So I've come to your Substack through Dougald's recommendation (I also saw and heard you on the recent zoom call series on At Work In The Ruins), and am finding myself on a fascinating journey through this whole topic. I'm currently reading Jem Bendell's new book, particularly because I have appreciated his writings on world happenings over the past three years. Remembering that Dougald is pretty critical of Jem in his own book, I've just gone back to it to see exactly why again, and in doing also realised who the Ecomodernists are and have re-read his criticisms of that movement too. Which is also really interesting because I have been following Michael Shellenberger recently, regarding the "censorship-industrial-complex." It feels like everything out there is tied together somehow in ways I can't yet quite grasp, and the various commentators are linked with one another in ways that are in flux and slightly confusing! Does that make sense?
Thanks for your comment. Yes, there is a lot of ferment out there, with some strange alliances. When the North American Ecomodernist Society contacted me I was hesitant, because my reading about ecomodernism had led me to the Breakthrough Institute, and its very pro technology mission of a "good Anthropocene," language I find kind of creepy. What I encountered were two very reasonable people who simply saw nuclear, being a dense fuel, a better option than solar/wind, because of all the land the latter will require. I don't know much about Michael Shellenberger, and at the moment am mostly learning about people and trying not to leap too quickly to judgement. I kind of like all the flux. The old categories are crumbling and that is probably a good thing.
This sounds very wise and measured. I'm also focusing on the people in front of me rather than the ideas they represent, which is I think what I have always naturally done. Though some of the resistance to what I perceive as frankly bonkers and dangerous ideas does affect who I listen to at the moment! (Maybe I'm bonkers and dangerous too, of course?! :-))
I'd be interested to hear what you think about nuclear energy. It seems obvious we need to reduce our overall energy use considerably (though how is of course the big problem), and the focus on any "alternative" sources, from renewables to nuclear, is a red herring. I've been astonished, therefore, to see writers who are big on saving the planet turn to nuclear as the solution. George Monbiot springs to mind (who has shifted from being one of my favourite journalists to slotting into the category mentioned above on some subjects :-)). But also see here for a former editor of a natural parenting magazine I used to subscribe to, turned XR activist, turned XR cult-escaper, turned nuclear power fanatic. I don't know what to make of it! https://zionlights.substack.com/ What do you think?
I think ecomodernists are well meaning but enthralled by technology and afraid of loss. Loss of modernity, the culture of convenience, of science and progress. There is a bit of a panic in their work. Over confident and often highly assertive and dismissive of voices suggesting modernism has some downsides and might not survive what it has led to. Many are trained as economists who believe in infinite growth and the notion that with increasing wealth we will solve our problems at least as fast as we create them. Technology can lead to troubles they admit, but nothing like a new technology to solve those troubles! It gets whacky IMO.
I agree with you in general, but I think it's important to acknowledge that one of the motivations of ecomodernists, at least the two that interviewed me from the Ecomodernist Society of North America, is the desire to avoid the ecological costs of "green" energy development. Unlike the "green" energy boosters, they at least seem to understand the concept of land-change and embrace nuclear as a less ecologically-destructive alternative to the vast amount of land destruction that comes with wind and solar. I'm not saying I agree with them, but I did get a sense they understand and care about ecological integrity more than the typical climate warrior.
A lot of ecomodernism is very much about the care for the non-human, which I do appreciate. And yes, "green/renewables" are in many ways another form of environmental disaster, especially at the scales being proposed.
Regarding nuclear....I can see the appeal from a baseload power desire alternative to coal. The main problems I have with nuclear are : 1. The issues of waste disposal, which theoretically isn't hard to solve, but the US can't seem to do it even with an ideal area in Nevada picked out. What is even happening elsewhere? 2. The light water reactors need constant pumping of water to keep from exploding. I am not so sure we can rely on the grid to be stable and back up generation isn't reliable either. 3. This one is more out there, but IMO is the most highly relevant. To build out nuclear means you trust, have confidence in, social complexity at today's levels. It takes very advanced societies to manage nuclear technologies. One of the consequences of overshoot I see as inevitable is a reduction in social complexity. This ALWAYS happens in cycles in the history of civilization. See Joseph Tainter, and Nate Hagens coined the term The Great Simplification to highlight this aspect of the future.
So what you get with ecomodernism is a doubling down on complexity to cope with the problems of complexity inherent in the growth process of civilization. This is exactly the opposite of what systems dynamics insights would say should happen. There is no saving a civilization with our level of complexity, but that doesn't mean we couldn't have something else that doesn't suck. But the ecomodernists are painfully dismissive of this line of thinking.
Great interview, Rob. Really helpful.
So I've come to your Substack through Dougald's recommendation (I also saw and heard you on the recent zoom call series on At Work In The Ruins), and am finding myself on a fascinating journey through this whole topic. I'm currently reading Jem Bendell's new book, particularly because I have appreciated his writings on world happenings over the past three years. Remembering that Dougald is pretty critical of Jem in his own book, I've just gone back to it to see exactly why again, and in doing also realised who the Ecomodernists are and have re-read his criticisms of that movement too. Which is also really interesting because I have been following Michael Shellenberger recently, regarding the "censorship-industrial-complex." It feels like everything out there is tied together somehow in ways I can't yet quite grasp, and the various commentators are linked with one another in ways that are in flux and slightly confusing! Does that make sense?
Hi Helen.
Thanks for your comment. Yes, there is a lot of ferment out there, with some strange alliances. When the North American Ecomodernist Society contacted me I was hesitant, because my reading about ecomodernism had led me to the Breakthrough Institute, and its very pro technology mission of a "good Anthropocene," language I find kind of creepy. What I encountered were two very reasonable people who simply saw nuclear, being a dense fuel, a better option than solar/wind, because of all the land the latter will require. I don't know much about Michael Shellenberger, and at the moment am mostly learning about people and trying not to leap too quickly to judgement. I kind of like all the flux. The old categories are crumbling and that is probably a good thing.
This sounds very wise and measured. I'm also focusing on the people in front of me rather than the ideas they represent, which is I think what I have always naturally done. Though some of the resistance to what I perceive as frankly bonkers and dangerous ideas does affect who I listen to at the moment! (Maybe I'm bonkers and dangerous too, of course?! :-))
I'd be interested to hear what you think about nuclear energy. It seems obvious we need to reduce our overall energy use considerably (though how is of course the big problem), and the focus on any "alternative" sources, from renewables to nuclear, is a red herring. I've been astonished, therefore, to see writers who are big on saving the planet turn to nuclear as the solution. George Monbiot springs to mind (who has shifted from being one of my favourite journalists to slotting into the category mentioned above on some subjects :-)). But also see here for a former editor of a natural parenting magazine I used to subscribe to, turned XR activist, turned XR cult-escaper, turned nuclear power fanatic. I don't know what to make of it! https://zionlights.substack.com/ What do you think?
I think ecomodernists are well meaning but enthralled by technology and afraid of loss. Loss of modernity, the culture of convenience, of science and progress. There is a bit of a panic in their work. Over confident and often highly assertive and dismissive of voices suggesting modernism has some downsides and might not survive what it has led to. Many are trained as economists who believe in infinite growth and the notion that with increasing wealth we will solve our problems at least as fast as we create them. Technology can lead to troubles they admit, but nothing like a new technology to solve those troubles! It gets whacky IMO.
I agree with you in general, but I think it's important to acknowledge that one of the motivations of ecomodernists, at least the two that interviewed me from the Ecomodernist Society of North America, is the desire to avoid the ecological costs of "green" energy development. Unlike the "green" energy boosters, they at least seem to understand the concept of land-change and embrace nuclear as a less ecologically-destructive alternative to the vast amount of land destruction that comes with wind and solar. I'm not saying I agree with them, but I did get a sense they understand and care about ecological integrity more than the typical climate warrior.
A lot of ecomodernism is very much about the care for the non-human, which I do appreciate. And yes, "green/renewables" are in many ways another form of environmental disaster, especially at the scales being proposed.
Regarding nuclear....I can see the appeal from a baseload power desire alternative to coal. The main problems I have with nuclear are : 1. The issues of waste disposal, which theoretically isn't hard to solve, but the US can't seem to do it even with an ideal area in Nevada picked out. What is even happening elsewhere? 2. The light water reactors need constant pumping of water to keep from exploding. I am not so sure we can rely on the grid to be stable and back up generation isn't reliable either. 3. This one is more out there, but IMO is the most highly relevant. To build out nuclear means you trust, have confidence in, social complexity at today's levels. It takes very advanced societies to manage nuclear technologies. One of the consequences of overshoot I see as inevitable is a reduction in social complexity. This ALWAYS happens in cycles in the history of civilization. See Joseph Tainter, and Nate Hagens coined the term The Great Simplification to highlight this aspect of the future.
So what you get with ecomodernism is a doubling down on complexity to cope with the problems of complexity inherent in the growth process of civilization. This is exactly the opposite of what systems dynamics insights would say should happen. There is no saving a civilization with our level of complexity, but that doesn't mean we couldn't have something else that doesn't suck. But the ecomodernists are painfully dismissive of this line of thinking.
Really well put, Jason. Thanks.