mattias Svensson, Dagens Nyheter

"Climate change required - but we meet the challenge"
Fredrik NG Andersson, Henrik Smith, Markku Rummukainen, Lars J Nilsson, SVT opinion

"Climate panic is the biggest climate threat"
John Hassler, Per Krusell, Conny Olovsson, SVT Opinion

"Raise class analysis in the climate debate"
Emilia Bjurgren and Tamim Alameddine, ETC.


Is there something in the text that is incorrect? Contact us at

Share this: