The idea, that the civilization is an evil construction which “pollutes the environment and endangers species” is again very popular. That humans and humanity would be good, had they never build a technical civilization, is the backbone of the modern Green movement.
This seems implausible, because fictional Green utopias are almost always technical civilizations. See, for example, Ursula K. Le Guin’s Always Coming Home and Kim Stanley Robinson’s Pacific Edge.
[ETA: I would benefit from an explanation of the downvote.]
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.
Science-fiction societies tend to be technological because, well, that’s part of how the genre is defined. But there are any number of fantasy authors, from Tolkien on, who depict societies with little technology, where disease, squalor and grinding poverty are nonetheless handwaved away.
I don’t see those utopias as some high tech societies. Their technology is only a doll linear extension of the today enviro technologies. A dream of some moderate Green, perhaps. Not an ultra-tech at all!
To become an immortal posthuman or something in line with that, that could be labeled as a (medium range) high tech of the future. But this is in a deep conflict with the Green vision which wants us to be born and to die like every other decent animal, until Mother Nature decides to wipe us all out. Meantime, we are obliged to manufacture some eco friendly filters and such crap.
Greens (as Nazis) have values bigger than our civilized life. For the Greens it’s the beloved Mother Nature, not at all degraded by us. For the Nazis it’s some half naked warriors from the myths, racially pure, living in a pristine fatherland with some Roman architecture added.
Both are retro movements, two escapes to the legendary past, from the evil civilization of today.
To become an immortal posthuman or something in line with that, that could be labeled as a (medium range) high tech of the future. But this is in a deep conflict with the Green vision which wants us to be born and to die like every other decent animal, until Mother Nature decides to wipe us all out.
Human immortality is uncomfortable to almost all non-transhumanists. Almost everyone has convinced themselves that getting hit with a baseball bat is a good thing (to use Eliezer’s metaphor). This isn’t specifically a Green problem. Greens might have some unique objections to immortality, such as fear of overpopulation, but they aren’t uniquely opposed to immortality per se.
This seems implausible, because fictional Green utopias are almost always technical civilizations.
Not my downvote either, but I’m really shocked… it’s simply not okay to quote fictional worlds as evidence. Sure there’s lots of evidence that technology can help the environment, but fiction isn’t it.
Not okay.
ETA: Whoah, okay, not only did I misunderstand what “this” referred to, but at least four other people instantly didn’t:
“The utopian fiction produced by a community is valid evidence regarding the ideals of that community.”
it’s simply not okay to quote fictional worlds as evidence. You can get inspiration from fiction, sure, but not evidence.
I think that this is simply a misunderstanding. Thomas made a characterization of “the backbone of the modern Green movement.” My point was that, if Thomas’s characterization were correct, then we wouldn’t expect the Green movement to produce the kind of Utopian fiction that it does.
He wasn’t quoting fictional worlds as evidence of what sorts of green technology were plausible developments, which I agree would be wrong.
Instead he was citing them as Greens who supported technical civilization, or at least sent that message, whether or not they believed so. This seems perfectly reasonable to do, though of course not strong evidence that the green movement as a whole feels that way.
I assume the idea was that utopian novels might be connected to the Green movement (with the contents of the novel influenced by the ideals of the movement or the ideas in the novel influencing the movement). But I don’t think either novel has been especially popular among the green left and LeGuin and Robinson aren’t especially tied in.
ETA: Wow, four responses saying the same thing. Glad we’re all on the same page, lol.
ETA2: On the other hand, I know a number of environmentalists who have read Ishmael.
This article focuses on these utopian attempts to find routes out of the ecological crisis and map the possibilities of better, greener futures. I begin by arguing that whilst utopian theory has begun to consider the content of ecological future visions, there has been little attention to the ways in which the reflexive and critical strategies of recent utopian narratives can make a distinctive contribution to radical ecology’s social critiques and the process of imagining more environmentally cautious forms of society. I therefore look in detail at two examples of green utopian fiction to analyse how they address the question of how humans can live better with nonhuman nature in the context of contemporary Western debates about the environment. They are Ursula K. Le Guin’s Always Coming Home and Kim Stanley Robinson’s Pacific Edge.
It’s okay to quote them as evidence of what a group of people want or believe, if they’re popular with that group. Green utopias should be correlated with the wishes of the Greens.
This seems implausible, because fictional Green utopias are almost always technical civilizations. See, for example, Ursula K. Le Guin’s Always Coming Home and Kim Stanley Robinson’s Pacific Edge.
[ETA: I would benefit from an explanation of the downvote.]
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?
Science-fiction societies tend to be technological because, well, that’s part of how the genre is defined. But there are any number of fantasy authors, from Tolkien on, who depict societies with little technology, where disease, squalor and grinding poverty are nonetheless handwaved away.
Fantasy authors can give their civilizations magic, which fills roles that would require technology in the real world.
I don’t see those utopias as some high tech societies. Their technology is only a doll linear extension of the today enviro technologies. A dream of some moderate Green, perhaps. Not an ultra-tech at all!
To become an immortal posthuman or something in line with that, that could be labeled as a (medium range) high tech of the future. But this is in a deep conflict with the Green vision which wants us to be born and to die like every other decent animal, until Mother Nature decides to wipe us all out. Meantime, we are obliged to manufacture some eco friendly filters and such crap.
Greens (as Nazis) have values bigger than our civilized life. For the Greens it’s the beloved Mother Nature, not at all degraded by us. For the Nazis it’s some half naked warriors from the myths, racially pure, living in a pristine fatherland with some Roman architecture added.
Both are retro movements, two escapes to the legendary past, from the evil civilization of today.
Human immortality is uncomfortable to almost all non-transhumanists. Almost everyone has convinced themselves that getting hit with a baseball bat is a good thing (to use Eliezer’s metaphor). This isn’t specifically a Green problem. Greens might have some unique objections to immortality, such as fear of overpopulation, but they aren’t uniquely opposed to immortality per se.
Not my downvote either, but I’m really shocked… it’s simply not okay to quote fictional worlds as evidence. Sure there’s lots of evidence that technology can help the environment, but fiction isn’t it.
Not okay.
ETA: Whoah, okay, not only did I misunderstand what “this” referred to, but at least four other people instantly didn’t:
Gladly, I was shocked only by own ignorance!
I think that this is simply a misunderstanding. Thomas made a characterization of “the backbone of the modern Green movement.” My point was that, if Thomas’s characterization were correct, then we wouldn’t expect the Green movement to produce the kind of Utopian fiction that it does.
He wasn’t quoting fictional worlds as evidence of what sorts of green technology were plausible developments, which I agree would be wrong.
Instead he was citing them as Greens who supported technical civilization, or at least sent that message, whether or not they believed so. This seems perfectly reasonable to do, though of course not strong evidence that the green movement as a whole feels that way.
I assume the idea was that utopian novels might be connected to the Green movement (with the contents of the novel influenced by the ideals of the movement or the ideas in the novel influencing the movement). But I don’t think either novel has been especially popular among the green left and LeGuin and Robinson aren’t especially tied in.
ETA: Wow, four responses saying the same thing. Glad we’re all on the same page, lol.
ETA2: On the other hand, I know a number of environmentalists who have read Ishmael.
I named those works specifically because they are mentioned in this paper (only abstract is free access):
Green utopias: beyond apocalypse, progress, and pastoral
From the abstract:
(Emphasis added.)
Fair enough. The Ishmael trilogy came later and I suspect was more popular (but I don’t know where to find that information).
It’s okay to quote them as evidence of what a group of people want or believe, if they’re popular with that group. Green utopias should be correlated with the wishes of the Greens.