As for 1, I think that this was just a misunderstanding. See my reply to Academian. The utopian fiction produced by a community is valid evidence regarding the ideals of that community.
As for 2, I’m open to seeing some non-SF Green utopian fiction. Do you know of any?
As for 3, why do you believe that your “deep environmentalists” are typical of the broader Green movement? Sure, there are people that are anti all tech, but they don’t seem very influential in the larger movement. If they were, I would expect to see more prominent utopian works representing that view.
Yeah, I figured out what you were saying. See my reply to Academian. But fictional evidence is still dangerous because it just represents the ideas of one person and ideals can be altered in service of story-telling.
Not utopian, but see Ishmael (link in my reply to Academian). Utopian literature is rare in general and extremely rare outside usual Sci-fi authors.
The most radical elements of movements tend to be the most creative/inventive (their willingness to depart from established ways is what makes them radical). Among moderates we usually find beliefs sympathetic to the status quo except where they have been influenced by the radical end (in this case deep environmentalists). In that sense calling deep environmentalists “the backbone” makes some sense though I’m not exactly sure what Thomas had in mind. I suspect moderates don’t think about the future or their utopia very much. Speculation about possible futures is something that generally characterizes a radical (with obvious exceptions, especially around these parts).
These are stories of a future where “wet” technology has replaced “hard”: silicon chips have given way to DNA strands, and the industrial high tech has been subsumed by environmental high tech. While all of these fine stories have been printed elsewhere, collected together they comprise a formidable and fascinating look at a future full of ectopias.
I mean it certainly sounds like there is a lot of eco-primitivism involved. But I’m going to go find a copy of “Bears Discover Fire” which sounds awesome.
Yes. Jack mentioned that one in this comment from this thread. From what I could gather through Amazon, it looks like it’s probably a strong example of anti-tech green utopian fiction.
Nonetheless, the vast majority of Green utopias that I’ve seen (which is not, I admit, a huge sample) are not anti-tech, but rather pro-Green tech. They tend to be very optimistic about the level of technology that can be supported with “renewable” energy sources and environmentally-friendly industries.
Good point. “Deep ecology” gets media coverage because it’s extreme. (Although personally I think deep ecology and being vegetarian for moral reasons are practically identical. I don’t know why the latter seems so much more popular.)
I am a vegetarian for moral reasons, but I don’t identify myself as an advocate of Deep Ecology. (Incidentally, the Wikipedia page on Deep Ecology doesn’t mention opposition to technology as such.) I identify Deep Ecology with the view that the ecology as a whole is a moral agent that has a right not to be forced out of its preferred state. In my view, the ecology is not an agent in any significant sense. It doesn’t desire things in such a way that the ecology attaining its desires is a moral good, in the way that people getting what they want is good (all else being equal). There is nothing that it is like to be an ecology.
Individual animals, on the other hand, do, in some cases. seem to me to be agents with desires. It is therefore (to some extent, and all else being equal) good when they get what they want. Since I know of little cost to me from being vegetarian, I choose not to do something to them that I think that they wouldn’t want.
I thought of deep ecology as being the view (as expressed by Dave Foreman, IIRC) that humans aren’t the only species who should get a seat at the table when deciding how to use the Earth. That you don’t need to come up with an economic or health justification for ecology; you can just say it’s right to set aside part of the world for other species, even if humans are worse-off for it.
I wasn’t aware some people thought of an ecosystem as a moral agent. That sounds like deep ecology + Gaia theory.
Not my downvote but
Fictional evidence.
Science fiction authors version of Green utopia are more likely to have a lot of technology because, well, they’re science fiction authors.
If you actually talk to deep environmentalists this kind of attitude is extremely common. Declaring it implausible based on a few books seems… wrong.
As for 1, I think that this was just a misunderstanding. See my reply to Academian. The utopian fiction produced by a community is valid evidence regarding the ideals of that community.
As for 2, I’m open to seeing some non-SF Green utopian fiction. Do you know of any?
As for 3, why do you believe that your “deep environmentalists” are typical of the broader Green movement? Sure, there are people that are anti all tech, but they don’t seem very influential in the larger movement. If they were, I would expect to see more prominent utopian works representing that view.
Yeah, I figured out what you were saying. See my reply to Academian. But fictional evidence is still dangerous because it just represents the ideas of one person and ideals can be altered in service of story-telling.
Not utopian, but see Ishmael (link in my reply to Academian). Utopian literature is rare in general and extremely rare outside usual Sci-fi authors.
The most radical elements of movements tend to be the most creative/inventive (their willingness to depart from established ways is what makes them radical). Among moderates we usually find beliefs sympathetic to the status quo except where they have been influenced by the radical end (in this case deep environmentalists). In that sense calling deep environmentalists “the backbone” makes some sense though I’m not exactly sure what Thomas had in mind. I suspect moderates don’t think about the future or their utopia very much. Speculation about possible futures is something that generally characterizes a radical (with obvious exceptions, especially around these parts).
Okay, then radical anti-tech utopian fiction should be well-represented, shouldn’t it?
Heh. That makes us both look pretty silly.
:) Fair point — the title of that anthology is “Future Primitive: The New Ecotopias”.
I haven’t read that book, but, if the reviews are any indication, I think that it is evidence for my point.
From the Amazon.com review:
I mean it certainly sounds like there is a lot of eco-primitivism involved. But I’m going to go find a copy of “Bears Discover Fire” which sounds awesome.
Apparently you can listen to an audio version of it for free here:
http://www.starshipsofa.com/20080514/aural-delights-no-25-terry-bission/
:)
Like this? I don’t know much about it besides what I’ve read in forum threads such as here, here and here, though.
Yes. Jack mentioned that one in this comment from this thread. From what I could gather through Amazon, it looks like it’s probably a strong example of anti-tech green utopian fiction.
Nonetheless, the vast majority of Green utopias that I’ve seen (which is not, I admit, a huge sample) are not anti-tech, but rather pro-Green tech. They tend to be very optimistic about the level of technology that can be supported with “renewable” energy sources and environmentally-friendly industries.
By (my) definition.
Good point. “Deep ecology” gets media coverage because it’s extreme. (Although personally I think deep ecology and being vegetarian for moral reasons are practically identical. I don’t know why the latter seems so much more popular.)
I am a vegetarian for moral reasons, but I don’t identify myself as an advocate of Deep Ecology. (Incidentally, the Wikipedia page on Deep Ecology doesn’t mention opposition to technology as such.) I identify Deep Ecology with the view that the ecology as a whole is a moral agent that has a right not to be forced out of its preferred state. In my view, the ecology is not an agent in any significant sense. It doesn’t desire things in such a way that the ecology attaining its desires is a moral good, in the way that people getting what they want is good (all else being equal). There is nothing that it is like to be an ecology.
Individual animals, on the other hand, do, in some cases. seem to me to be agents with desires. It is therefore (to some extent, and all else being equal) good when they get what they want. Since I know of little cost to me from being vegetarian, I choose not to do something to them that I think that they wouldn’t want.
I thought of deep ecology as being the view (as expressed by Dave Foreman, IIRC) that humans aren’t the only species who should get a seat at the table when deciding how to use the Earth. That you don’t need to come up with an economic or health justification for ecology; you can just say it’s right to set aside part of the world for other species, even if humans are worse-off for it.
I wasn’t aware some people thought of an ecosystem as a moral agent. That sounds like deep ecology + Gaia theory.
“Moral agent” might not be their term. It more reflects my attempt to make some sense of their view.
Um … what?