3 ms·
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
by alexandrerond 11y ago
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 11y agoSomething 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 11y agoEnvironmentalists 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.
- TeMPOraL 11y agoNuclear is pretty much non-polluting as well. People overestimate how much waste is being created in the plants; it's entirely manageable and you can easily store it without (barring accidents) having it interact in any way with the environment, patiently waiting to be reused as nuclear fuel in the next generation of reactors.
- DennisP 11y agoI'm a fan of aneutronic fusion but lacking that I'd be pretty happy with molten salt reactors, like what Transatomic, ThorCon, Terrestrial Energy, and Moltex are doing. They'd be inherently safe, proliferation-resistant, and produce very little long-term waste. These aren't commercially available yet but they just need straightforward development, not any fundamental breakthroughs.
- guscost 11y ago> 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-earth http://www.bbc.com/future/story/20150402-the-worst-place-on-... http://spectrum.ieee.org/green-tech/solar/solar-energy-isnt-always-as-green-as-you-think http://spectrum.ieee.org/green-tech/solar/solar-energy-isnt-...
- astazangasta 11y agoYeah 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.
- terravion 11y agoActually, this manifesto is anti-environmental out sourcing. Specifically the authors beliefs seem to say that for example, Europeans should pursue agricultural intensification at home instead of compounding and exporting their environmental support needs to Latin America and Africa through policies against GMOs and intensive chemically supported production.