Technophilia
Situation at the technophilia end of this spectrum is reflected in contemporary environmental thought. This perspective is evident in Making the Modern World by Vaclav Smil and Love Your Monsters by Bruno Latour. These texts both comment on how must follow through with our commitments to that we produce, and honor our abilities to create solutions. According to Smil, “we must hope that human ingenuity (so admirably deployed particularly during the past two centuries) …. Will, sooner rather than later, guide us along” a path of “moderated energy and material use aimed at maximizing global quality of life for a stationary… population” (Smil 2014, pg. 180). He hopes for developing technologies with higher quality as opposed to quantity. But he is reasonable, acknowledging that while “these advances will not bring… absolute aggregate global dematerialization,” we must still follow through with our abilities to create lasting, useful goods. This relates to Latour, as perhaps we’ve confused the monster (too much stuff) with the creator (us!). Latour accurately states, “Dr. Frankenstein’s crime was not that he invented a creature through some combination of hubris and high technology, but rather that he abandoned the creature to itself,” (Latour 2011). In hearing this we should realize that we’ve let our consumptive based habits run away from us, as they’re now tangled up in a web of packaging, poor quality and capitalism, but now we must return our attentions to the technologies that can give us what we need at the lowest impact.
Cultural Theory & Converging Paths
The discussion regarding how values and circumstance determine our positions on risk, social issues, and many topics, is almost becoming redundant in its apparent obviousness, but it’s still important to note here, as we certainly do live in a complex world, and an attempt at understanding where people are coming from (as opposed to shutting people out) should be made at nearly every account. Keeping in mind Hulme’s description of Cultural Theory, it’s interesting to see how these different mindsets play into classical and environmental thought. Egalitarians see Nature as ephemeral, meaning “the slightest disturbance by humanity can trigger a collapse in the system” (Hulme 2015, pg. 190). Further, “the precautionary principle, as a framework for thinking about climate policies is likely to find greater resonance among egalitarians, with their view of Nature as being ephemeral or vulnerable, than among individualists, who regard Nature benign or resilient.” (Hulme 2015, pg. 187). This fear of a precarious situation is reflected in many classical works, such as The Limits to Growth (1974). While ultimately the theory that there is a limit of resources that will be overly exploited by a growing population was proven false (Smil, 2005), it’s interesting to note that the “Suggested Guidelines” of the 30 Year Update contains some suggestions that are not so different than some of more contemporary based modes of thinking (planning long-term with maximum efficiency in mind relates to Smil’s beliefs of Quality over Quantity and foresight, and Steinberg’s call for more regulation). This calls attention to the fact that while, a la cultural theory (I’d say Steinberg and Smil are more hierarchist, at least in part), we can view things wildly differently, there is a place for a convergence of beliefs.
Go Big or Go Home
My next point relates a bit to the one above, and is also becoming a bit of a hot topic. A matter that that is touched upon in many readings is that of institutional and individual action. Hulme calls for “clumsy solutions,” or solutions that “approach the challenges of climate governance through a series of diverse, multi-level and almost deliberately overlapping, and even partly contradictory, institutions and policies” (Hulme 2009, pg. 312). Steinberg breaks down these institutions in their own chapters, assessing their overlap, how they came to be, and how humans can engage with and within them to affect change, guided by research that claims “the transition to sustainability requires transforming the rules we live by” (social rules = institutions!) (Steinberg 2015, pg. 15). Addressing these rules will be clumsy, indeed! It will require addressing policy regarding property rights and markets, working internationally and individually. Inherent in these paths is a mindset of “both/and,” as Steinberg mentions with regard to markets – the “point is to not simply leave decisions to the market or to get government out of the way, but to put in place rules that leverage the benefits and avoid the pitfalls of each” – this is a part of the “clumsy solution” way. Don’t let this header fool you – change will require both top-down (hierarchist) and bottom-up (egalitarian) approaches (Hulme 2009).
Works Cited
Hulme, Mike . Why We Disagree About Climate Change. Cambridge University Press, 2009.
Latour, Bruno. 2011. “Love Your Monsters Why we must care for our technologies as we do our children.” In Love Your Monsters: Postenvironmentalism and the Anthropocene, edited by Michael Shellenberger and Ted Nordhaus, 271–73. Breakthrough Institute. http://www.amazon.com/Love-Your-Monsters-Postenvironmentalism-ebook/dp/B006FKUJY6.
Meadows, Donella H., Dennis L. Meadows, Jørgen Randers, and William W. Behrens. The Limits to Growth: A Report for the Club of Rome’s Project on the Predicament of Mankind. New York: Universe Books, 1974.