Breakthrough Dialogue 2015: The 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? Three leading thinkers share their positive visions of possible futures — and how to realize them. Read a summary of the panel here.

Traditional environmentalists and ecomodernists hold different views about the relationship between economic growth and environmental protection. For traditionalists, unchecked economic growth irrevocably leads to environmental disaster. Avoiding catastrophe demands that we slow, or even degrow, the economy. Ecomodernists, by contrast, argue that as nations become affluent, economic growth slows and consumption becomes less material. Developed countries devote more of their economic surplus to environmental amenities, like clean air and water, and less to production. Developing economies see dramatic increases in consumption, but also more productive agriculture and more efficient energy use. What generalizations can be made about these processes of modernization and decoupling in developed and developing nations, and what remains highly regional and specific? What positive trends should be built upon and what trade-offs will need to be confronted? How is the situation confronting societies and states both different and similar in China and India, the United States and Europe? Read a summary of the panel here.

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? Read a summary of the panel here.

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. 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? Read a summary of the panel here.

Ecomodernism promises an Anthropocene comprised of more wild nature thanks to concentrated human activities — big cities, vertical farms, nuclear power — but on-the-ground evidence suggests "re-wilding" will be anything but tame. Where many re-wilding visions are overly utopian, Stanford geographer Martin Lewis will propose a more pragmatic and incremental vision for California. But who really wants wild nature? Veteran journalist Jim Sterba finds American suburbs struggling to manage an influx of bears, deer, and raccoons. And what kind of generalizations about managing wild nature can be made across developed and developing nations? Shumeet Banerji of Project Tigris will discuss efforts by the Indian government and conservationists to both protect tigers and improve the lives of some of the poorest people in the world. Read a summary of the panel here.

The idea that we can have a good Anthropocene depends on the avoidance of catastrophic climate change. But how much change short of catastrophe would still qualify the age of humans as “good”? Ever since European diplomats in the early 1990s arbitrarily chose two degrees above preindustrial temperatures as the target for a global climate treaty, the criteria for climate risk have never been strictly objective. For hundreds of years, humans have become more resilient to the climate. Today, billions more seek greater resilience in the face of catastrophes, natural or unnatural, through development. How hot can the planet get for it to still be a good Anthropocene? How should we think about climate risk in the context of environmental change and human development?

Public hesitancy and activist campaigns have slowed innovation in GMOs, and the fight devours millions of dollars and working hours every year. Is this technology too politically fraught to make progress? Should we focus instead on other technologies, like irrigation, tractors, and roads, to improve the lives of poor farmers? What are the cultural reasons for GMO fears? Is there anything that this technology can do that truly that cannot be replicated by others?

As the pre-1970 conservation movement gave way to environmentalism, the conception of nature went from local places in need of conserving to that of a single global environment. Since then, ecologists have increasingly come to see all ecosystems as “novel” assemblages of species that come and go, with or without human interference, making establishing a baseline for what is “natural” and “normal” totally subjective. What are the implications of these changing conceptions of nature? Should ecomodernists return to the earlier, place-based view of multiple natures? Or is there some third way of understanding nature that is both global and local?

From urbanization to agriculture to energy use, the emergence of humanity as a global force for planetary change poses unprecedented challenges — and opportunities. But can these opportunities be realized as long as conceptual frameworks treat humans as animals like any other? Debates about the existence and start date of the Anthropocene are occurring alongside a revolution in thinking about humans as uniquely social and technological beings. How can socioecological thinking help efforts to reveal and assess local, regional, and even planetary opportunities?

All ideologies about the environment are essentially ideologies about the economy. Neoliberal greens draw on Smith, Ricardo, and Pigou to argue for market solutions and pricing externalities. Dark greens draw on Malthus to argue for degrowth or steady-state economics. Green Socialists draw on Marx and Kropotkin to argue in favor of local collectivity against capitalist hegemony. Which economic traditions should ecomodernists draw on to make their case for high-energy decoupling — increasing levels of energy use in such a way as to meet human development goals and restore nature? How should ecomodernists think about markets, prices, modernization processes, governance, and the role of the state?

The past 10 years has seen the fragmentation and proliferation of new discourses about the environment, from those of deep greens to “smart-growth reformers” to ecomodernists. And yet a recent review of college-level environmental studies courses found little diversity in the ideas students are being exposed to. Why do environmental studies remain mired in the past? How can universities and even high schools offer a richer spectrum of ideas?

Ecomodernists have been critical of developed-world plans to power the developing world with wind and solar energy, arguing that such a singular commitment to renewables would keep poor people poor. India and China, on the other hand, plan to finance massive amounts of new coal-fired capacity, as well as make an unprecedented commitment to large-scale zero-carbon energy technologies, both in their own countries and abroad. Does the ecomodernist alternative offer the world’s poor something better? Won’t the vision of a high-energy planet inevitably lead to cheap and dirty fossil fuel–powered development? In this interactive session, we will examine the latest efforts to reconcile competing agendas for economic growth, human development, and climate stability.