Kim Stanley Robinson

A lot of scientists act on their beliefs and so do things that look crazy to the rest of us.

We should conceive of ourselves not as rulers of Earth, but as highly powerful, conscious stewards: The Earth is given to us in trust, and we can screw it up or make it work well and sustainably.

Apocalyptic thinking happens on the left as well as on the right, and in environmentalism, that's a terrible approach to take. Because it isn't true.

One of the chief features of incompetence was an inability to see it in oneself.

Many of the technologies we've invented are necessary to keep 6.5 billion people alive. We can't go back from that, so we need to decarbonize really rapidly.

If the amount of money going into the war economy were invested in landscape restoration, we would be in a far more positive position. It may get a little dire before we pull together, but I think when the prosperous nations, and in particular the U.S., realize they're wrecking their own kids' lives, there will be a mass change in value.

You can't get any movement larger than five people without including at least one flippin idiot.

The only part of an argument that really matters is what we think of the people arguing.

Efficiency was just a measurement of how fast money moved from the poor to the rich. We prefer the opposite of efficiency which is to say justice.

You can only kill disappointment with a new try.

Life is insanely robust, though we can make species go extinct, and this is the bad thing. So I always make the point that you can't say, 'Is it too late?' That is the terrible question, because either answer promotes inaction. If it's too late, you don't need to act; if it's not too late, you don't need to act.

That's libertarians for you - anarchists who want police protection from their slaves.

That's one of the ironies of our time: Right when we're on the edge of serious improvements in health care, we're also cooking the planet.

You can never properly predict the future as it really turns out. So you are doing something a little different when you write science fiction. You are trying to take a different perspective on now.

Fights over ideas are the most vicious of all. If it were merely food, or water, or shelter, we would work something out. But in the realm of ideas one can become idealistic.

Science fiction rarely is about scientists doing real science, in its slowness, its vagueness, the sort of tedious quality of getting out there and digging amongst rocks and then trying to convince people that what you're seeing justifies the conclusions you're making.