Ecologists

New genetic and nano technologies pose environmental risks, but also can be used to build a more sustainable development path, and to remediate the damage we have already done. Transhumanists reject the deep ecological claim that humanity is a cancer on the planet, and argue instead that humanity needs to become more intelligent in its use of technology and management of the ecosystem. 

In To Govern Evolution Walter Truett Anderson argued “Today the driving force in evolution is human intelligence…Even our own genetic future is in our hands, guided not by Darwinian abstractions but by science and medical technology and public policy…This is the project of the coming era: to create a social and political order—a global one—commensurate to human power in nature. The project requires a shift from evolutionary meddling to evolutionary governance.”

Human enhancement technologies reinforce this “technogaian” approach. Not only will more people be able to understand the choices we face as emerging technologies boost our collective and individual intelligence, but with life extension we will all feel more responsibility for the consequences of our ecological behavior.

Technogaianism applied to ecosystem management is found in the “reconciliation ecology” movement and writings such as Michael Rosenzweig’s Win-Win Ecology. Rosenzweig boils down his approach to several simple steps. “First, drink deeply from the natural history of the species you want to help. Study their reproductive cycles, their diets, and their behavior. Abstract the essence of their needs from what you observe. Then apply it without worrying whether your redesign of the human landscape will resemble a wilderness. It won’t, so feel free to be outrageously creative.”

One of the most outrageously creative of technogaian thinkers is the science fiction author and cyberpunk ideologist Bruce Sterling.  In January of 2000 Sterling returned to his polemicist roots and penned a 4300-word manifesto for a new “Viridian” green political movement. Sterling accepts the urgency of climate change and species depletion. But he believes Green politics to be too Luddite and dour. He calls for a sexy, high-tech, design movement, to make attractive, practical ecological tools. Sterling argues for controls on transnational capital, redirecting militaries to peacekeeping, developing sustainable industries, increasing leisure time, guaranteeing a social wage, expanding global public health and promoting gender equity.  The Viridian movement has attracted hundreds of people to participate in its list, and to receive weekly missives from Sterling about exciting ecologically appropriate technologies.

Many researchers in biotech also have ecological motivations. The AgBioWorld Foundation at the Tuskegee Institute has mobilized a global network of biotech scientists to defend biotech crops on humanitarian and ecological grounds. For instance, crops can be genetically engineered which require less agricultural land, pesticides and fertilizer, and provide more essential nutrients.

Nanoecologists have also begun to emerge to propose a wide range of ecological applications of nanotechnology, such as Eric Drexler and Chris Peterson in Unbounding the Future and Doug Mulhall in Our Molecular Future.  In its 2003 review of nanotech and AI titled “Future technologies, Today’s Choices” Greenpeace says there is no need for bans on nanotech, or even new regulatory structures, and that “new technologies...are also an integral part of our solutions to environmental problems, including renewable energy technologies such as solar, wind and wave power, and waste treatment technologies such as mechanical-biological treatment.”

While transhumanists and deep ecologists profoundly disagree about population control (transhumanists want more people, and deep ecologists want less) the most certain path to lower fertility is a high-tech society with individual rights and a strong democratic state. Industrializing liberal democracies reduce childhood mortality, and provide women with education, employment opportunities and publicly financed family planning, giving them the means and incentives to control their fertility. Affluent liberal democracies ensure the well-being of the elderly through social security systems so they don’t need large numbers of children as their pension plan. The ecoLuddite population control plan is starvation and disease.

Links

The TechnoGaian Case for Emerging Technologies and Human Enhancement

  • Environmental News from Betterhumans
  • Betterhumans on TechnoGaianism
  • Technophiles and Greens of the World, Unite!,” by George Dvorsky - 4/14/2003 - Betterhumans
  • “Reconciling Humans, Nature and Technology,” by James Hughes - 4/14/2003 - Betterhumans

  • Anderson, Walter Truett.  1987. To Govern Evolution: Further Adventures of the Political Animal. Harcourt Brace. Anderson argues that we have no choice but to learn to democratically govern evolution, both of the planet and of the human race.
  • Freitas, Robert. 2000. “Some Limits to Global Ecophagy by Biovorous Nanoreplicators, with Public Policy Recommendations.” How to prevent “gray goo” by building a system of global eco-monitoring.
  • Bostrom, Nick. 2002. “Existential Risks: Analyzing Human Extinction Scenarios.” Journal of Evolution and Technology. 9.
  • Mulhall, Douglas. 2002. Our Molecular Future: How Nanotechnology, Biotechnology, Robotics, Genetics and Artificial Intelligence Will Transform Our World. Prometheus Books. A thorough statement of “nanoecology,” and look at the ways molecular technology will help us prepare for and prevent natural and human-made disasters.
  • Arnall, Alexander. 2003. Future Technologies, Today’s Choices: Nanotechnology, Artificial Intelligence and Robotics. Greenpeace. 
  • The Radical Environmentalist Argument Against Our Right to Human Enhancement Technologies

  • Devall, Bill and George Sessions. 1984. Deep Ecology: Living as If Nature Mattered. Peregrine Smith Books.  The classic statement of deep ecology philosophy.
  • Kaczynski, Ted. 1996. The Unabomber Manifesto. Kaczynski, known as the Unabomber on his terrorist bombing spree, specifically addresses the alleged threat to freedom from human genetic engineering, and insists that the only way to stop it is to destroy industrial civilization including modern medicine.

  • Kimbrell, Andrew. 1998. The Human Body Shop: The Cloning, Engineering, and Marketing of Life. Regnery Publishing, Inc. Kimbrell’s most recent statement on the threats from biomedical capitalism.
  • Joy, Bill. 2000. “Why the future doesn’t need us,” Wired, April. Joy’s defection from being a leader of the cybernetic revolution to the being a prominent advocate of the “renunciation” of genetic, nano and cybernetic technologies was a bracing wake-up siren for complacent technoutopians. Although he is not a deep ecologist, his article is a classic argument for technology bans on the basis of potential apocalyptic risks.
  • McKibben, Bill. 2003. Enough: Staying Human in an Engineered Age. Owl Books.  His title ably sums up the argument of the book – he’s satisfied, and doesn’t see any point in making things better with technology, especially if it means becoming posthuman, which he thinks is risky.
  • “Environmentalists Stand with Conservatives on Cloning,” by Jason Pierce - Christian News Service - December 03, 2001
  • Center for Genetics and Society on Environmentalists
  • Foundation on Economic Trends (Washington D.C., USA) led by Jeremy Rifkin, and dedicated to the promotion of Jeremy Rifkin and his numerous projects to stop genetic research and technology.
  • International Center for Technology Assessment, (Washington D.C., USA) led by Andrew Kimbrell, former Policy Director for Jeremy Rifkin at FOET, and author of The Human Body Shop. Dedicated to a broad anti-technology agenda.
  • Foundation for Deep Ecology (Sausalito, California, USA), founded and funded by millionaire turned eco-anarchist, Douglas Tompkins.
  • Turning Point Project, directed by neoLuddite theorist Jerry Mander, program director of the Foundation for Deep Ecology.  The Turning Point Project was founded to launch a nationwide campaign in 1999, involving more than 100 environmental and progressive organizations, attacking “technoutopianism,” species extinction, genetic engineering, economic globalization, industrial agriculture and nanotechnology.
  • Council for Responsible Genetics (Boston, USA), once more narrowly focused on genetic patents and public safety issues, but now led by Rifkinite Board which has signed on to a broader anti-biomedical agenda including stem cells and therapeutic cloning.
  • ETC Group, The Action Group on Erosion, Technology and Corporate Concentration (Winnipeg, Canada) formerly RAFI, is an international organization headquartered in Canada, working on developing world development from an anti-corporate perspective. Recently they have focused attention on the threats posed by human genetic engineering and nanotechnology.

  • (1) Comments
    Member Log In:
    Login
    If not yet a member:
    Register


    Total Worldwide Membership: 5159

    Add yourself to the global map


    What's New

    The Centenarian

    Candidates for the open 2008 WTA Board of Directors seat

    Site and Mailing List Outage

    Nanofactory or AGI — Which technology could cure humanity’s many problems?

    Executive Summary of the 2007 WTA Member Survey


    Featured Book

    More Than Human: Embracing the Promise of Biological Enhancement
    Ramez Naam
    More Than Human: Embracing the Promise of Biological Enhancement by Ramez Naam


    Advanced Search

    Archives