By Justin Wilson, Gabriel Commisaris, Jessie McDermott-Hughes, and Shawn Bolker
Definition
Ecomodernism is the notion that humans can use technological innovation to lessen our impacts on global ecosystems. The environmental philosophy of ecomodernism openly embraces substituting ecological services with clean energy, technology and synthetic solutions. Ecomodernists also embrace increased agriculture, genetically modified foods, urbanization, low carbon technologies, and recycling of all forms. Key “goals of ecomodernism include the use of technology to intensify human activity while allowing more room for nature” (Karlsson, 2015). The philosophy of ecomodernism arose from discussions about continual development, economic policy with regards to market failure, and central planning – to name a few. The central question of ecomodernism is whether technology might serve to separate anthropocentric impacts from global ecosystems (Ecomodernist Manifesto, 2015).
Context
Ecomodernism is a recently emerged school of thought derived from the work of several scholars, critics, philosophers and activists alike. According to the 18 self-professed ecomodernists who wrote The Ecomodernist Manifesto, including scholars from Columbia University, their philosophy is as follows, as outlined in their 2015 manifesto: “…we affirm one long-standing environmental ideal, that humanity must shrink its impacts on the environment to make more room for nature, while we reject another, that human societies must harmonize with nature to avoid economic and ecological collapse.” (Ecomodernist Manifesto, 2015) Their most prominent actions have been in the form of open letters to government officials to prevent the closing of nuclear power plants. They were successful in preventing the Diablo Canyon Power Plant (pictured below) from closing in California (Save Diablo Canyon, 2016).
Pacific Gas and Elcectic Co.
Ecomodernism is closely related to ecological modernization as they both share the belief that human development and ecological protection can coexist. They are also similar in the sense that both emphasize strategic management in which we would utilize clean technologies to minimize our impact. Ecological modernization is a much older and more developed school of thought, originating in the mid 19th century (Buttel, 2000). Due to their belief in an industrial solution, ecomodernists have been both praised and heavily criticized. New York Times journalist Eduardo Porter wrote that “It’s inclusive, it’s exciting, and it gives environmentalists something to fight for, for a change.” A large form of criticism came from a group of ecological economists who published an article entitled “A Degrowth Response to an Ecomodernist Manifesto,” in which they stated that “the ecomodernists provide neither a very inspiring blueprint for future development strategies nor much in the way of solutions to our environmental and energy woes” (A Degrowth Response to an Ecomodernist Manifesto, 2015).
Critique:
From an ecomodernist perspective we are not undergoing an apocalyptic crisis regarding the anthropocene but rather “the beginning of a new geological epoch ripe with human-directed opportunity”(Hamilton, 2015). There are no planetary boundaries which bind us to limit growth in terms of human population and economic advancement according to ecomodernists. History proves our ability to adapt as a species, leading ecomodernists to believe that living in a warmer world would not be the end of it. The only thing that seems to hold us back from tackling our problems through technology, from this perspective, is self doubt. For ecomodernist’s, the place of significance that humanity holds in today’s world is “an amazing opportunity”(Hamilton, 2015). Rather than situating the anthropocene as a negative thing, it is conversely thought of as positive, referred to as “the good anthropocene, or great anthropocene” (Hamilton, 2015). This is because ecomodernists believe that “we will be proud of the planet we create in the anthropocene”, for as Steward Brand said, “We are as gods, so we may as well get good at it.”(Hamilton, 2015)
The struggle with this way of conceptualizing the good anthropocene is in its theodicy-like structure. Theodicy, or the philosophy that attempts to answer the question of why a good God permits the manifestation of evil, is what must be taken into account when realizing the good anthropocene’s essential political and moral flaw. Theodicy was condemned because it led to quietism; justifying suffering by placing it in the context of a larger purpose, or sort of master plan held by God. The notion that we should leave it to Providence, human destiny under God’s will, was completely rejected by critics of theodicy.
In her study of theodicy, Evil in Modern Thought, Susan Neiman observed that “Providence is a tool invented by the rich to lull those whom they oppress into silent endurance.” The same may be said for the invention of the good Anthropocene: for the victims inclined to protest against the system, the golden promise of a new dawn lulls them into silent endurance. The message of the good Anthropocene to those suffering now and in the future from human-induced droughts, floods and heat waves is: You are suffering for the greater good; we will help to alleviate it if we can but your pain is justified (Hamilton, 2015).
Here it can be shown that the vision held by ecomodernists arguing the good anthropocene, rooted in science rather than faith and politics, is based on a misunderstanding regarding our future.
Many people do not share the ecomodernist belief that technological progress will lessen humanity’s environmental impact. In 1865, William Stanley Jevons observed that Britain’s coal reserves were depleting at a faster rate as the efficiency of steam engines increased. He then postulated that “greater efficiency can lead to greater demand, which negates any savings in energy consumption”(Hughes, 2016). This theory has since been labeled ‘jevons paradox.’ There is no doubt that humanity can and will continue to innovate and use resources more efficiently. However, it is not clear that this innovation will lead to less resource and material consumption. Some would argue that it will actually have the opposite effect and increase consumption. An ecomodernist might argue that intensifying human activity will lead to “decoupling human development from environmental impacts”(Ecomodernist Manifesto, 2015).
Although the ecomodernist goal of increasing human activity through technological innovation is realistic, it isn’t possible to create “room for nature” or properly restore ecosystems through technology. We, as humans, created the social constructions of wildness and restoration in the first place. We, as humans, would build the machines that perform “restorative” actions. Therefore, we would still be directly affecting the landscape. No landscape is without human intervention in our post-natural world (Vogel, 2016). The notion that machines could “make room for” wildness is dualistic and unrealistic. Ecomodernism would limit wild places by framing the open spaces we have left through material practices. Autonomy is central to wildness and we are not aiding in the wildness of an ecosystem by imposing upon it with technology. We are (momentarily) adjusting the wildness of a landscape through human intervention. We are also furthering our alienation from open spaces beyond city limits (Vogel, 2016). Degraded areas can’t be truly restored if we tinker with them in ways that we, as humans, think is right.
Conclusion
The Ecomodernist Manifesto makes it clear that ecomodernists see technological innovation or ‘progress’ as beneficial for global welfare and likely to mitigate global poverty. While it is true that modernization will bring development to the least developed areas of the world, it seems that ecomodernists have ignored the possibility that modernization could eliminate many ecological societies. Global development has the potential to bring positive change, but it also has the potential to spread a harmful way of living that wipes out minimalist and self-sufficient societies. “When powerful new technologies emerge in unequal societies, they are deployed to protect and entrench inequality”(Hughes, 2016). In other words, new technologies typically only lead to greater exploitation of the poorest people in the world and more wealth fr the richest people in the world. On the surface, ecomodernists advocate for global equality, but upon further examination, it is unclear if their method of tackling inequality is feasible.
Criticism aside, the fact that ecomodernism embraces technological advancement is useful and realistic as innovation will by no means be slowing down. The goal of human prosperity going hand in hand with an ecologically vibrant planet is a noble one, if not somewhat utopian. Committing to real processes already underway, like the expansion of nuclear power, may indeed help to decouple human well-being from ecological services that deplete global resources. This isn’t to say that ecomodernism doesn’t come with drawbacks, like alienation from wildness, continued resource exploitation, and a lack of consideration for class divisions. However, ecomodernism is a philosophy that is useful to consider and realistic in many aspects as our modern world continues to evolve.
Works Cited:
Asafu-Adjaye, John, Linus Blomqvist, Stewart Brand, Barry Brook, Ruth Defries, Earl Ellis, Cristopher Foreman, David Keith, Martin Lewis, Mark Lynas, Ted Nordhaus, and Roger Pielke. “An Ecomodernist Manifesto.” ecomodernism.org. April 2015.
“A Degrowth Response to an Ecomodernist Manifesto.” Resilience. May 06, 2015. Accessed March 24, 2017.
Buttel, F.H. “Ecological Modernization as Social Theory.” Geoforum 31, no. 1 (February 2000): 57–65. doi:10.1016/S0016-7185(99)00044-5.
“Ecomodernism.” Wikipedia. March 17, 2017. Accessed March 23, 2017.
Hamilton, Clive. “The Theodicy of the “Good Anthropocene”.” Environmental Humanities. January 01, 2015. Accessed March 23, 2017.
Hughes, Bob. “Blinded by ‘technology'” New Internationalist, November 2016. Accessed March 23, 2017.
Porter, Eduardo. “A Call to Look Past Sustainable Development.” The New York Times. April 14, 2015. Accessed March 24, 2017.
“Theodicy.” Wikipedia. March 21, 2017. Accessed March 23, 2017.
Vogel, Steven. Thinking Like A Mall: Environmental Philosophy After the End of Nature. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 2016.