<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:wfw="http://wellformedweb.org/CommentAPI/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
	xmlns:slash="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/slash/"
	>

<channel>
	<title>dead zones &#8211; Green Social Thought</title>
	<atom:link href="https://www.greensocialthought.org/tag/dead-zones/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>https://www.greensocialthought.org</link>
	<description>Produce less. Distribute it fairly. Create a greener world for all.</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Thu, 22 Feb 2024 04:47:07 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<language>en-US</language>
	<sy:updatePeriod>
	hourly	</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>
	1	</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>https://wordpress.org/?v=6.9.4</generator>

 
	<item>
		<title>Ecomodernism and the Sacred Shibboleth</title>
		<link>https://www.greensocialthought.org/biodiversity-biodevastation/ecomodernism-and-sacred-shibboleth/</link>
		
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sat, 19 Jan 2019 16:09:39 +0000</pubDate>
				<category><![CDATA[Breakthrough Institute]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[dead zones]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[decoupling]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[land use]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Overshoot]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[soil depletion]]></category>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">https://gst.riz-om.network/reprint/ecomodernism-and-sacred-shibboleth/</guid>

					<description><![CDATA[<p>by Jason Hickel</p>I recently wrote a post criticizing ecomodernism as &#8220;magical thinking&#8221;.&#160; I argued that it ignores key scientific studies on the unviability of absolute decoupling in order to advance an ecologically reckless insistence on growth.&#160; Not surprisingly, ecomodernists were not particularly happy about this.&#160; Linus Blomqvist of the Breakthrough Institute posted a rebuttal.&#160; It&#8217;s worth reading, because it gives a useful indication of the arguments that ecomodernists fall back on when challenged, and presents an opportunity to stress-test them.&#160; This is an important process.]]></description>
										<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>by Jason Hickel</p><p>I recently wrote a post <a href="https://www.jasonhickel.org/blog/2018/4/4/the-magical-thinking-of-ecomodernism" target="_blank" rel="noopener">criticizing ecomodernism as &ldquo;magical thinking&rdquo;</a>.&nbsp; I argued that it ignores key scientific studies on the unviability of absolute decoupling in order to advance an ecologically reckless insistence on growth.&nbsp; Not surprisingly, ecomodernists were not particularly happy about this.&nbsp; Linus Blomqvist of the Breakthrough Institute <a href="https://thebreakthrough.org/index.php/voices/decoupling-debate" target="_blank" rel="noopener">posted a rebuttal</a>.&nbsp; It&rsquo;s worth reading, because it gives a useful indication of the arguments that ecomodernists fall back on when challenged, and presents an opportunity to stress-test them.&nbsp; This is an important process.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
					
		
		
			</item>
	</channel>
</rss>
