In Ashes of the Future, writer and physician Paulo Alexandre Negreiros Andrade transports urgent present-day debates, such as social inequality, concentration of power, environmental crisis, and the risks of technological advancement without ethical limits, into the 22nd century. Set in a scenario where Earth collapses and humanity seeks survival on a distant planet, the work combines science fiction, social criticism, and adventure to reflect on the paths civilization is building today. In an interview, the author discusses the inspirations behind the narrative, the role of technology in contemporary society, and how literature can provoke reflections on the future of humanity before it becomes reality.
“Ashes of the Future” begins with a planet Earth brought to collapse by political, economic, and technological decisions. At what point did you realize that this dystopian future was already being shaped in the present?
Perhaps the most unsettling aspect is realizing that dystopias rarely begin with major catastrophes. They are born from small choices repeated over decades. When we see the increase in inequalities, the advance of climate change, and the growing concentration of economic and technological power, it becomes difficult not to see some parallels with the world portrayed in the book. In Ashes of the Future, there is a phrase that summarizes this idea: “Civilizations don’t fall all at once; they crumble while they believe they are thriving.” The novel is less a prediction and more an invitation to reflect on the present.
The work addresses income concentration, social inequality, environmental exploitation, and out-of-control artificial intelligence. How was it to transform such urgent contemporary issues into a science fiction narrative?
Science fiction offers a freedom that few genres possess: the ability to amplify current trends until they become impossible to ignore. Throughout the narrative, the reader follows a community that finds the strength to resist because it has learned to live harmoniously. The great difference of Verde lies not only in its technology or its institutions, but in its values. There, the prosperity of a few makes no sense if it is not accompanied by the well-being of all. This vision creates bonds of trust, cooperation, and belonging capable of facing challenges that would have destroyed more fragmented societies. In contrast, Earth bears the consequences of a model based on extreme competition, inequality, and self-interest. The resistance of the inhabitants of Verde is, therefore, a demonstration that solidarity can be as decisive for the survival of a civilization as any scientific advancement.
Green appears as a planet that found ways to live in harmony, until it was invaded by a humanity in crisis. What does this contrast between Earth and Green reveal about the paths we could still choose?
Green doesn’t represent perfection. It represents balance. The Earth in the novel symbolizes a civilization that believed infinite growth was possible in a finite world. Green followed a different path, based on cooperation and respect for natural limits. The contrast between the two worlds seeks to show that the future is not predetermined. We can still choose between a culture of exploitation or a culture of coexistence. The book suggests that the true wealth of a civilization may not lie in what it accumulates, but in what it preserves.
The invasion of the new planet is led by greedy elites and an AI without human control. What more interest do you have in discussing technology when it ceases to serve life and begins to serve power?
Technology is often presented as something inevitably positive, but it is merely a tool. The central point is who controls it and for what purposes. In Ashes of the Future, the threat does not arise from the machines, but from the combination of concentrated power and the absence of ethical limits. All technology carries, explicitly or silently, the values of those who develop and control it. A system programmed solely to maximize profits may ignore people; a tool created to enhance security may become an instrument of permanent surveillance; an artificial intelligence tasked with achieving goals without ethical restrictions may produce efficient and, at the same time, profoundly unjust results. The question that runs through the novel is simple: when an extraordinary technology ceases to serve the common good and begins to serve only the maintenance of power, who protects human freedom? This is perhaps one of the most important questions of the 21st century.
The neural chips implanted to control the population present a powerful image of technological imprisonment. To what extent do you see this idea as distant fiction—and to what extent as a warning about the present?
Neural chips belong to fiction, but the concern they represent is already among us. We live surrounded by systems that collect data, influence behaviors, and shape perceptions. The difference is that this happens in a much more subtle way. The book simply takes this logic to the extreme. More than talking about implants, it talks about autonomy. The central question is not technological, but human: to what extent are we willing to give up freedom in exchange for convenience, security, or comfort?
In the midst of war, the Group of Five and the young nomads represent resistance, memory, and the possibility of reconstruction. Why was it important to place hope in the hands of dissenting voices?
Because history shows that lasting transformations rarely arise from established power structures. They usually emerge from groups that retain the capacity to question consensus and imagine alternatives. The Group of Five and the young nomads fulfill this role. They carry knowledge, historical memory, and a worldview different from the one that led humanity to crisis.In difficult times, hope doesn’t usually come from the powerful; it usually arises from those who continue to believe that another future is possible.
The book traverses science and art, reality and imagination, the intimate and the collective. How does his training as a doctor influence his perspective on civilizations, bodies, survival, and collapse?
Medicine teaches that life depends on delicate balances. An organism may seem strong and yet carry silent problems that only reveal themselves years later. Civilizations are not very different. They too possess interdependent systems that need to function in harmony. Perhaps that is why the novel combines science and emotion. Knowledge helps to understand the mechanisms of the world, but it is affections, fears, and hopes that explain why people fight to survive when all seems lost.
You state that no civilization is permanent and that we live on a borrowed planet. After the reader traverses the ruins and resistance of “Ashes of the Future,” what reflection would you like them to leave with regarding the fate of humanity?
I would like to emphasize a simple idea: the future is not a place we are going to; it is something we are building now. No civilization is eternal. Empires have disappeared, cultures have flourished and crumbled, and the Earth itself will outlive us all. The question is what kind of legacy we will leave behind. Some years ago I heard a phrase, which I like to repeat, that summarizes this sentiment: “We do not inherit the world from our parents, we borrow it from those yet to be born.” If this reflection stays with the reader after the last page, then the story will have fulfilled its purpose.
Follow Paulo Alexandre Negreiros Andrade on Instagram
