Difference between revisions of "Ecomodernism"
(→Clean Energy) |
(→Urbanization) |
||
| Line 72: | Line 72: | ||
And there are other things that make cities more sustainable. Cities are generally significantly less car dependent, and very often have extremely robust and efficient public transport systems, which are also gradually moving towards being electrically powered. They also are often walkable, meaning people often don't need to drive to go to the grocery store or for other amenities. Also, with everything being very compact and close by, it becomes much easier to centralize utilities like electricity and water. | And there are other things that make cities more sustainable. Cities are generally significantly less car dependent, and very often have extremely robust and efficient public transport systems, which are also gradually moving towards being electrically powered. They also are often walkable, meaning people often don't need to drive to go to the grocery store or for other amenities. Also, with everything being very compact and close by, it becomes much easier to centralize utilities like electricity and water. | ||
| − | + | Urban cities aren't perfect, and are prone to excessive land use and sprawl. But these are not problems inherent in cities, as there are many examples of it being done fairly well. As we increasingly recognize the issues with too much land use from cities, urban planners are increasingly focused on minimizing that, often in the form of building up instead of outwards, and repurposing some buildings for residential use. | |
We're not saying every last person oughta live in big cities, we of course need ''some'' people living in rural areas to maintain agriculture, and some people have a personal preference of suburbs and rural areas. | We're not saying every last person oughta live in big cities, we of course need ''some'' people living in rural areas to maintain agriculture, and some people have a personal preference of suburbs and rural areas. | ||
Revision as of 16:04, 4 October 2025
Within environmentalist circles, there exists something of a debate as to whether or not it's good to allow for continued economic growth and human quality of life if it will come at the cost of the environment and of course climate change. As anyone who knows a little history is aware, as we've developed technology, increased quality of life, and created a globalized, interconnected economy, this required the burning of fossil fuels (oil and coal) and boosted the human population massively, and this has led to the huge ecological problems humanity is facing right now. On the surface, it seems like doing a deal with the devil. Do we ditch the energy sources that are making us wealthy and prosperous, or do we hold on to them while we keep digging ourselves deeper?
Well, frankly, this whole discussion is based on a false dichotomy. While traditional, old school environmentalist movements often emphasized becoming more in tune with nature and slowing down, modern technology and science allows us to maintain our high quality of life, population, and economy all while minimizing our environmental footprint. This isn't speculative technology, we have these resources available to us right now, and they come in all different forms.
Unlike some Vegans, we emphasize that human beings also deserve moral consideration, and increasing their quality of life does not automatically need to come at the expense of the environment. Economic growth is (overall) a good thing, and billions of people rely on it to escape poverty. In comes Ecomodernism, the idea that economic development and environmental protection are not mutually exclusive, and both can be achieved with the proper technologies, smarter planning, and a shift to a more sustainable civilization.
Contents
Motives and Rationale
Despite it being considered an environmentalist issue, climate change very much is a human rights concern, considering that it's projected to kill millions of people in the coming years, particularly those in poor countries. But at the same time, these countries need to be lifted out of poverty; Western countries have the resources to give to these countries so they can be lifted out of poverty and become wealthier through economic produdcivity.
And even amongst first world peoples who have everything they need in terms of basic necessities, unless we want to go back to the Middle Ages and have much of the population die, we need to embrace technology in order to maintain our health and comfort. It's important to keep in mind that if we shut down fossil fuel companies tomorrow, like, millions of people would die.
Among the many calls by environmentalists to fight climate change, some of them include abolishing capitalism or overthrowing current systems in exchange for a system that would presumably be better not just for the environment, but for humanity.
It's not a very productive solution. As noble as their intentions may be, this ultimately is just wishful thinking fueled by the Nirvana Fallacy. There is no reason to believe that a revolution to overthrow capitalism will happen any time soon (especially given how adaptable it is), since despite its many, many flaws, it has given us the comfort and high quality of life millions of people take for granted. Many calls for a leftist revolution don't even have a coherent blueprint on how it is to be achieved and implemented, but even if we managed to overthrow the system and replace it with whatever leftist governance some advocate, it doesn't automatically follow that this system will result in fewer emissions. These industries are not polluting and breeding billions of animals for fun, they're polluting to fulfill the demands of consumers. If consumers won't change, what reason is there to believe that this new system will reduce the demand for the products of these industries?
Others advocate for something more misanthropic: Population reduction. These people argue that the main cause of all of our environmental woes is human's ever increasing population. But this is not based on the most sound of reasoning. A new human life does not automatically translate to a huge environmental footprint. The West makes up a relatively small minority of the global population (about an eighth), yet is the population that is source of the most greenhouse gas emissions, compared to the other seven billion people in developing countries. So, is it population, or how the population lives?
Decreasing the human population is a pretty hard sell and it's not even clear if the results will be what are intended. It could be effectively implemented through authoritarian measures like China's former One-Child Policy (good luck defending that) but other than that, telling people to have less kids is... unlikely to be a success (look at how hard it is to convince them to go vegan!). Also, saying that a population reduction would be a net positive forces you to concede uncomfortable positions depending on your angle (namely, events of mass deaths like famine, genocide, and wars, while involved a lot of suffering, were a good thing in the long term for the environment).
There also exists anarcho-primitivists but those people are way too wacky to take seriously.
Ultimately, it comes down to Ecomodernism being the most realistic solution, as this article will demonstrate. There is no reason to believe that abolishing capitalism will result in a system that's better for the environment, nor is it realistic to expect the human population to decline dramatically enough in time to result in the reduction of the enough emissions to avoid the catastrophic effects of climate change. There is no need to abolish the system to improve things, and while the population tends to go up and down, advocating for reduction is not only difficult but extremely alienating as a position.
Veganism
Gotta start here, obviously. We've mostly discussed these sorts of things in other articles, so we'll keep this section brief.
Out of the hundreds of irrational, unsustainable activities human beings partake in, consumption of animal products is arguably the most egregious in terms of cost to benefit ratio. Not only is animal agriculture responsible for roughly 12-20% of global emissions [1][2], it is also responsible for about 50% of deforestation[3][4], AND is the primary usage of our crops, including soy, wheat, oats, and maize ('corn' is a very silly word). It takes dozens to hundreds of gallons of water, and dozens to hundreds of pounds of feed just to make one pound of meat. Thermodynamics would cry.
With our current food supply, we can easily feed the current global population, and especially if we get off beef and dairy, we'll be able to clear up tons of land that's used for grazing. Allowing that land to rewild potentially allows for forests and wetlands to gradually return, which can act as major carbon sinks.
What makes it particularly egregious compared to the other unsustainable things we do, is that consumption of animal products at most, give us a temporary moment of indulgence which very often damages our long term health, and that could have otherwise been achieved with other foods that can not only be made to be just as delicious, but are even healthier. At least with fossil fuels and transportation, there are economic and quality of life arguments to be made.
In terms of ecomodernism, Veganism is cornerstone. It is a completely unnecessary waste of resources, and we can easily support the current global population and more with our current food infrastructure. Switching humanity to plant based diets would be a massive relief of our food resources, and reduce greenhouse gases substantially. This would not have any significant negative economic impact (and in fact, would be beneficial; see Economic Arguments for Veganism), and would improve our sustainability significantly. Just one example of environmental preservation and economic growth going hand in hand.
Plant Based Meats
Lab Grown Meat
GM Technology
As previously mentioned, we currently grow enough plant food to sustain the global population. But, even axing all animal agriculture and the land that takes up (factory farms, grazing), farms to grow crops take up a huge percentage of land, land that destroys habitats and potentially deforests entire regions.
There are tons of benefits to using GM Technology on crops (despite what the fearmongers say), and among them include increased efficiency in order to produce more crops per acre of land (for both consumption and general use, such as cotton). This results, logically, in less land required to harvest the same amount of crops, along with generally reducing emissions.
Clean Energy
This is perhaps the most crucial tenant of Ecomodernism. Energy and electricity are the primary catalysts towards moving humanity forward via economic and technological development, but the downside is that this is often done through fossil fuels, which are the main culprits behind climate change. However, we have technology that can give us this energy with a significantly smaller impact on the environment.
Renewables
Though renewables may be somewhat limited depending on location, they will serve as an instrumental part of a clean energy future, and have plenty of use cases. Of course, as the name suggests, the energy is created from renewable resources that won't run out any time soon (sun is gonna be around for a few billion more years).
Nuclear Power
See: Nuclear Energy
As far as clean energy is concerned, Nuclear Power is the bread and butter. It's an energy source that can provide for the energy needs of big cities and industry on the level of fossil fuels, with minimal greenhouse emissions.
If we had the majority of our energy grid on nuclear power, our carbon footprint would be fraction of what it currently is, and we would have no issue providing to our citizens, and of course our economy would still be chugging along.
Fusion Power
This is much more speculative (it's one of those "always a few decades away" things), but it's something to keep in mind.
Unlike Nuclear Energy, where atoms are fizzled, or "split" (hence Nuclear Fission), Fusion Energy fuses atoms together via extreme heat. Tons of research and resources have been devoted to figuring out Fusion, and if it actually ends up happening, it would be extremely clean and efficient. The main source of energy will be deuterium which is obtained from seawater, and lithium, which makes up a large chunk of Earth's crust (and would also produce helium, which can help with our potential shortages).
Fusion energy is basically like Nuclear, being efficient and clean, and no intermittency, but potency amped up by several orders of magnitude.
Natural Gas
This one is a bit of an outlier. While it is still a fossil fuel and emits CO2, the quantity is a caliber below oil and coal, and does have some practical benefits such as for cooking. It likely won't play a very significant role in our clean energy future, but it can be incredibly useful as a transition fuel from other fossil fuels to renewables and nuclear power. They can also serve as a back up in case there are any issues with solar or wind plants. Most of the infrastructure is already in place, so it wouldn't be a very big investment, making it's utility as a brige to clean energy easier. Anything that kills off coal and oil (the two worse emitting energy sources) faster is a tool that should be considered.
Urbanization
The common perception of humanity's ever-increasing burden on Earth is often showcased with our largest cities, such as New York, Tokyo, London, or more cynically Shanghai or Delhi. A lot of environmentalists insist we've strayed to far from nature and point to these as reasons why, but this thinking is misguided. Contrary to this popular lamentation, big cities are actually the most sustainable way of living, especially compared to rural and suburban living.
It sounds counterintuitive, but the reasoning behind it is pretty simple. Firstly, they allow us to pack BILLIONS of people in relatively small amounts of land. Over half of the world's population lives in urban areas as of 2025 (to be more precise, about 56%), and in regards to mega-cities (cities with populations exceeding one million people), about a quarter of the world's population resides in one. And the kicker? Cities only take up 1-3% of the world's total land area, and mega-cities make up less than 2% of that. This runs a bit counter to the idea that humans are a ubiquitous scourge on the Earth, when we can probably have three times our current population and still leave most of the land largely untouched. Couple that with a good nuclear power plant or two, you're providing billions of people with very clean energy.
And there are other things that make cities more sustainable. Cities are generally significantly less car dependent, and very often have extremely robust and efficient public transport systems, which are also gradually moving towards being electrically powered. They also are often walkable, meaning people often don't need to drive to go to the grocery store or for other amenities. Also, with everything being very compact and close by, it becomes much easier to centralize utilities like electricity and water.
Urban cities aren't perfect, and are prone to excessive land use and sprawl. But these are not problems inherent in cities, as there are many examples of it being done fairly well. As we increasingly recognize the issues with too much land use from cities, urban planners are increasingly focused on minimizing that, often in the form of building up instead of outwards, and repurposing some buildings for residential use.
We're not saying every last person oughta live in big cities, we of course need some people living in rural areas to maintain agriculture, and some people have a personal preference of suburbs and rural areas.
Of course, we do not think nature is stupid and redundant, we share a great appreciation for nature, and from a mental health standpoint, it's good to get out and bask in it from time to time, which is partly why it's important for big cities to have some recreational park systems in place. And of course, forests are vital as carbon sinks. It's just problematic to automatically assume the closer to nature we are, the better. We did live pretty close to nature for much of civilization's existence. It sucked. Unless you fancy freezing your ass off during winter hoping you have enough food, likely dying at age 32 from some horrible infectious disease, and engaging in hard, backbreaking labor from dawn to dusk everyday, you would agree that nature isn't always so great, though most people have an extremely romanticized idea of life without technology.
Suburban Living
Depending on how it's done, suburban living is arguably the least sustainable of the three. Compared to rural living, Suburban houses tend to be bigger, more unproductive land use (particularly lawns) and culture is generally more car-centric. However, if they take a more sustainable approach, suburbs would likely rival cities on that front. This would come in the form of living in smaller (but not inferior in terms of QOL) homes, such as attached housing (smaller units, with insulation), installing solar panels on the roof of every home, investing in decent public transport, utilizing space that's used for lawns as gardens for growing food, emphasize biking and pedestrian infrastructure, and have a strong local zero waste program (which are all things we should be doing regardless of area settlement).
These things are certainly an uphill battle in terms of implementing, but it goes to show how we can transform even the most unsustainable forms of living into the opposite without compromising the economy or quality of life.
Construction
As important as this is, it's a bit harder to achieve due to the inherent harms with a lot of construction, but it isn't impossible, and can often be remedied with alternative building materials and implementing clean energy.
Cement
Cement is one of the most important construction materials for infrastructure, but it's also a top source of emissions. Roughly 8% of global emissions are due to concrete production alone. It's concerning, because while cncrete is such an essential part of our infrastructure, it's difficult to decrease the emissions from it significantly. However, a big change would be utilizing clean energy (either nuclear or renewables) for developing cement instead of fossil fuels used in kilns, having them be electrically powered, but half of the emissions from cement production come from the chemical reactions inherent in heating limestone (CaCO3) to 1450°C to calcine them into lime (CaO), and there isn't really anything that can be done about that in terms of eliminating it. But as it happens, we've managed to developed some carbon capture methods, such a amine scrubbing and calcium looping, but they are often energy and infrastructure intensive in themselves, and it's difficult to justify the costs.
However, humanity being ever adaptable, have developed alternatives to cement that can be utilized that are much cleaner. Likely the most sustainable material we have available is Wood, and we can modify it a bit in order for it to make it sufficient to replace concrete. Cross-Laminated Timber for example is probably the best material for this purpose. It's basically several wood panels glued together, which sounds weak, but is actually much stronger than it sounds.
Steel
Mass transit
Trading with Developing Countries
Degrowth
Personal Efforts
See: Other Ways to Reduce Carbon Footprint
As important as many systemic and infrastructure related changes are to obtaining a sustainable and well-off civilization, we also have to consider our own lifestyle choices, and if they are reflective of how we think everyone should live. We have to be the changes we want to see in the world; We can't just talk a big game and expect the government to fix all our problems and not have any inclination to fix what we can in our own lives. Our actions don't exist in a vacuum, and your positive actions for the environment subtly influence others to do a little more. Setting an example counts for much more than you may realize.
With concern to ecomodernism, taking steps to minimize your own carbon footprint isn't giving up your quality of life significantly, and in fact, can often save you money. It's being part of of embracing solutions, and moving towards a world where we accelerate technological advancement while staying committed to the environment.
For a (mostly) complete list of ways to achieve this, check out the article above.
