Ecomodernism and the Libidinal Economy: Towards a Critical Conception of Technology in the Bio-Based Economy

Abstract

In this paper, we carry out a critical analysis of the concept of technology in the current design of the bio-based economy (BBE). Looking at the current status of the BBE, we observe a dominant focus on technological innovation as the principal solution to climatic instability. We take a critical stance towards this “ecomodernist” worldview, addressing its fundamental assumptions, and offer an underarticulated explanation as to why a successful transition toward a sustainable BBE—i.e. one that fully operates within the Earth’s carrying capacity—has not yet been reached. Bernard Stiegler has developed a philosophical perspective on the concept of economy, broadening it to include the human condition through the notion of desire. This theory can help to obtain a more profound understanding of why ecomodernist strategies are dominant today. Stiegler’s theory of the libidinal economy offers an analysis of controlled and exploited human desire as a primary driver behind modern techno-economic structures. Our hypothesis is that a critique of contemporary technofixism as a critique of libidinal economy is a necessary step to take in the discussion around the BBE as a concept, if the BBE is ever to bring about a system that can truly operate within the Earth’s carrying capacity.

Navigating the Biocosmos: Cornerstones of a Bioeconomic Utopia

“…They also have to come up with novel strategies to capture the attention of consumers and stimulate their desires at an increasingly faster rate. This increases the complexity of the exosomatic matrix further [22]. What is being lost, apparently, is time.…”

“…The gigantic, monotonous machinery required that individuals specialize and adapt to its dictates in order to survive, and so it restructured society on almost all levels. Human beings gradually embedded themselves in this matrix and became more and more dependent on it and were gradually being reshaped by it (e.g., [22]).…”

“…Even though an increase in efficiency, in principle, could reduce resource pressure and lower prices, in reality, this might not actually happen. It has been shown that both consumption and production can still increase with an increase in efficiency (rebound effect) [22]. Furthermore, the race for innovation comes with the problem of planned obsolescence, meaning products are designed for short lifespans so as to tempt the consumer to keep consuming new versions of the product, thus wasting resources excessively [155].…”

“…From the original bioeconomic perspective, the belief in never-ending growth is a consequence of an insatiable desire for short-term desire gratification that is constantly being triggered so as to match mass production with mass consumption and keep the economy growing. Veraart et al [22], based on the work of Stiegler [113], assert that "every economy of production and consumption as we generally understand it is always also a libidinal economy, i.e., an economy of desire, desire being the principal driving force of all human endeavours" [22] (p. 9). Based on this understanding, Veraart and colleagues "suggest the possibility that a 'corrupted' mode of collective human desire is at the heart of humanity's current failing to establish a new paradigm" within the bioeconomy [22] (p. 4).…”

“…To resolve this conflictual situation in the bioeconomy, a thorough and "serious discussion of its theoretical foundations" has been called for by Giampietro [21] (p. 143). According to Veraart and colleagues, the growth critics, however, have "mostly focused, via negativa, on what should not be done, without offering itself a constructive, alternative paradigm" [22] (p. 18). Arguably, as a result, there appears to exist only one possible imagined future, namely, that of the total mechanization of human society.…”