Recap and Update
The previous three posts – What Does Sustainability Mean?, Two Contrasting Paradigms: Pro-Growth vs. Post-Growth, and Future Sustainability: The Challenges Ahead – form the basis for this introductory post in a series exploring principal future visions. Together, they help explain future visions represented in the three principal categories of pro-growth, de-growth, and post-growth.
In this post we’ll consider modernity, a worldview shaping humanity’s current pro-growth paradigm. In addition to three principal forms of pro-growth covered in Part 2, subsequent posts address the major forms of de-growth and post-growth. Of course, a wide gap exists between pro-growth ecomodernism’s enthusiastic optimism and post-growth doomerism’s critical realism.
Before examining the various future visions, it helps to recall the factors of size, scope, scale, and speed in determining potential socioecological impacts. Examples include the pro-growth effects of overpopulation, the sociocultural-political polarization of society, the ongoing decline of natural resources, the extinction of species, the role of climate change in generating extreme-weather events, the rapidly melting glaciers and rising sea levels, and any other systemic factors associated with modernity’s growing metacrisis. As Richard Heinberg explains in his excellent recent article – The Evolution of Modernity:
Modernity is the first instance in evolutionary history where a species has developed tools and language to expand its range and potential resources, thereby depleting not just its immediate region but *global* stores of fish, game, trees, soil, and minerals, while overfilling *global* waste sinks, notably the planetary atmosphere. . . The colonizing rules, which seemed to work so well for a while, at least for some, have propelled us into the evolutionary cul-de-sac called modernity.
Early Pro-Growth Influences (c.10,000 BCE – 1550 CE)
The main objective for this series of posts is to explore potential future visions and scenarios shaped largely by an interrelated combination of environmental, ideological, socioeconomic, and technological factors. This post focuses on the worldviews and practices that set the stage for the growth of pro-growth modernity, further addressed in the next post (Part 2), featuring the three principal pro-growth concepts of ecomodernism, green growth, and techno-utopianism.
Some socioecological scholars suggest that the seeds of modernity were planted around 10,000 years ago, after planetary warming had caused global glaciers to melt and retreat, and more stable living conditions were formed. Since that time humanity has enjoyed idyllic living conditions during a 11,000-year period known as the Holocene epoch.
Given such favorable living conditions, around 7000 BCE humans began transitioning from nomadic hunter-gatherer bands to stationary communities, where they learned to cultivate plants and domesticate animals for food. The archeological age, since referred to as the Neolithic Revolution (or Stone Age), ended around 1700 BCE.
As human population and agriculture expanded, the stage was an evolving process that progressively caused humans to grow more separated from their natural environments. This incremental estrangement from the non-human world (bio-ecosphere) widened when improved agricultural production provided large amounts of food that could be stored and dispersed as needed. Supplied with greater food surplus, human population began expanding, from villages to towns and cities and eventually to great empires and civilizations.
A major result of human population expansion was a growing amount of complexity in all areas of society, especially governance. Pervasive complexity increased in specialized societal functions, including: centralized administrations; hierarchal ideologies; systems of knowledge and communication; specialization and division of labor; expanded trade; art and architecture; and expanded ownership of property.
By this time, the concept of human domination of Nature was generally established in society as an anthropocentric worldview. Hence, socioecological experts are increasingly referring to our human-centered worldview as the Anthropocene.
Thus, the seeds for modernity were planted and consistently producing unforeseen developments, the most significant being the social systems of patriarchy and hierarchy. Both systems are particularly evident in the historical development of major religions that served to unify the populace by setting socially acceptable moral and ethical guidelines.
For more information covering topics included in this section, check out an earlier post: Our Agricultural and Civilizational Transition.
Modern Pro-Growth Influences (1550 CE – 2025 CE)
The main socio-cultural construct responsible for representing humanity’s current global operating system has been identified as modernity. The characteristics of this modern era include a set of socio-cultural norms, attitudes, and practices that arose in the aftermath of the Renaissance (1550-1700 CE) and flourished in the 17th and 18th centuries Age of Reason and Enlightenment (1685-1815 CE).
In general, the modernity era is thought by various experts to have ended in different times, the first time with the effects of the economic crash in the 1930s, or at the end of World War II in 1945, or even as late as the 1980s and 1990s. Another term used in referencing this post-1945 timeframe is contemporary history.
Postmodernity, a philosophical reaction to modernity, has gained considerable attention and influence over the past several decades. Often referred to as a set of ideas characterized by skepticism towards grand narratives and universal truths, postmodernism focuses on relativism, ethical subjectivism, and questioning traditional authority and structures. Post modernism arose primarily with intellectuals critiquing objective empirical truths as reflections of power by persons treating their perspectives and values as absolute truth.
In other words, post-moderns claim truth is conceived as a personal interpretation, an inference that any person’s interpretation has validity. In academic circles, postmodernism's peak in academic and intellectual circles is thought to have occurred between the late 1970s and the 1990s, largely influenced by Jean-François Lyotard's The Postmodern Condition (1979), and marking a significant moment in its philosophical lexicon.
Personally, I think it’s possible that levels of truth may exist relative to any issue or topic that lies beyond the range and scope of scientific analysis, as occurs with “educated opinions”. But aren’t some fundamental things accepted as true? For example, how can anyone question well-established observable and measurable phenomena like the laws of thermodynamics? Phenomena confirmed by means of documented observations presented by reliable experts may also be considered accurate.
In a way, postmodernism may be thought of as the radical freedom to believe whatever one wishes – about anything – based on minimal guardrails, limits, or proof. It’s possible that much of the ideological and political polarization in society stems from such superficial, subjectivized beliefs. Perhaps it also partially explains the inability within society’s liberals and conservatives to establish an agreeable basis for what may be considered true or false.
Ironically, post-modernism was first adopted and propagated mostly by liberal intellectuals, eventually to be adopted by conservative thinkers and more recently the general populace. Such a pattern offers a reasonable explanation for the proliferation of the post-truth syndrome in describing ongoing polarized political discourse, as represented with the popular media terms “alternative facts” and “fake news”. Over the past few decades, it seems conservatives have given up debating with liberals over what might be true. They simply decided to join the “truth-fabrication” bandwagon.
Hence, when addressing most socioecological issues, the divergence of conservatives and liberals is evident in arguments over what is true or false, typically producing conflicting “opinions” that may or may not be true. This reality presents quite a conundrum to ponder, especially given AI’s powerful effectiveness in promoting personal opinions reflecting propagandized misinformation and disinformation via in the all-pervasive scope of social media, where under the guise of “free speech” anyone can share opinions on any topic, whether true or false.
In sum, the forces and influences common to all existential modern trends are well known, beginning with the general concept that progressive pro-growth is an essential goal for creating human prosperity (but perhaps not for the bio-ecosphere). The principal categorical pro-growth drivers have been identified as the following:
• Ideological and cultural (beliefs and values)
• Economic (trade, industry, agriculture, and labor)
• Socio-cultural (population growth, urbanization, and education)
• Natural capital (energy and technology)
• Political (infrastructure, governance, and diplomacy)
• Environmental (geography, climate, resources, and management)
• Technological (innovations, engineering, energy transitions, and information technologies)
• Social-ethical (cooperation and cohesion, justice and equity, resilience mitigation and adaptation).
Wrap Up
I think this information suffices in introducing the variable visions humans have regarding the future. Originally, I planned to present a single post featuring an overview of future visions in pro-growth, de-growth, and post-growth categories, but soon realized more posts were needed. At least two or three more posts are forthcoming, altogether comprising a future-visioning series.
So, next time we’ll explore the principle pro-growth visions of ecomodernism, accelerationism, green growth, and techno-utopianism. Studying these prevailing trends is essential for comprehending the potential negative and positive consequences of the technological innovations envisioned by the likes of techno-optimistic Elon Musk and colleagues. For some folks, including me, their overly fertile imaginations are frightening. But you’ll need to make up your own mind.
In the meantime, please continue thinking and pondering the type of future you envision – for yourself, your loved ones, and for all future beings, great and small.
Part 2 ~ Ecomodernism, Green Growth, and Techno-Utopianism
Dall-E Image: a pro-growth, techno-optimistic, futuristic city
Click on the image to enlarge.
Recap
In the previous post – Pro-Growth Future Visions, Part 1 – the major influences of modernity and post-modernity were presented. In this Part-2 post, we address major techno-optimistic, pro-growth future visions. Earlier posts covered related topics, too many to list, but you might want to scan them on my Substack. However, to better understand the overall influences leading to the pro-growth visions discussed herein, I heartily recommend either reading, skimming, or scanning Part I.
The principal contemporary trends associated with optimistic pro-growth future visions include ecomodernism and the sub categories of accelerationism, green growth, and eco-utopianism. Hyperlinks to each of these categories provide additional information. Since ecomodernism may be considered as the umbrella term connecting the other three, we’ll begin with it.
Ecomodernism – The Fundamental Pro-Growth Future Vision
Ecomodernism is a general belief and practice favored by techno-optimists, persons who enthusiastically believe that technological innovation and progress is capable of solving all social and environmental problems, all the while minimizing environmental impact and allowing humanity to prosper. Before continuing, bear in mind that ecomodernism may be considered a general category with three subcategories – accelerationism, green-growth, and techno-utopianism, as explained in the following section.
The overriding belief of ecomodernists is faith in the ability of technology to enable limitless growth, which happens to be impossible in a finite bio-ecosystem. Ecomodernists inexplicably advocate for the decoupling of economic growth from environmental impacts, firmly convinced that technology has the potential to address environmental challenges, including climate change, and that technological modernization of society will create a high-consumption urban lifestyle. This optimistic view may seem encouraging, but I tend to agree with well-informed authorities who dismiss such prognostications as highly improbable.
Some favorite ecomodernist concepts include the using of technology to increase meat and dairy food production using high-tech modified crops. Other concepts focus on urbanization and smart cities, including waste-recycling innovations in a circular economy, transitioning to clean energy sources by promoting nuclear power, electric and hydrogen vehicles, and developing green nanotechnology and artificial intelligence (AI) for resource optimization. Perhaps the most ambitious and newsy concept is the interest in solving climate change by using highly expensive and potentially dangerous climate-engineering technologies.
Green Growth, Accelerationism, and Techno-Utopianism
The three contemporary perspectives discussed in this section are considered variations of ecomodernism. Yet, each presents some unique characteristics.
Green Growth, a concept in economic theory and policymaking describing ways that economic growth is not environmentally sustainable, may be thought of as the mainstream-centrist, pro-growth perspective, as promoted by many political progressives. The term green growth was coined in 2005 by Korean Rae Kwon Chung, a director at UNESCAP.
As long as economic growth remains a predominant socioeconomic goal, green-growth promoters assume that a decoupling of economic growth from resource use is required to reduce adverse environmental impacts. Of course, the ultimate goal of green growth is to attain sustainability in terms of renewable low-carbon energy in all socioecological systems, including agriculture and forestry. Although green growth represents a more benign modern trend, it nevertheless endorses a pro-growth trajectory, which, as I frequently reiterate, is an impossible goal in a finite world.
Accelerationism is a term used to describe both left-wing and right-wing revolutionary and reactionary ideologies (some contradictory) aimed at drastically intensifying capitalistic economic growth by using technological progress and various social changes to destabilize existing systems. Readers may readily observe how the “destabilizing of existing systems” goal seems eerily similar to the heavy-handed demolition of established government agencies and programs under the direction of Elon Musk and the notorious Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE).
A key goal of accelerationists is to foment radical social transformations and conditions that lead to technological singularity, a hypothetical point in time at which technological growth results in machines that are smarter than humans. The fear is that such super-intelligent machines may become uncontrollable and irreversible. Should such a tragic scenario ever transpire, woe is us!
I imagine you’ll agree that techno-optimistic goals paint a potentially favorable pro-growth future, at least for humans. One fanciful goal is the concept of humanity exploring and possibly colonizing other planetary bodies, beginning with Mars. This isn’t the time to debunk such a notion, but I’m convinced, along with other socioecologists, that humans populating and living on any planet other than our wonderful planet is a delusional techno-optimistic wish-dream.
Leading proponents of ecomodernism include Ted Nordhaus and Michael Schnellinger, co-founders of the Breakthrough Institute. Ray Kurzweil is a prominent early adopter of ecomodernism, and it’s impossible to overlook the current omnipresent antics of multi-billionaire Elon Musk. For a deeper dive into fanciful ecomodernism, check out the "Techno-Optimist Manifesto” authored by venture-capitalist Marc Andreessen, a fellow Silicon Valley investor with Garry Tan. It merely gushes with romantic fervor in extolling its visions of the future.
Effective accelerationism, a strong pro-technology philosophy with undertones of utopianism, stresses the need for humanity to speedily develop and implement innovative technologies to ensure survival, and also to propagate an evolution of consciousness throughout the universe. Founders Guillaume Verdon and the pseudonymous Bayeslord envision the creation of “unthinkable next-generation lifeforms."
Techno-Utopianism, a similar concept viewed through the lens of a pro-growth ecomodernism future, presents an idyllic vision founded on the premise that scientific and technological advances could create a utopian socioecological existence. As a form of techno-optimism, this ideology aims towards creating an ideal future, a heavenly Earth, when all societal values, laws and institutions operate for the benefit all people and animate beings, in symbiotic harmony with the bio-ecosphere.
In such a world, techno-utopians also claim there will be no scarcity of natural resources, no major sociocultural conflicts, and no serious health issues. Even more miraculously, there will be the possibility for humans to live longer. Of course, there’s no explanation regarding the effects of longer-lived humans in terms of extra resource consumption and resultant waste products, nor is there any reference of negative externalities associated with the proposed radical increases of human population proposed by techno-optimists like Elon Musk.
If utopianism sounds a bit too rosy, well, it is. In fact, I think most readers will agree that the types of pro-growth future concepts covered in this section may be considered as far-fetched, hope-based dreams. Some drawbacks include: 1) relying heavily on unproven technologies and inherent costs at the potential scales needed; 2) assuming the possibility of decoupling material consumption from economic growth; and 3) ignoring the structural sociopolitical inequalities associated with persons or groups controlling technologies, like Artificial Intelligence (AI).
AI and the Realities of Pro-Growth Techno-Optimism
As we’re learning daily, AI is the latest, most advanced form of digital technologies to influence humanity. AI may be viewed as the apex innovation of the current Information Age, a historical period that began in the mid-20th century characterized by a rapid shift from the traditional industries established during the Industrial Revolution to an economy centered on information technology.
The Information Age has been linked to the development of special technological advances, notably the transistor (1947) and the optical amplifier (1957), innovations that have significantly affected the processing and transmission capabilities of information. Advances in the miniaturization and modernization of computing processes are considered the driving force of social evolution, as evidenced by the positive and negative influences experienced by anyone actively participating on social media platforms. Considered as a Third Industrial Revolution, some experts argue that the Information Age is ending, and a Fourth Industrial Revolution is getting underway, highlighted by breakthroughs in AI and biotechnology.
To be sure, there are some positive expectations of AI, including: greater efficiency and automation in managing complex work; medical advancements for early-disease detection and research; environment benefits in modeling and monitoring climate and ecological systems; enhanced communication with language translation and personalized content; and problem solving by simulating anticipated scenarios like disaster responses.
On the other hand, there are an equal number of drawbacks, such as: job displacement due to automation replacing certain jobs, especially in manufacturing, retail, and clerical work; ethical concerns around privacy surveillance and algorithmic bias and AI misuse; environmental cost associated with energy demands in developing and running AI systems; loss of human connection due to over-reliance on AI, reducing genuine human interactions and eroding social skills; and control and misuse of AI for harmful reasons, e. g., weaponization, disinformation, or amplification of inequalities.
Wrap Up
This information should be enough techno-optimistic pro-growth information for readers to digest for the time being. For certain, humanity will continue undergoing significant evolutionary processes, at least as long as the existing pro-growth socioeconomic system continues functioning. As we’ll learn in the posts that follow, there are substantive reasons to suspect that it won’t, especially if AI is directed toward accomplishing nefarious objectives.
A helpful exercise for readers going forward could involve identifying and observing news related to promoting pro-growth perspectives and information, including propagandized information, particularly in relation to the primary concepts covered above. I think one realization will become abundantly clear; namely, the overwhelming influence society’s elite power brokers wield in driving the techno-optimistic pro-growth agenda. This is particularly the case with a growing cadre of oligarchic billionaires and their enthusiastic promotion of techno-optimistic, pro-growth concepts and actions.
Our next topic will focus on de-growth future visions and trends. I hope you can join us. Meanwhile, maintain an attitude of gratitude for being alive in these increasingly exciting and challenging times.
|
ABOUT THE AUTHOR
Clifton Ware, D.M., retired professor (voice), professional singer and author of four published books and two unpublished works, retired in 2007 from the University of Minnesota-Twin Cities School of Music, where he taught for 37 years. Since retiring, as a self-described socio-ecological philosopher he has spent 15 years focusing on sustainability issues, in the process of acquiring an evidence-based, big-picture understanding of all principal societal and ecological systems, including the symbiotic interconnections and role of humans as an integral part of Nature. In 2013 he founded Citizens for Sustainability in St. Anthony Village, MN, produced Sustainability News + Views (2014-2019), a weekly newsletter featuring a variety of articles and a commentary, co-composed 13 Eco Songs with his wife, Bettye, organized Sustainability Forums, and performed eco-oriented programs and presentations for several organizations.
|
