Anne Fremaux

This chapter presents an argument against the core features of ‘ecomodernism,’ i.e., a school of thought which presents itself as a form of sustainable/environmental philosophy while being in reality the new Trojan Horse of neoclassical economics in the field of environment. In effect, ecomodernists offer a new momentum to the capitalist agenda, its rejection of ecological limits, and its support to the techno-optimist and neoliberal rearrangement of the world. The first shortcoming of this theory lies in its denial of ecological boundaries which makes ecomodernists support a robust conception of substitutability (substitution of human capital for natural capital) and a correlative weak version of sustainability. Secondly, ecomodernism is flawed in its conception of unlimited economic growth (supported by the myth of decoupling) as a sustainable pattern for human societies, as well as in its conception of human nature understood under the reductionist concept of Homo Oeconomicus. Contrary to those views, this chapter presents the reconstructive components of a sound ecological economics (strong sustainability, weak substitutability, degrowth/post-growth and post-capitalism) as being the only sustainable alternative to the dominant forms of ecological modernisation (e.g., ‘green capitalism’). This new ecological economic paradigm considers the economy, broadly defined as the system of management and allocation of existing resources, as a dependent subsystem of earth’s ecosystem and emphasizes, therefore, the irreplaceability of the natural capital, as well as the pressing necessity to restore/protect/preserve natural processes wherever and as much as possible. The general aim of this chapter is to propose a constructive agenda for an ecological economics in the Anthropocene.

This chapter examines the current assault on nature as coming from two different fronts: On the one hand, it comes from the hypermodern camp, that is, from those who celebrate the Anthropocene as the apex of human mastery and domination over nature (‘good Anthropocene’ scenario), the ‘techno-optimists’ who are willing to (re)engineer/recreate the earth, and the neo-greens who wish to see the growth-based economy and the technological colonization of the planet continue, even if the cost is the disappearance of life-sustaining ecosystems. On the other hand, the assault on nature stems from postmodern techno-theorists, renamed for our purpose ‘most-moderns,’ who, relying on the concept of ‘technonatures,’ contend a hybridist ontology which eventually justifies the de/reconstruction (read: destruction) of the planet under the rule of technoscience and capitalism. The latter narrative does not only acknowledge that nature has ended as an independent force because of human’s growing techno-scientific power on Earth: It extrapolates, from the history of humanization, that nature as an ontological reality was somehow always already ‘dead,’ and that the idea of a ‘nature out there’ is, therefore, intrinsically flawed. This chapter contends that both hypermodernists and techno-postmodernists are trapped in modernity’s failures, i.e., in the dream of a technological appropriation of nature, as well as in the binary modes of thinking they denounce (cf. separation nature/culture) that have contributed to creating the ecological predicament itself. Against those views, it shows that the natural world is not an inert matter amenable to all sorts of transformations but rather an ‘uncooperative beast’ which rebels against human manipulations and expresses its ‘revolt’ to human attempts of control in the form of eco-catastrophes—what has been designated in this chapter as ‘the return of nature’ in the Anthropocene.

This chapter provides a critique of the strong (arrogant) version of anthropocentrismAnthropocentrismStrong anthropocentrism on the account that the exclusive defense of human interests it promotes cannot secure the preservation of ecosystems on which humanity depends to thrive and survive in the context of the AnthropoceneAnthropocene. This is why the shift to a post-anthropocentrismAnthropocentrismPost-anthropocentrism which takes into account the macroscopic and interrelated conditions of human life, is also desirable from a humanist standpoint. Post-anthropocentrismAnthropocentrismPost-anthropocentrism is grounded in the belief that human life can only endure through the protection of the whole Eco-biosphere and that humanity cannot isolate itself from the destiny of Earth community and its nonhuman subjects (as opposed to nonhuman ‘objects’). That involves seeing a meaning also in nature and considering our lives as set in a larger context than the one exclusively given by human societies. This chapter calls for an alliance between ecocentric and weak anthropocentric views, that is, between the defense of the intrinsic value of nature and the promotion of an ‘ecological ethics of use’ for the natural world. It makes a strong case for the integration of the intrinsic valueValueintrinsic value of nature in political and legal governance, i.e., the introduction of Earth Jurisprudence in the judicial system. It particularly focuses on the legal, constitutional and political defense of the independent rights that could be ascribed to natural entities and especially ecosystems in order to ensure the maintenance, self-regulation and protection of Earth systems (hydrosphere, geosphere, atmosphere and biosphere), and by extension, to human and non-human life.

This conclusive chapter summarizes the main objectives of the book, emphasizing the critique of the ‘good anthropocene’ scenario given by dominant Earth System Science (ESS) and Post-environmentalism that fails to recognize and address the current socio-ecological predicament. Particularly, it demonstrates that the new ‘geology of humankind’ is not so much the era of humanDominationon earth but rather the era of human destruction of earth. This chapter recalls that the dominant Anthropocene narrative does not truly identify the roots of the ecological collapse and cannot, therefore, offer the solutions needed: It rather encourages the continuation of the anthropocentric, imperialist, and narcissistic culture that led us to the current crises. This is why a counter-anthropocene narrative and a new paradigm are urgently needed to achieve real and concrete sustainability in a more-than-ever vulnerable world. The new transformative ideology designed to re-orient our societies toward a viable and thriving path has been conceptualized as ‘green republicanism.’ This encompassing model of politics will bring into being a flourishing Earth with its human and Non-human components and avoid the impending deterioration of the conditions of life on the planet while reinvigorating the democratic life which has been dramatically eroded by profit-oriented institutions in the neoliberal era.

This chapter analyzes the ecological crisis as being the ultimate symptom of a civilizational collapse linked to the prevailing (neo)liberal socioeconomic organization of Western and westernized societies (i.e., the industrialised and liberalised world). Such a system fosters, under the rule of instrumental rationality and capital’s principle of utility, unsustainable high-energy and high-material consuming patterns of life, narratives of control and domination of nature, the reduction of human beings to ‘profit maximisers’ or ‘(human) resources’ and the treatment of living beings as objectified and exploitable commodities. It considers everything as ‘a means to an end’ and constructs the world as a pure raw material available for production and manipulation. In effect, globalized neoliberal capitalism is extensively and intensively destroying socio-ecological systems: Its greediness, lack of concern for life-sustaining processes and sustainable lifestyles have entailed the rapid exhaustion of natural resources, the extinction of species, as well as the advent of immoral and unsustainable consumerist ways of living and values which encompass hyper-individualism, selfishness, demoralization, and the loss of any sense of responsibility for the future of the planet and the well-being (perhaps even survival) of the next generations. In this context, the Anthropocene, defined as ‘the age of human’ and attesting to human domination over nature, extends the hypermodern dream of a politics ‘without nature’ that puts no value on the ecological (and, hence, social) common good. The supporters of the positive version of the Anthropocene propose the same neoliberal economic management that has been promoted since four decades, under the concepts of ‘green capitalism’ and ‘ecological modernization’, to fuel further extraction and capitalistic exploitation of the planet, human and non-human beings. This introductory chapter clarifies strategic notions, such as neoliberalism, liberalism, and green republicanism. It summarizes the dangers that can be associated with the continuation of the current path we are taking and presents the political, ethical and metaphysical components of the green republican theory, central theme of this book, designed to address the complex and multi-dimensional crisis the Western world in particular and humanity in general are facing.

In the context of a carbon-constrained and climate change world, green republicans aim to provide a high level of human flourishing with concomitant low energy and resource use. Contrary to liberal institutions which emphasize negative freedom, individualism and competition, private interests, and the systemic depoliticization of social actors, green republicanism stresses the importance of solidarity, commitment, and community-based life for flourishing, mindful and sustainable ways of inhabiting the world. Green republicanism supports a degrowth/post-growth agenda (downshifting paradigm) to bring to the fore more meaningful ways of living adapted to the current ecological overshoot and the ethico-socio-political crisis. While supporting decentralization and the empowerment of communities, green republicanism places a strong emphasis on the central state to support the maintenance of collective goods and the organization of public life, as well as to provide institutional basis for local transition movements. Given the economic, social, democratic, and ecological predicament, this chapter builds an argument for recasting liberal capitalist and consumer-based democracies in green civic republicanism terms. The green republican constitutional regime presented here is consistent with the post-anthropocentrism and post-capitalism defended in former chapters. It relies on an eco-communitarian conception of freedom, an active citizenry, civic green virtues, an agonistic form of democracy, and constitutional safeguards to ensure the transition aways from current unsustainability.

Against the optimistic and technocratic way of considering the Anthropocene as the ‘new age of humans,’ i.e., ‘human’s power over nature,’ this chapter rather evidences that the Anthropocene is an epoch of great danger and indeterminacy—and for scientists themselves, an age of ‘impotent power’—which calls, therefore, for prudence and humility. In opposition to the ecomodernist techno-optimistic ‘neoliberal Anthropocene,’ the alternative is a humbler ‘democratic Anthropocene,’ in which humanity repairs and protects the world instead of trying to master or replace it. This chapter also shows that the need for a more critical and normative Anthropocene research agenda (as opposed to calls for a depoliticized and techno-focused ‘good Anthropocene’) has become pressing. It challenges the unifying narrative proposed by the proponents of the ‘Anthropocene’ concept according to which the new geological era would be the result of a ‘natural’ evolutionary history of humanity. On the contrary, it demonstrates that the Anthropocene, far from being a consequence of ‘natural evolution,’ is linked to specific sociohistorical events such as the development of growth-based economies and the imbalanced ecological and economic exchanges between the North and the South, which globally characterized the rise of carbon-fueled, consumer capitalism. For this reason, the Anthropocene raises issues of global (environmental) justice, unequal geographical effects of the ecological crisis, and uneven distribution of wealth, power and responsibility that the green republicanism presented in this book seeks to address.

The environmental crisis is the most prominent challenge humanity has ever had to battle with, and humanity is currently failing. The Anthropocene—or so called ‘age of humans’—is indeed a period when the survival of humanity has never been so much at risk. This book locates itself in the field of critical green political theory. Fremaux's analysis of the current environmental crisis calls for us to embrace radical shifts in our modes of being; or, in other words, socially progressive innovations that will be described within the unique framework of "Green Republicanism." In offering a constructive and emancipatory delineation of what could be considered an ecological civilization that is respectful of its natural environment and social differences, this book describes how to shift from an ‘arrogant speciesism’ and materialistic lifestyle to a post-anthropocentric ecological humanism focusing on the ‘good life’ within ecological limits. This new political regime calls for a radical reinvention of our societies, a decentering of the humans within our metaphysical worldview, and a withdrawal of the capitalist technosphere at the benefit of the biosphere. It will require a new economic paradigm that replaces the unsustainable capitalist logic of growth by sustainable degrowth and steady economics. Rooted in ethical thinking and political philosophy, this book seeks to offer a concrete roadmap of how sustainable societies can be fostered.