68 EMMA O’KANE
has crippled the natural resources we depend on and those we desire to maintain.
Taking McKibben’s criticisms into account, a grassroots movement ensuring
individuals fully understand the impact they have on Earth would be required in order
to relate everyday concerns of ordinary citizens to their root cause which is our
dependence on exploiting nature. Citizens can then properly address those in power
so they are forced to act in an ecologically responsible, moral way whilst still catering
to the needs of the electorate. However, in the fifty-ninth minute, we have probably
passed the point at which exponential growth may be contained and mindful
consumption can become routine (Suzuki n.d.).
Although the likelihood of a reverence for nature entering the mainstream is slim, not
everyone in the world is ignorant of the non-human world’s plight. For instance,
Bolivia recognises this interdependence in its constitution which declares the rights of
“Mother Nature” to stand alongside humanity (Vidal 2011). Furthermore, Pope
Francis recently demanded that the United Nations place environmental rights above
the “thirst for power” and above the “material prosperity” our economies deem most
valuable to society (Goldenberg 2015). Whilst the political left has welcomed Pope
Francis’ Laudato Si, it contrasts significantly with the scientifically based
ecomodernist manifesto. Pope Francis fears the greed present in attempts to increase
wealth whereas the ecomodernist follows a progressive vision of technological
innovation which should find the solution to climate change and increase wealth.
However, the ecomodernist risks falling into the trap of promoting economic growth
which increases wealth disparities rather than eradicating poverty. Lynas (2015) has
characterised Pope Francis as a “Pope against Progress”; however, this is unjust.
Rather, Pope Francis seeks to promote progress in technological and economic terms
on a global level – something that has yet to be achieved. Therefore, the distinction
between the natural and artificial is made more irrelevant as we accept the
fundamental need for technological innovation that is utilised responsibly for the
global society (Lynas 2015).
In recognising the present as the Anthropocene epoch, it is necessary to incorporate
the natural with the artificial rather than place nature in higher esteem. Whilst