|
|
|
| Ethical Dilemmas of Western Ecological Modernization and Their Transcendence |
| Lu Mingchuan |
| School of Marxism, Hangzhou City University, Hangzhou 310015, China |
|
|
|
|
Abstract Western ecological modernization theory, as a typical paradigm in the field of Western ecological governance, takes the “shallow green” ecological perspective as its logical starting point and constructs a three-dimensional governance paradigm driven by marketism, technicism, and differentialism. This theory posits that the ecological crisis stems from the uncompensated use of natural resources, the stagnation of linear technological development, and the insufficient mobility of ecological resources. Therefore, it advocates for ecological restoration through the commodification of ecological resources, the advancement of pollution control technologies, and the global flow of ecological resources.Compared with traditional development theories, Western ecological modernization theory does indeed hold certain progressive significance in both theory and practice. However, it still adheres to the dualistic thinking that separates humans from nature. The market mechanisms, technological innovations, and global flow of ecological resources it promotes all implicitly carry the value of Western supremacy. From both theoretical logic and practical reality, this presents serious ethical dilemmas: the commodification of all things essentially reflects a utilitarian and Darwinian application of the market, amplifying the market rent-seeking and rentier motivations regarding ecological resources, thereby undermining public ethical consensus. Radical technicism implies that technology possesses moral legitimacy and final interpretative authority, leading to a belief that science and technology can conquer and control nature, which results in the alienation of human subjectivity. The global flow of ecological resources effectively maximizes the deprivation of underdeveloped countries’ ecological resources by developed countries, exacerbating the imbalance of environmental justice. The underlying logic of Western ecological modernization remains oriented towards the capital logic, attempting to evade the structural contradictions between capital logic and ecological environmental protection, and hoping to resolve ecological issues solely through market, technology, and policy measures. Consequently, it fails to identify an effective green development path that can harness capital.To break through the ethical dilemmas of Western ecological modernization, it is necessary to return to Marxism, construct an ecological civilization ethical community, and promote the harmonious coexistence of humans and nature. Specific pathways include: reshaping ecological ethics through the concept of a community of life between humans and nature, rejecting the market omnipotence and anthropocentrism inherent in the Western capitalist ecological thinking, and promoting the dialectical unity of ecological resourceization and resource ecologicalization; developing a human-centered green technology system that drives green production and green living, achieving a harmonious development of ecology, economy, and society; advocating for the co-construction of a global community of life, promoting fairness and justice through reforms in the global ecological governance system, and facilitating sustainable human development. History and reality indicate that only by transcending the capital-centric and technological utopian myths of Western modernization, adhering to the concept of a community of life between humans and nature, and clarifying the ethical relationship of “beauty in harmony” between humans and nature can we achieve a true harmonious coexistence of humans and nature, providing a new civilizational paradigm for global development.
|
|
Received: 09 May 2024
|
|
|
|
1 荷］阿瑟·莫尔、［美］戴维·索南菲尔德：《世界范围内的生态现代化——观点和关键争论》，张鲲译，北京：商务印书馆，2011年。
2 郇庆治、［德］马丁·耶内克：《生态现代化理论：回顾与展望》，《马克思主义与现实》2010年第1期，第175-179页。
3 Mol A. P. J.， “The environmental movement in area of ecological modernisation，” Geoforum， Vol， 31， No. 1 （2000）， pp. 45-56.
4 郇庆治：《生态现代化理论与绿色变革》，《马克思主义与现实》2006年第2期，第90-98页。
5 美］约翰·贝拉米·福斯特：《生态危机与资本主义》，耿建新、宋兴无译，上海：上海译文出版社，2006年。
6 美］巴里·康芒纳：《与地球和平共处》，王喜六译，上海：上海译文出版社，2002年。
7 丰子义：《现代化的理论基础：马克思现代社会发展理论研究》，北京：北京师范大学出版社，2017年。
8 Huber J.， Die Regenbogengesellschaft： ?kologie und Sozialpolitik， Frankfurt am Main： S. Fischer， 1985.
9 英］安东尼·吉登斯：《第三条道路：社会民主主义的复兴》，郑戈、渠敬东、黄平译，北京：北京大学出版社，2000年。
10 印］萨拉·萨卡：《生态社会主义还是生态资本主义》，张淑兰译，济南：山东大学出版社，2008年。
11 张生：《马克思主义视阈下自然环境商品化的伦理困境与反商品化抗争》，《四川师范大学学报（社会科学版）》2022年第3期，第35-41页。
12 美］迈克尔·桑德尔：《金钱不能买什么：金钱与公正的正面交锋》，邓正来译，北京：中信出版社，2012年。
13 英］加雷斯·戴尔：《卡尔·波兰尼：市场的限度》，焦兵译，北京：中国社会科学出版社，2016年。
14 解保军：《生态资本主义批判》，北京：中国环境出版社，2015年。
15 英］大卫·哈维：《马克思与〈资本论〉》，周大昕译，北京：中信出版社，2018年。
16 Foste J. B.， The Vulnerable Planet： A Short Economic History of the Environment， New York： Monthly Review Press， 1999.
17 Bratton B.， The Stack， Cambridge： MIT Press， 2015.
18 德］H. 马尔库塞：《工业社会和新左派》，任立译，北京：商务印书馆，1982年。
19 德］卡尔·马克思、［德］弗里德里希·恩格斯：《共产党宣言》，见中共中央马克思恩格斯列宁斯大林著作编译局编译：《马克思恩格斯文集》第2卷，北京：人民出版社，2009年。
20 美］约翰·罗尔斯：《正义论》，何怀宏、何包钢、廖申白译，北京：中国社会科学出版社，1998年。
21 Young S.， The Emergence of Ecological Modernization： Integrating the Environment and the Economy？ London： Routledge， 2000.
22 Foste J. B.， The Ecological Rift： Capitalism’s War on the Earth， New York： Monthly Review Press， 2010.
23 澳］约翰·德赖泽克：《地球政治学：环境话语》，蔺雪春、郭晨星译，济南：山东大学出版社，2008年。
24 李建森、翟乐：《中国式现代化生态文明创造及时代超越性》，《吉首大学学报（社会科学版）》2022年第3期，第21-30页。
25 习近平：《习近平谈治国理政》第三卷，北京：外文出版社，2020年。
26 习近平：《决胜全面建成小康社会 夺取新时代中国特色社会主义伟大胜利——在中国共产党第十九次全国代表大会上的报告》，北京：人民出版社，2017年。
27 孙博文：《建立生态产品价值实现机制：“五难”问题及优化路径》，《天津社会科学》2023年第4期，第87-97页。
28 习近平：《习近平谈治国理政》第四卷，北京：外文出版社，2022年。
29 习近平：《论坚持人与自然和谐共生》，北京：人民出版社，2022年。
30 捷克］瓦茨拉夫·克劳斯：《环保的暴力》，宋凤云译，北京：世界图书出版公司，2012年。
31 中央宣传部、中华人民共和国生态环境部编：《习近平生态文明思想学习纲要》，北京：人民出版社、学习出版社，2022年。 |
|
|
|
2025, Vol. 55 
