As with the previous discussion of accelerationism, the goal of this chapter will be to outline the contours of a particular worldview, in this case, what we call “eco-pessimism.” It will then be possible to offer a critical analysis of this philosophical tendency. Here, we will maintain our focus on conceptual clarity instead of getting sidetracked by jargon and signifiers.

The first instance of this will be our use of the term “eco-pessimism” itself. The close-knit community of intellectuals discussed in this chapter hardly, if ever, apply this label to their own position. Nonetheless, the appellation describes well the actual orientation of this group, which includes, most notably, Donna Haraway, Isabelle Stengers, Bruno Latour, Déborah Danowski, Eduardo Viveiros de Castro, Dipesh Chakrabarty, and Clive Hamilton. It signifies their collective skepticism toward modern progress, neutral scientific authority, and the ability for human beings to endlessly reengineer their environments. Thus, the “pessimism” in eco-pessimism refers not to a broadly dour mood but more specifically to a suspicion about the possibility (and virtues) of technological progress.

One of the tropes of eco-pessimism is the constant derision of so-called geo-engineering, that is, the notion that one can significantly remake the landscape, including massive geological processes, in order to suit human needs and welfare. Eco-pessimists will often paint such grand projects as “ecomodernist,” Promethean, and even accelerationist. These writers favor the image of the Earth goddess, Gaia, over that of the titan Prometheus and the ethereal sky gods. In Bruno Latour's 2013 Gifford lectures, he sarcastically characterizes modernist ambitions:

For Latour, Gaia stands as an anti-modern, mythic figure. She is an image of the earth which defies our attempts to reorder nature as we please. Since “Gaia cannot be compared to a machine, it cannot be subjected to any sort of re-engineering.”