Ecomodernism

Greenhouse, Beeston, Leeds: a building professed by its developers to be 'eco-modernist'.^[1][2][3]

Ecomodernism is an environmental philosophy which argues that humans can protect nature by using technology to "decouple" anthropogenic impacts from the natural world. Ecomodernism is a school of thought from many environmental and design scholars,^[4] critics, philosophers, and activists. Ecology-based Modernism is the most direct way to define this movement. It embraces the most successful aspects of the Outlaw Designers (Jay Baldwin, Buckminster Fuller and Stewart Brand) from the 1960s and 70s with the reform-based hopeful pragmatism of the Modernists. It demands a more detailed understanding of the discipline's history and encourages designed objects and systems created with the logical inspiration of nature's cycle built in to its goals. The resulting material and immaterial creations hope to better unite technology, humanity and nature. Eco-Modernism urges designers to unplug from their world of pixels and reconnect with the nuances of our natural environment so as a collective we can better understand the materials we use, processes we employ and appreciate the importance of our natural resources. Instead of the a linear approach to a design process, based on Fordism and Taylorism, Eco-Modernism embraces nature's model of "waste equals food" (William McDonough and Michael Braungart) and cradle-to-cradle coined by Walter R. Stahel in the 1970s (during the Outlaw Design Movement) where design and manufacturing aim to "close the loop". To achieve this component of the movement designers must minimize their environmental footprint by utilizing local and renewable resources for all of our future endeavors. In their 2015 manifesto, 18 self-professed ecomodernists—including scholars from the Breakthrough Institute, Harvard University, Jadavpur University, and the Long Now Foundation—enlarged the scope of Eric Benson's and Peter Fine's 2010 original definition as such: "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."^[5]

Overview

Ecomodernism explicitly embraces substituting natural ecological services with energy, technology, and synthetic solutions.^[6] Among other things, ecomodernists embrace agricultural intensification, genetically modified and synthetic foods, fish from aquaculture farms,^[7] desalination and waste recycling, urbanization, and substituting denser energy fuels for less dense fuels (e.g. substituting coal for wood, and preferably getting all energy from progressively lower carbon technologies such as fossil fuel power plants equipped with carbon capture and storage,^[8] nuclear power plants, and advanced renewables).^[9] 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.

Ecomodernism emerged from the academic design writing of Eric Benson and Peter Fine in an article published in 2010.^[10] Various debates, including the debate over when Homo sapiens became a dominant force acting on Earth's ecosystems (proposed start-dates to the so-called Anthropocene range from the advent of agriculture 10,000 years ago to the invention of atomic weapons in the 20th century). Other debates that form the foundation of ecomodernism include how best to protect natural environments, how to accelerate decarbonization to mitigate climate change, and how to accelerate the economic and social development of the world's poor.

In these debates, ecomodernism distinguishes itself from other schools of thought, including sustainable development, ecological economics, degrowth or the steady-state economy, population reduction, laissez-faire economics, the "soft energy" path, and central planning. Ecomodernism considers many of its core ideologies borrowed from American pragmatism, political ecology, evolutionary economics, and modernism.

Eco-Modernism embraces the basic tenets of sustainability where all design is created to: respect and care for the community, improve the quality of life, conserve Earth's vitality and diversity, minimize the depletion of non-renewable resources, and change personal attitudes and practices maintain the planet's carrying capacity. The designers and artists working in this movement seek creative fulfllment within larger systemic design problems in order to elevate the profession from the bottom rung of the corporate ladder to respected leaders and innovators across the culture. They embrace Modernist logic and reform-based initiatives, but reject universal solutions and instead utilize local materials and gender/culturally sensitive ideas that create what Jorge Frascara believed the best design to be: to facilitate, support and improve life.

An Ecomodernist Manifesto

In April 2015, a group of 18 self-described ecomodernists collectively published An Ecomodernist Manifesto.^[5] The authors were:

The authors wrote:

Although we have to date written separately, our views are increasingly discussed as a whole. We call ourselves ecopragmatists and ecomodernists. We offer this statement to affirm and to clarify our views and to describe our vision for putting humankind's extraordinary powers in the service of creating a good Anthropocene.^[5]

Reception and criticism

Prominent environmental journalists have praised the Ecomodernist Manifesto. At The New York Times, Eduardo Porter wrote approvingly of ecomodernism's alternative approach to sustainable development.^[11] In an article titled "Manifesto Calls for an End to 'People Are Bad' Environmentalism", Slate's Eric Holthaus wrote "It's inclusive, it's exciting, and it gives environmentalists something to fight for for a change."^[12] The science journal Nature editorialized the manifesto.^[13]

Common criticisms of ecomodernism have included its relative lack of consideration for justice, ethics, and political power. 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.^[14]

Some environmentalists have also characterized ecomodernism as an excuse to continue the exploitation of natural resources for human gains.

Another major strand of criticism towards ecomodernism comes from proponents of degrowth or the steady-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."^[15]

At the Breakthrough Institute's annual Dialogue in June 2015, several prominent environmental scholars offered a critique of ecomodernism. Bruno Latour argued that the modernity celebrated in the Ecomodernist Manifesto is a myth. Jenny Price argued that the manifesto offered a simplistic view of "humanity" and "nature", which she said are "made invisible" by talking about them in such broad terms.^[16]

Open letters

See also

• Bright green environmentalism
• Ecological civilization
• Ecological modernization
• Reflexive modernization
• Technogaianism

References

Further reading

• Vincent Ialenti. "Alter-Ecologies: Envisioning Papal & Ecomodernist Nuclear Energy Policy Futures." In Laudato Si': Reflections on the Legal, Political and Moral Authority of Catholic Social Thought in an Era of Climate Crisis (ed. Frank Pasquale). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
• Vincent Ialenti (6 April 2016). "Generation." Cultural Anthropology.
• "Decoupled ideals: 'Ecomodernist Manifesto' reframes sustainable development, but the goal remains the same." (21 April 2015). Nature.
• Robert Bryce (17 April 2015). "The Environmentalists' Civil War." The National Review.
• Michael Shellenberger and Ted Nordhaus (22 April 2015). "Want to save the planet? Say bye-bye to nature." USA Today.
• Mark Buchanan (5 May 2015). "Save the World, Give up on Nature." Bloomberg View.
• Fred Pearce (17 June 2015). "A green divide to keep us and nature apart would harm, not heal." New Scientist.
• Gabriel Ignetti and Rick Maltese (4 Sept 2017) "The Ecomodernist Podcast"