For an in-class exercise, I like asking students: “What’s your utopia?” I tell them that utopias aren’t fashionable these days; “utopian” is generally employed in a derogatory sense, meaning naively optimistic. Some cynics insist that our utopian yearnings invariably lead to disaster.
That conclusion is far too pessimistic. We humans, in spite of our flaws, have achieved substantial moral and material progress, which makes it realistic to hope for more. Whenever you imagine, however fuzzily, a better world, that’s your utopia, and swapping ideas about our utopias can help us find solutions to our problems.
And that brings me to “The Ecomodernist Manifesto,” just published by 18 self-described “scholars, scientists, campaigners, and citizens” (see http://www.ecomodernism.org). The authors include Michael Shellenberger, Ted Nordhaus and several other members of the Breakthrough Institute, a non-profit think tank that reconsiders traditional environmentalism.
The manifesto picks up on the notion—floated by green journalist Andrew Revkin and others—of a “Good Anthropocene.” “Anthropocene” has become an increasingly popular descriptor of the modern era of massive human transformation of the biosphere. To many greens, “Good Anthropocene” is an oxymoron.
The ecomodernists nonetheless insist that “knowledge and technology, applied with wisdom, might allow for a good, or even great, Anthropocene.” We are already learning how to produce food and other necessities much more efficiently and with less impact on the environment. If these trends continue, “humans have the opportunity to re-wild and re-green the Earth–even as developing countries achieve modern living standards, and material poverty ends.” Now that is a utopian vision.
My only significant complaint about “The Ecomodernist Manifesto” is its omission of—you guessed it—war and militarism. The manifesto states: “Violence in all forms has declined significantly and is probably at the lowest level ever experienced by our species proportionally, the horrors of the twentieth century and present day terrorism notwithstanding.”
This statement echoes the upbeat theme of Steven Pinker’s 2011 book The Better Angels of Our Nature. And like Pinker, “The Ecomodernist Manifesto” skims far too blithely over the threat of modern militarism, particularly as embodied by the U.S. Since 9/11, U.S. military actions have killed, directly and indirectly, hundreds of thousands of civilians and exacerbated rather than eradicating violent Islamic extremism.
The U.S. spends almost as much on defense as all other nations combined, and it is the world’s dominant weapons innovator, manufacturer and exporter. While browbeating Iran for its alleged nuclear ambitions, the U.S. is embarking on a trillion-dollar overhaul of its nuclear arsenal, and its aggressive development and deployment of drones and cyber-weapons have inspired other nations to pursue these technologies. In a recent article, I urge environmentalists and other activists to devote attention to militarism, for the following reasons:
“First, war exacerbates or perpetuates our other problems, either directly or by draining precious resources away from their solution. War subverts democracy and promotes tyranny and fanaticism; kills and sickens and impoverishes people; ravages nature. War is a keystone problem, the eradication of which would make our other social problems much more tractable.
“Second, war is more readily solvable than many other human afflictions. War is not like a hurricane, earthquake or Ebola plague, a natural disaster foisted on us by forces beyond our control. War is entirely our creation, the product of human choices. War could end tomorrow if a relatively small group of people around the world chose to end it.
“Third, more than any of our other problems, war represents a horrific moral crime. Particularly when carried out by the U.S. and other nations, or by groups that aspire to or claim the legitimacy of states, war makes hypocrites of us and makes a mockery of human progress. We cannot claim to be civilized as long as war or even the threat of war persists.”
I applaud, and share, the optimism of the ecomodernists. I hope they and all people unhappy with our world consider this possibility: the fastest, surest way to create a world in which children and other living things flourish is to end war once and for all. That’s my utopia. What’s yours?
John Horgan directs the Center for Science Writings, part of the College of Arts & Letters. This column is adapted from one originally published on his ScientificAmerican.com blog, “Cross-check.”
Be First to Comment