Promethean environmentalism

"Green Delusions" is a critique of radical environmentalism, written by a recovering eco-radical, Martin W. Lewis. He calls his own brand of more moderate environmentalism "Promethean". Lewis wants to save nature by de-coupling humanity from it as much as possible, something that can only be done through advanced technology.

Lewis doesn't deny that some "primitive" cultures were egalitarian, peaceful and eco-friendly. Unfortunately, many other such cultures were hierarchic, war-prone and destructive. There simply isn't any necessary connection between "going native" and being eco-friendly, as claimed by many eco-radicals. Even some animals, such as elephants, have a surprisingly large impact on their environment, and the same is true of Stone Age humans. The mass extinction of the so-called megafauna (mammoths, mastodonts, etc) was probably caused by Stone Age hunters. Slash-and-burn agriculture isn't as "sustainable" as previously assumed, etc. If the present world population would abolish high technology, the end result would - ironically - be more environmental destruction. Just imagine all 250 million Americans spreading out across the continent, each operating an Amish-like farm of his/her own, burning wood for fuel, etc. The only way to stop this would be a truly *massive* die-off of perhaps 99% of the human population, a perspective difficult not to dub as misanthropic.

The author also points out that humans before the advent of the modern age had a lower life expectancy, higher child mortality, were plagued by epidemics (some of them bizarre), etc. On a more funny note, he also points out that many hippies who "went back to the land" during the 1970's ended up killing animals who otherwise would have destroyed their crops!

Other chapters discuss whether the Third World can develop without high technology, urbanization and modernization. Lewis reaches the conclusion that this is impossible. "Intermediate technology" of the type called for by E.F. Schumacher cannot make the poorer nations catch up with the West or with Japan (Lewis seems to admire Japan). The introduction of such technology isn't "wrong" since it can presumably save the lives of many poor villagers on an immediate basis, but it's not a credible stepping stone to further development. Lewis also criticizes "dependency theory", the idea that Third World nations can only modernize in splendid isolation from the world market (and world at large). Personally, I don't think eco-radicals will care much about these chapters. After all, they don't want the Third World to develop in the first place. They also want to de-industrialize the West and Japan! Lewis concedes that Burma (E.F. Schumacher's example of "Buddhist economics") does have more pristine forests than its neighbours.

As already mentioned, the main idea behind "Green Delusions" is that only high tech can make a large human population compatible with a teeming environment. If most humans would live in urban centres, re-cycle their waste and take their energy from renewable sources, our impact on the environment would lessen. This "de-coupling" would be a win-win situation for both humans and nature. This is what Lewis dubs "Promethean environmentalism", as opposed to "Arcadian environmentalism", the author's designation of his eco-radical opponents. The author admits that some eco-radical ideas might be useful, including organic farming, and even calls for population control in some nations, but overall, his perspective points in a very different direction.

Since "Green Delusions" was written in 1993, the book does feel dated. There's nothing on the global warming debate, for instance. It also feels naïve. This is ironic, since one of the author's points is that his opponents are naïve and utopian. Thus, Lewis believes that fossil fuels and nuclear power can be replaced by a vast, international grid of solar power stations. Today, writers from opposite sides of the cornucopian-doomer spectrum (both Bryce and Kunstler) would argue that such a scenario is technologically impossible. We're stuck with fossil fuels and/or nuclear power - and if these have to be phased out (or are depleted), we're in really dire straits! Another naïve trait is Lewis' call for a bipartisan concensus on environmental issues. This is his alternative to the failed protest politics of the 1960's and 1970's. A pro-solar consensus with the Republicans? That was difficult to envisage already during the Reagan, Bush Senior and Gingrich eras!

The book is an interesting criticism of the more "wild" strands of ecologist thinking. For that reason alone, I recommend it. However, it's possible that the supposedly delusional Greens still have a few wild cards up their sleeve...