
An Ecomodernist Manifesto - dtawfik1
http://www.ecomodernism.org/manifesto-english/
======
avz
One relatively new thought in the manifesto is the explicit disagreement with
the old assertion that the finite resources of our planet cannot sustain
continued economic growth.

The fundamental reason why economic growth can continue at a fixed or even
shrinking environmental footprint is that economic growth and environmental
footprint measure different things. The former measures the creation of
economic value while the latter measures the use of land and raw materials
necessary to create that value.

More and more economic value of what we consume derives not from land and raw
materials but from human inputs like design, creativity, engineering and
services. This means that a smaller amount of raw materials is necessary to
produce one dollar of GDP than it used to.

At the same time, more and more of the raw materials are reused via down-, re-
or even up-cycling. In theory, a very sophisticated economy of a
demographically stable society could thrive and grow entirely on a closed
cycle of raw materials and fixed amount of land. Even if we don't get there we
could still reduce our impact below environment's capacity for self-renewal.

I think we must urgently stop the increase and soon begin shrinking our
environmental footprint. The realization that there is no fundamental
contradiction between continued economic growth (and all its perks including
poverty reduction, scientific progress and continued human development) and
the protection of our planet should highlight that this ambition is
achievable.

~~~
stevetrewick
_> More and more economic value of what we consume derives not from land and
raw materials but from human inputs like design, creativity, engineering and
services. This means that a smaller amount of raw materials is necessary to
produce one dollar of GDP than it used to._

Very much this. It isn't, however, a new insight to economics. That the limits
to growth argument is a fallacy based on conflating increased value with
increased resource use is standard economics but misunderstood by almost
everyone else, hence the trend for physicists to write blog posts calling down
derp on econ types. This is explored by Tim Harford in a piece on Freakonomics
[0].

I would highly recommend Harford's book _The Undercover Economist_ to anyone
with even a passing interest in the field. It's one of those humbling books
which demonstrates that everything you thought you knew about a subject was
basically wrong.

[0][http://freakonomics.com/2014/01/24/can-economic-growth-
conti...](http://freakonomics.com/2014/01/24/can-economic-growth-continue-
forever-of-course/)

------
hxrts
Bruno Latour's response to this text can be found here:
[http://entitleblog.org/2015/06/27/fifty-shades-of-green-
brun...](http://entitleblog.org/2015/06/27/fifty-shades-of-green-bruno-latour-
on-the-ecomodernist-manifesto/)

~~~
astazangasta
To this I say: what's wrong with the e-cigarette? Why NOT have your cake and
eat it, too, if you actually can? There is no virtue in meaningless
asceticism.

~~~
ZenoArrow
> "There is no virtue in meaningless asceticism."

Quite right.

As a side note, that's not the case with e-cigarettes, the health risks are
largely unknown and there appears to be a fair amount of variation in the
chemical composition of the different brands. Here's a level-headed article
about some of the early studies into e-cigarette health risks:

[http://www.health.harvard.edu/blog/electronic-cigarettes-
hel...](http://www.health.harvard.edu/blog/electronic-cigarettes-help-or-
hazard-201109223395)

------
alexandrerond
At least the writers confess they are moved by "deep love and emotional
connection to the natural world". And from there I guess it's not too
difficult to build up a dream that morally allows you to keep your current
over-consuming habits which are trashing the planet, while claiming that you
LOVE nature and at the same time not pissing off anyone by avoiding all
politics to get in the mix.

The ecological problem is a bit more complex that blind trust in technology
and efficiency progress. Blind faiths, simplifications and master plans have
added little (from ecomodernism to primitivism). The problems of democracy,
discrimination and redistribution of wealth have a lot to say, but that's too
tough for a cute little manifesto.

They speak of technology "applied with wisdom", "with proper management". So I
take that, until now, we have just mismanaged technology and applied it in
dullest ways. Or I guess they have a secret plan on how to manage technology
correctly from now on. Or perhaps they will come to realize that technology
has and will always have a good and bad side, and that most of its
consequences (good and bad) are often unforeseeable, and as such, hard to
steer. Let's not even think of WHO actually controls technology.

What's more, the "decoupling" of human well-being from human impact is a myth.
The impact has just been transferred to third world countries where sure none
of these ecomodernists live or probably ever visited. Lol when they take "New
England" and "France" forests as examples. Any plans to bring up the 80% of
undeveloped countries to the pace of the 20% with nice growing forests? None.

This is the typical manifesto which is absolutely nothing new, sounds super
nice, but changes nothing, provides nothing, and feels about right in the
hands of the rich and ruling elites because it absolutely avoids to question
any status-quo whatsoever.

~~~
DennisP
Something they explicitly mention is nuclear power, which has a far smaller
footprint on the environment than fossil fuels, but is often passed over by
environmentalists wedded to a low-energy ideal.

~~~
astazangasta
Environmentalists are not wedded to a low-energy ideal, they're wedded to a
non-polluting one. Speaking for myself, I'd be happy with, say, a P-B
aneutronic fusion system and would vastly prefer this over solar or wind. But
we don't have this right now, and solar or wind are the least polluting
alternatives, and considerably cheaper to develop than nuclear options.

~~~
guscost
> solar or wind are the least polluting alternatives

Not even close, but unless you live in mainland China you don't see the
pollution.

[http://www.bbc.com/future/story/20150402-the-worst-place-
on-...](http://www.bbc.com/future/story/20150402-the-worst-place-on-earth)

[http://spectrum.ieee.org/green-tech/solar/solar-energy-
isnt-...](http://spectrum.ieee.org/green-tech/solar/solar-energy-isnt-always-
as-green-as-you-think)

~~~
astazangasta
Yeah I'm not happy about PV, but there are solar systems that are not as
polluting (solar concentrating systems, heating systems), and wind systems are
relatively inert compared to PV or nuclear.

------
ZenoArrow
I'm sympathetic to this cause, but that introduction contains a lot of waffle.
If the author is reading this, you can summarise the key driving forces for
change as...

1\. Cannot rely on infinite economic growth on a planet with finite resources.

2\. A better balance between human life and the rest of life on the planet
relies on allowing nature to regrow without competing with human development.

You don't need to have all the answers up front, the solution is going to
evolve naturally once we agree on what why it's desirable to change and get
the discussions going.

~~~
stevetrewick
The authors summarise their disagreement with your 1 in TFA.

 _Despite frequent assertions starting in the 1970s of fundamental “limits to
growth,” there is still remarkably little evidence that human population and
economic expansion will outstrip the capacity to grow food or procure critical
material resources in the foreseeable future._

~~~
ZenoArrow
So the suggestion is that because it hasn't been a problem for us already it
won't be a problem in the foreseeable future?

We can have an economy based on abundance rather than scarcity, but that's not
going to be achieved overnight, the priority for now is to slow down the
damage.

To give an example, look at the problem of overfishing. Taking the attitude of
the authors you could argue it's not causing us problems in the foreseeable
future, but the longer we leave it the worse it gets, and our depletion of
fish populations is directly linked to our consumption and growing our economy
without addressing this problem is going to cause problems with decreasing the
variety of life found in rivers, lakes, seas and oceans.

------
oneJob
See: Systems Theory

Sometimes the greatest harm is born out of the most sincere intentions.
Anything founded on false, internally inconsistent premises will fail. Often,
the longer it takes to fail, the more harm is done. Like it or not, humans
cannot completely extricate themselves from "nature", unless we are talking
packing up and migrating every last human off Earth to Mars. That's not
happening; this won't work. Come to grips with that sooner, not later.

------
7952
Given the understanding that the environment is unavoidably inked to humanity
it seems a little doubtful that we can just decouple so absolutely. This is a
common attitude in rural and urban planning where the world is neatly divided
up into zones of urban, agriculture, industry, etc. Making room for nature in
that kind of world is very difficult as it will always lead to a loss from
another interests that are already in conflict with one another. It is
particularly problematic in places like Sub-Saharan agriculture where people,
nature, and agriculture are in such close proximity and these conflicts are a
more of a social issue.

I think it is better to have more fuzzy edges and make ecology an intrinsic
part of development that people will want to defends. For example a new
development should surrounded by a buffer of woodland/wetlands/grassland that
will be valued by residents.

------
ilaksh
[http://runvnc.github.io/tinyvillage](http://runvnc.github.io/tinyvillage)

