Breakthrough Dialogue 2015: The Good Anthropocene June 21 – 23, 2015
Over the last few years, ecomodernist thinkers have articulated a vision of a “good Anthropocene,” one where humans use our extraordinary powers to shrink our negative impact on nature. They have argued for the embrace of modernization processes to ecological ends. It is a vision of: urbanization, as people in cities have more opportunities and use resources more efficiently; intensified food production to increase yields and leave more room for nature; the expanded use of nuclear energy, which has zero emissions and the smallest land footprint of any energy source; greater development of GMOs to reduce chemical use and increase yields; animal-free meat; “re-wilding” former farm and pasture lands with wolves, buffalo, mountain lions, and even formerly extinct species — all the while supporting universal human dignity.
But the very discussion of a good Anthropocene triggered a critical response from some who see modernization processes and the age of humans itself as inherently risky and destructive. Since it is only under Holocene conditions that we know human civilization can survive, there can be no “good” Anthropocene, only less bad variants, they say. Raise global temperatures two, four, or six degrees and all bets are off. As such, critics of the good Anthropocene say, ecomodernism doesn’t adequately consider the potential for civilization-ending catastrophe or for a stronger societal connection to nature. Technology cannot correct for human greed, hubris, and profit-driven development, they say.
In light of this debate, Breakthrough Dialogue 2015 will focus on the question: “What is our vision of a good Anthropocene?” And it will ask related questions: Given global complexity, inequality, and ideological diversity, should we speak of many Anthropocenes rather than a single Anthropocene? How do these visions draw on and break from traditional environmentalism, on the one hand, and the status quo, where modernization processes seem to be proceeding? Given declining visits to national parks, the popular preference for pastoral landscapes, and the suburban backlash to increased wildlife, is more wild nature really what anybody really wants?
Breakthrough Paradigm Award
Presentation: Sunday, June 21, 6-8 p.m.
We are proud to announce the Breakthrough Paradigm Award 2015 will go to Ruth DeFries, a visionary ecomodernist scholar and Denning Family Professor of Sustainable Development at Columbia University. DeFries is the author of influential works about “planetary opportunities.” Her recent book, The Big Ratchet: How Humans Thrive in Face of Natural Disasters (Basic, 2014), describes how humans repeatedly face, then overcome crises of food production. DeFries’s work focuses on agriculture, the Green Revolution, and nutrition in India, and advances the case that Malthusian crises are real, but so too is humankind’s ability to use ingenuity to surmount them. In this groundbreaking work, DeFries challenges the stock framing of environmental problems as either “optimistic” or “pessimistic” to embrace a wider and more nuanced view.
- Ruth will accept her award and be interviewed on stage by journalist Meera Subramanian, who edits the literary journal Kill the Buddha and writes for Nature, Smithsonian, Discover, and the New York Times.
A Good Anthropocene?
Can we imagine a good Anthropocene? If so, how can its qualities and strengths overcome its defects and weaknesses? If not, then what is our positive vision for a non-Anthropocene future? What matters most to improving future human and environmental outcomes in terms of agriculture, cities, and energy? What should be our ethical and moral posture to each other, to non-humans, and future generations? Thinking to all that is extraordinary, beautiful, and remarkable about humans, and to our gifts for language and technology and sociality, what is desirable and what is possible? Given that we think about the future in reference to the past, what story should we tell of human development? Four leading thinkers share their positive visions of possible futures — and how to realize them.
- Clive Hamilton, Professor of Public Ethics at the Centre for Applied Philosophy and Public Ethics, joint venture of Charles Sturt University and the University of Melbourne
- Mark Lynas, Author and Visiting Fellow at Cornell University's Office of International Programs, College of Agriculture and Life Sciences
- Oliver Morton, Briefings Editor, the Economist
Economic Stagnation as Ecological Salvation?
Slowing growth rates are an understandable source of anxiety in wealthy nations — but could economic stagnation also be the key to saving nature in the Anthropocene? For 40 years, green thinkers have proposed a utopian “steady-state” economy. But there are more prosaic reasons for slowing growth in developed nations. Once modern infrastructure (cities, housing, roads, pipes, wires) is built and incomes reach high levels, birth rates and economic growth slow around the world. Europe and the United States are returning marginal farmlands to nature and wildlife, as agriculture shrinks to just one percent of the economy. Wealthy nations take their economic surpluses in the form of nonmaterial goods, such as more leisure time and higher environmental quality. Will “decoupling” allow humankind to return more of the planet to wild nature and prevent a sixth great extinction? Or will environmental impacts shift to economically poorer but ecologically richer nations, hastening inevitable doom? Will slower growth result in slower technological innovation? Or can innovation continue apace even as growth rates slow?
- Fred Block, Research Professor of Sociology, University of California, Davis
Price Nature? Or Make Nature Priceless?
One of the big ideas of the last 20 years is that in order to save more nature, we will need to price it. But what if this thinking is exactly backwards? What if the best way to save nature is not by giving it a price but rather by making it price-less — that is, use-less, in economic terms? Already this is happening in the United States and Europe, where marginal farmlands are becoming grasslands and forests, allowing for the return of wildlife. And for several hundred years, humans have spared forests and wildlife by moving away from wood for fuel and bushmeat for food, to modern energy and modern livestock. As agriculture expands in the tropics and consumption of sea life rises, could "decoupling" through substitution and agricultural intensification be the key to returning more of planet Earth to nature?
- Barry Brook, Professor of Environmental Sustainability, University of Tasmania
- Elena Bennett, Assistant Professor, Department of Natural Resource Sciences and McGill School of Environment, McGill University
Dessert Talk: Andrew Revkin, Journalist at the New York Times and Senior Fellow for Environmental Understanding, Pace University, "Journalistic Reflections on the Anthropocene"
What is Modern in Ecomodernism?
Ecomodernism posits that technology and human development can leave more of the Earth to nature. But what if ecomodernism’s two central categories — nature and modernity — are themselves outmoded? In 1991, the French anthropologist Bruno Latour famously argued that “we have never been modern,” taking aim at the commonplace notion that modern science frees us from ideology and mythology. Since then, Latour has argued for embracing old mythologies, including Western religions, in a new ecological context. Meanwhile, political scientist Jane Bennett has argued that far from “disenchanting” the world, modern life remains enchanted, mysterious, and even magical, and that new ecological thinking must take seriously the agency of non-humans. And Steve Fuller has called on “up-wingers” on the Left and Right to unite against reactionary greens and conservatives for a future-oriented transhumanism. How do these different views challenge — and aid — the ecomodernist project?
- Bruno Latour, Professor and Vice President of Research, Sciences Po Paris
- Steve Fuller, Auguste Comte Professor of Social Epistemology, University of Warwick
Who Cares about Wild Nature?
Ecomodernism promises an Anthropocene comprised of more wild nature thanks to dense cities, vertical farms, vat meat, and nuclear power — but does anyone want more wild nature? Stanford geographer Martin Lewis says yes, and argues for a messier, more pragmatic, and less purist “rewilding” of California and the United States, complete with bears, buffalo, and big wild cats. But is this rewilding vision overly romantic? Over the last two centuries, half of the human race has opted to live in cities, with the rest of the species rapidly moving in the same direction. The middle class moves to suburbs, and the wealthy to bucolic landscapes of vineyards, inefficient pastures, and “highly subsidized cows” (Latour). Few of us, least of all those most concerned with environmental crisis, live near wild swamps and rainforests. Veteran journalist Jim Sterba finds American suburbs struggling to manage an influx of bears, deer, and raccoons. Meanwhile, leading conservation biologists, such as Georgina Mace, make the case for biodiversity in a world of rising “novel ecosystems” and hybrid wildlife. How should ecomodernists envision, and make the case for, wild nature and biodiversity in the Anthropocene?
- Martin Lewis, Senior Lecturer in International History, Stanford University
- Jim Sterba, Journalist and Author, Nature Wars: The Incredible Story of How Wildlife Comebacks Turned Backyards Into Battlegrounds
Connect With Breakthrough