Among the endless debates between eco-fascists and futurists, a synthesis was formed: Ecofuturism.
Ecofuturism referred, above all else, to the idea that technology and ecology did not have to be mutually exclusive from one another. In other words, it was founded on the idea that technology didn’t have to develop at the expense of ecosystems or vice versa, and rather, could even be used to benefit ecosystems.
Though this synthesis did note a compatibility between technology and ecology, it still begged to question what one’s priorities should be. Should technology be used to the benefit of Nature? Or should nature only be preserved insofar as it benefits a technologically-oriented race? Should the synthesis be x/y or y/x?
It is at this point in the dialectic that we get to the heart of the matter: no matter how eco-friendly futurism is and no matter how tech-friendly eco-fascism is, there is still the ultimate question of whether man should put himself before nature or put nature before himself.
Ecofuturists who put nature first will tell you that man and technology should serve nature. They will tell you that if man happens to perish, it is no big loss, as this is just the nature of things. They will even tell you that it is noble for man to sacrifice himself for nature––and you may even find that they are hostile to any endeavours to voyage into outer-space in the pursuit of galactic imperialism.
Ecofuturists who put man before nature will tell you that mankind and technology should control nature and bend it to their will. They will tell you that if earth happens to perish, this is no big loss, as we have the potential to expand into space and terraform other planets. They will tell you that it is noble for mankind to dominate nature––and you may find that they would be happy to destroy this planet if it meant men could become gods.
The ultimate question here revolves around a central matter: What is Nature? Or even… What is the nature of Nature?
One might think that the latter-type of Ecofuturist might be concerned with the question of “what is man?”, but this is irrelevant in contrast with the much greater question… for nature encompasses all of man, where man does not encompass all of nature… yet. In other words, by understanding the purpose of nature, we can understand the point of humanity.
The first misconception that people put forward about Nature is that Nature=Earth. This is a limited view of Nature, and it fails to account for the origins of earth and the context of planetary bodies in general. In other words, through the concept of Nature, the “earth” transcends itself into a broader scale and scope of view.
The second misconception that people put forward about nature is when it comes to the natural vs. artificial distinction, as any artifice created by and within nature, is still a byproduct and part of that nature. Perhaps one could say that things are “more familiar/useful to us” and “less like Nature” (in its primordial and mystic abstractness), but ultimately, all this really implies is that we’re able to understand, manipulate, and dominate nature more and more––and this too, is a byproduct of Nature.
The truth is that, ultimately, Nature refers to a universe of potential, wherein different forms rise to power over others. All stars, all planets, all species, and all tools are a byproduct of this dynamic and operate within it. It blurs the lines between them. They either overcome within it and impose their differentiation on the World or they have the different forms of the World imposed upon them. To be or not to be––that is the question…
So what is the objective of man within this dynamic? To expand and conquer. To impose our forms on the Universe. To build and construct endlessly, into the stars… And as much as some people will try to opt out of the game, at the end of the day, that is just “loser-talk” from the perspective of the healthy, thriving competitor. It is also worth noting that we have reached a point in our development where we don’t need the Earth. If anything, it needs us… We have the knowledge at our disposal to terraform planets, mine asteroids, and live in outer-space. Any desire to preserve the Earth is merely sentimentalism, for better or worse.
At the end of the day, even when Ecofuturists try to put Nature before man, they fail to understand the purpose of Nature and of man therein. Nature does not want to be preserved by an organism… that is as impossible as change is inevitable. Nature wants to be impregnated by a God in order to give birth to a New Universe!