In the current issue of MIT’s Technology Review, Stewart Brand goes on record with a rather startling prediction:

Over the next ten years, I predict, the mainstream of the environmental movement will reverse its opinion and activism in four major areas: population growth, urbani­zation, genetically engineered organisms, and nuclear power.

I certainly hope Brand is right about the coming shift. Clearly, the environmental movement is on the wrong side of history with each of these issues. No matter how we play with the numbers, it’s now undeniable that the population explosion has ended, with some population numbers gaining momentum in the opposite direction. Urbanization is good for the environment because it centralizes populations, creating more room for species-preserving habitat. Genetically engineered crops produce better yields and make fewer demands on natural resources. Unlike the fossil fuels we currently use to power our energy grid, nuclear power does not pollute the air or water. Moreover, nuclear power provides the most plausible scenario for enabling the eventual use of hydrogen as a fuel for cars.

So it would seem that logic alone dictates that the environmental movement make these changes. But according to Brand, logic is only part of the equation:

Reversals of this sort have occurred before. Wildfire went from universal menace in mid-20th century to honored natural force and forestry tool now, from “Only you can prevent forest fires!” to let-burn policies and prescribed fires for understory management. The structure of such reversals reveals a hidden strength in the environmental movement and explains why it is likely to keep on growing in influence from decade to decade and perhaps century to century.

The success of the environmental movement is driven by two powerful forces—romanticism and science—that are often in opposition. The romantics identify with natural systems; the scientists study natural systems. The romantics are moralistic, rebellious against the perceived dominant power, and combative against any who appear to stray from the true path. They hate to admit mistakes or change direction. The scientists are ethicalistic, rebellious against any perceived dominant paradigm, and combative against each other. For them, admitting mistakes is what science is.

I finally got around to seeing Luther a couple of weeks ago. The film presents a similar dichotomy to the one Brand describes, with the scholarly Luther challenging the dominant paradigm of the dogmatic church hierarchy. The movie doesn’t have a lot of time to spend on the counter-reformation which eventually ocurred, wherein the Catholic church cleaned up its own act on many of the isssues which had initially led Luther to rebel. But I think what Brand is describing, 10 years down the road, is a counter-reformation within the environmental movement.

Before there can be a counter-reformation, however, won’t there first have to be a protestant reformation? Won’t some of these scholarly, ethicalistic scientists have to break with Rome over the central issue of authority?

No, not the papacy.

I was thinking more like global warming.

In his article, I note that Brand does not challenge the received wisdom concerning global warming in any way. In fact, his major argument for nuclear power is the benefit it will provide in combating global warming.

But then again, Luther dedicated his first book on papal indulgences to the pope himself. The story is just beginning.