What if the optimists are right?

Photo by Daniel Foster

You may be surprised to learn that some of the most optimistic future visions have been elaborated by those most concerned about humanity’s impact on our planet.

In 2000, the ecological economist, Robert Constanza discussed four alternative futures. One of these was a Star Trek future that he described as the “default technological optimist vision” where a new energy source results in fossil fuel burning dropping to almost zero, subsequently reversing global warming. Under this future, it is projected that 10% of the human population would be living in space colonies by 2050.

Similarly, the Australian permaculturalist, David Holmgren, described four future scenarios in 2009. The most optimistic scenario was referred to as techno-explosion involving new, large, concentrated energy sources supporting continued population growth and increasing material wealth. This scenario was also associated with space travel to colonize other planets.

More recently, Nate Hagens from the Institute for the Study of Energy and Our Future outlined seven philosophies on the future. The most optimistic philosophy views growth as natural law. Subscribers to this philosophy believe that humanity will expand beyond earth into the solar system and that we have millions of years ahead of us in outer space. This philosophy has considerable appeal to the billionaire class with Elon Musk, Jeff Bezos and Richard Branson leading the way through SpaceX, Blue Origin and Virgin Galactica.

Constanza, Holmgren and Hagens do not necessarily endorse these optimistic future scenarios and philosophies but instead present them in contrast to the more pessimistic alternatives.

Optimists versus Doomers

For as long as there have been environmentalists concerned with the consequences of rapid population growth and natural resource depletion, there have been optimistic commentators eager to challenge this doomer worldview. Paul Elrich’s 1968 book The Population Bomb and the 1972 book on The Limits to Growth, for example, were subjected to considerable critical backlash.

This criticism was initially embodied in the influential writings of the economist Julian Simon (1932-1998). Contrary to environmentalist thinking from Elrich and others, Simon considered population growth and human ingenuity as key to solving resource scarcities and environmental problems.

According to the political theorist, John Dryzek, this line of thinking has been given various labels including Prometheanism and Eco-Modernism. It is a fundamentally optimistic perspective arguing that humans can solve any problem.

The former is based on Greek Mythology where the titan, Prometheus, steals fire from Zeus and gives humans the powerful capacity to manipulate their world. The latter emerged from a prominent 1980s theory (ecological modernisation) developed by numerous scholars including Joseph Huber, Martin Jänicke, and Arthur P.J. Mol. They argued that technological innovation, policy reforms, and market mechanisms could drive sustainable development.

More recently, eco-modernist perspectives have been promoted by Ted Nordhaus and Micheal Shellenberger, who founded the Breakthrough Institute in the United States. The Institute published an Ecomodernist Manifesto in 2015 advocating the idea that humanity can shrink its environmental impact and rejecting the notion that we must somehow harmonize with nature to avoid economic and ecological collapse.

Shellenberger left the Breakthrough Institute in 2016 to found Environmental Progress and in 2020 he published Apocalypse Never: Why Environmental Alarmism Hurts Us All. In this book, criticized in some quarters, he argued that climate change is not an existential threat, placing himself in good company with similar optimistic commentators such as Bjorn Lomberg.

According to Dryzek, Lomborg became the public face of Prometheanism in 1998 after Julian Simon passed away. His 2001 book on this topic, The Skeptical Environmentalist, created quite a splash with claims that echoed those of Simon. Essentially, Lomborg argued that resources were becoming more abundant, life expectency is increasing and fewer people go hungry. He has since expanded this realm with best-selling books entitled Cool it, False Alarm and most recently Best Things First.

Techno-fix is a key component here, especially with Silicon Valley and venture capitalist communities, and they even have their own techno-optimist manifesto. The basic idea is that through innovation it is possible to overcome physical resource constraints and with technology it is possible to make more with less. This contrasts with what energy research scientist, Carey King, describes as techno-realism whereby “no matter what technologies we use, feedbacks from physical growth on a finite planet constrain economic growth and create an uneven distribution of social impacts.”

Appeal of the optimistic worldview

Optimists tend to examine historic trends and project them into the future arguing that our world is progressing and that this will remain the case. Pessimists, on the other hand, tend to think in terms of limits and boundaries that we should avoid crossing to ensure a sustainable future, considering the needs of future generations.

The former is very attractive to some political leaders who prefer to maintain the status quo and who consider action to address environmental concerns as unnecessary or even a drag on economic growth. Indeed, Lomborg has attacked the 2015 Paris Agreement as too expensive and applauded Presidents Trump’s decision to leave the agreement in 2017.

This is music to the ears of right-wing think tanks and explains why commentators like Lomborg and Shellenberger are invited to deliver keynote presentations at events such as the Alliance for Responsible Citizenship (ARC) Forum. Lomborg gave a talk to the Forum with the title Get back Growth: Stop the Doomism and Shellenberger spoke about the need for a pro-human environmental policy.

ARC is an international not-for-profit seeking to unite conservative voices and proposes policies based on traditional Western values. Its founders include the prominent Canadian psychologist, Jordan Peterson. ARC aims to put forward a positive agenda that contrasts with existing narratives pointing towards the decline of Western civilization.

We need to acknowledge, however, that techno-optimism is not restricted to conversative think-tanks. There are also calls from the political left for more optimism including the writings of Aaron Bastani, Nick Srnicek and Alex Williams. Bastani presents a manifesto calling for engagement with technologies like artificial intelligence and automation to deliver a form of fully automated luxury communism. Srnicek and Williams likewise call for full automation and universal basic income to create a world without work.

Appeal to the Climate Denial Community

This emphasis on optimistic future scenarios is particularly appealing to those keen to promote climate denialism. It is attractive to those groups in society who sign up to what Dryzek describes as gray radicalism. Drawing on populism, extreme conservatism, nationalism and evangelical Christianity, this form of radicalism represents a significant backlash against contemporary environmentalism. It is tied into the culture wars within Western society and anti-woke sentiments.

The extent of this animosity towards environmental protection and climate change action undermines the efforts of climate scientists and environmental groups. Indeed, this has led Kevin Anderson, professor for energy and climate change at the University of Manchester, to suggest that we have entered a phase of “new denialism” extending far beyond oil executives and inept policy makers, to include many climate academics, journalists, NGOs and entrepreneurs.

This involves a desire by influential stakeholders to ensure that the dominant economic and power norms remain unchallenged by efforts to mitigate climate change. In this context, entities such as the Alliance for Responsible Citizenship are doubling down on this framing to place emphasis on our role as environmental stewards ensuring that everyone has access to energy and other resources that are inexpensive, reliable, safe and efficient. Climate mitigation is viewed as unacceptable if it causes the cost of energy and other resources to become more expensive.

We do need climate optimism

While focusing on a positive, optimistic future may have beneficial impacts on the mental health of younger generations struggling to deal with climate anxiety, the degree of realism of these visions is difficult to assess.

For instance, how realistic is the possibility that we will have human settlements on the Moon or Mars? How likely is it that we will turn to geo-engineering the climate at some stage should we fail to reduce emissions and when temperatures rise? How effective will sequestration technologies be in removing carbon?

There is, however, scope for climate optimism.

In this context, the views of economist Professor Mark Blyth from Brown University are particularly insightful. In a recent online interview he argued that it will not be possible to ignore the dominating impact of carbon (climate change) related future events.

He suggests we will recognize the error of our ways (i.e., in prolonging our reliance on fossil fuels) because climate change is simply a matter of physics and Mother Nature does not care about markets, economies, politics or ideologies.

So optimists who embrace the need for a post-carbon world may turn out to be the ones who are right. As Blyth so astutely observes the addiction to fossil fuels in the US, and the politics it produces, risks burning down the house.