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.
鲁明川. 西方生态现代化的伦理困境及其超越[J]. 浙江大学学报(人文社会科学版), 0, (): 1-.
Lu Mingchuan. Ethical Dilemmas of Western Ecological Modernization and Their Transcendence. JOURNAL OF ZHEJIANG UNIVERSITY, 0, (): 1-.
