Ecomodernism is anenvironmental philosophy which argues thattechnological development can protect nature and improve humanwellbeing througheco-economic decoupling, i.e., by separatingeconomic growth fromenvironmental impacts.
Ecomodernism embraces substituting naturalecological services with energy, technology, and synthetic solutions[1] as long as they help reduceimpact on environment.
Debates that form the foundation of ecomodernism were born from disappointment in traditional organizations who denied use of advanced technologies such as nuclear power thus leading to an increase of reliance of fossil gas and increase of emissions instead of reduction (e.g.Energiewende).[2] Coming from evidence-based, scientific and pragmatic positions, ecomodernism engages in the debate on how to best protect natural environments, how to acceleratedecarbonization tomitigate climate change, and how to accelerate the economic andsocial development of the world's poor. In these debates, ecomodernism distinguishes itself from other schools of thought, includingecological economics,degrowth,population reduction,laissez-faire economics,the "soft energy" path, andcentral planning. Ecomodernism draws on Americanpragmatism,political ecology,evolutionary economics, andmodernism. Diversity of ideas and dissent are claimed values in order to avoid the intolerance born of extremism and dogmatism.[3]
Ecomodernist ideas have been associated in the United States with the California-basedBreakthrough Institute and internationally withWePlanet NGO. While the word 'ecomodernism' has only been used to describe modernist environmentalism since 2013,[4] the term has a longer history in academic design writing[5] and Ecomodernist ideas were developed within a number of earlier texts, including Martin Lewis's Green Delusions,[6]Stewart Brand'sWhole Earth Discipline andEmma Marris'sRambunctious Garden.[7] In their 2015 manifesto, 18 self-professed ecomodernists—including scholars from theBreakthrough Institute,Harvard University,Jadavpur University, and theLong Now Foundation—sought to clarify the movement's vision: "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 andecological collapse."[8][3]
Key among the goals of an ecomodern environmental ethic is the use of technology to intensify human activity and make more room for wild nature. Among other things, ecomodernists embrace:[9][10][11][12][13][14][15]
In April 2015, a group of 18 self-described ecomodernists collectively publishedAn Ecomodernist Manifesto.[16][17][18]
Some environmental journalists have praisedAn Ecomodernist Manifesto. AtThe New York Times, Eduardo Porter wrote approvingly of ecomodernism's alternative approach to sustainable development.[19] In an article titled "Manifesto Calls for an End to 'People Are Bad' Environmentalism",Slate'sEric Holthaus wrote "It's inclusive, it's exciting, and it gives environmentalists something to fight for for a change."[20] The science journalNature editorialized the manifesto.[21]
Ecomodernism has been criticized for inadequately recognizing what Holly Jean Buck, Assistant Professor of Environment and Sustainability, says is theexploitative, violent and unequal dimensions of technological modernisation.[22] Sociologist Eileen Crist, Associate Professor Emerita, observed that ecomodernism is founded on awestern philosophy ofhumanism with no regard to "nonhuman freedoms". Of theManifesto Crist says
themass extinction of life forms that the human enterprise has set into motion receives no mention in the Manifesto. (And extinction of species is mentioned once.) This is a startling omission for aneco manifesto: mass extinctions are geologically rare and catastrophic events; following such past cataclysms, it took millions of years for biological diversity to rebound—a timescale irrelevant for all future human generations. And yet the omission of mass extinction makes sense from the Manifesto's point of view.[23]
Human Geographer Rosemary-Claire Collard and co-authors assert that ecomodernism is incompatible withneoliberal capitalism, despite the philosophy's claims to the contrary.[24] By contrast, in his book "Ecomodernism: Technology, Politics and the Climate Crisis" Jonathan Symons argues that ecomodernism belongs in the social democratic tradition, promoting a third way betweenlaissez-faire andanti-capitalism, and calling for transformative state investments in technological transformation and human development.[4] Likewise, in "A sympathetic diagnosis of the Ecomodernist Manifesto", Paul Robbins and Sarah A. Moore describe the similarities and points of departure between ecomodernism and political ecology.[25]
Another major strand of criticism towards ecomodernism comes from proponents ofdegrowth or thesteady-state economy. Eighteen ecological economists published a long rejoinder titled "A Degrowth Response to an Ecomodernist Manifesto", writing "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."[26]
At the Breakthrough Institute's annual Dialogue in June 2015, several environmental scholars offered a critique of ecomodernism.Bruno Latour argued that the modernity celebrated inAn Ecomodernist Manifesto is a myth. Jenny Price argued that the manifesto offered asimplistic view of "humanity" and "nature", which she said are "made invisible" by talking about them in such broad terms.[27]
TheEcomodernist philosophy invites a very techno-optimistic outlook towards the environment and in the “Techno-Optimist Manifesto”[28] a 2023 self-published essay by venture capitalist Marc Andreessen states that many significant problems of humanity have been solved with the development of technology, particularly technology without any constraints, and that we should do everything possible to accelerate technology development and advancement. The philosophy fromEcomodernist Manifesto stresses on the viewpoint that climate change and other global ecological challenges are not the most important immediate concerns for the majority of the world’s people.[28] So the richer and more urbanised nations become, the less their people care about their environmental impact, notes George Monbiot in the article "Meet the ecomodernists: ignorant of history and paradoxically old-fashioned". So, ‘Limits, ecomodernism and degrowth’ that the concern is more dependent on a modernist ‘fix’ mentality that searches for salvation in technology, Giorgos Kallis says.[29]
In this verytechno-optimist nature, the ecomodernist are decoupling humans from nature and the dependence upon it. But there is a risk here of what Rob Wallace calls ‘red washing capital’: justifying real-existing technologies and the relations that produce them, with the excuse that in some undefined future, a hypothetical socialism could put them to good use.[29]
While ecomodernists see human technology as capable of transcending ecological and energetic limits, Clive Hamilton in his “Growth Fetish” mentions this ideology as the essential for the reproduction of the capitalist system, one that perpetuates and reproduces the unequal relations of exchange and enables the international capitalist class to capture embodied labor and energy in pursuit of accumulation and growth.[30] This is also not very far away from Chris Smaje’s argument published on the Dark Mountain website, “modernisation” of the kind they celebrate may have liberated many people from bondage, oppression and hard labour, but it has also subjected many to the same forces.[31] Cindy Isenhour in her article “Ecomodernism and contrasting definitions of technological progress in the Anthropocene” mentions that perhaps the contemporary moment calls for a reconceptualization of progress, one that recognizes the capacity of technology to mystify unequal relations of exchange and the shifting of environmental burdens in a highly unequal global society.[32]
A good Anthropocene demands that humans use their growing social, economic, and technological powers to make life better for people, stabilize the climate, and protect the natural world.
{{cite book}}: CS1 maint: location missing publisher (link)
Media related toEcomodernism at Wikimedia Commons| Art |  | |
|---|---|---|
| Culture | ||
| Literature | ||
| Philosophy | ||
| Religion | ||
| Other | ||
| Related | ||
| Applied | ||
| Key topics | |||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Disciplines | |||||||||||
| Views |
| ||||||||||
| Offshoots |
| ||||||||||
| Goals |
| ||||||||||
| By country | |||||||||||
| In culture | |||||||||||
| Environmentalists |
| ||||||||||
| Related topics |
| ||||||||||
