Mandy de Wilde

Ecological concerns about global warming, biodiversity collapse, or toxic pollution are not new. Ever since the impact of human action on the planet’s geology and ecosystems was recognised in the mid-twentieth century, concerns about its future have mobilised humans into action. The 1960s saw Rachel Carson’s Silent Spring spark an environmental movement around soil contamination and nature conservation; in the 1970s, scientists gathered in the Club of Rome directed citizens’ and governments’ concerns towards acid rain and ozone depletion; the 1980s and 1990s saw environmental NGOs nudge consumers towards ethical choices with regard to animal welfare and rainforest conservation; and in the new millennium, governments across the globe have started to transition away from fossil-fuels and towards renewable energy sources. Science, markets, and governments have sought to address ecological concerns, as have humans in their roles as citizens, activists, and consumers.

​

As these actors initiate transitions towards fossil-free societies, circular economies, and green supply chains they are guided by the promise of technological advancement. Soil contamination can be reduced by deploying innovative wastewater methods; a growing demand for energy can be met by cutting-edge renewable power systems; and plastic pollution can be contained by switching to ingenious bio-based products. Put differently, sustainable technologies which are designed or appropriated to address the planetary degradation are expected to fix this crisis by harnessing the power of nature to help mitigate and reverse the Anthropocene’s effects. By design the cause-and-effect mechanics of technologies may be supposed to do so. However, the erratic nature of our planet’s biosphere and ecosystems cannot be contained by standardised and scalable technologies. Nor can the intricate mundanities of everyday life that take place at home, during economic exchange or in scientific labs. Thinking about technologies in terms of control with its implications of management, containment, and obduracy runs the risk of assuming technologies will solve problems. Rather, I argue we need to think about technologies in terms of care which brings associations of volatility, adaptability, and fragility. It intimates enduring maintenance of the damaged planet humans live on, as well as the daily techno-situations humans live in.

This shift is needed because in a world of continuous ecological deprivation, the trope of technological advancement upholds a discourse inapt to our present biosphere condition. On a damaged planet, humans may use sustainable technologies—be it a wastewater treatment method, solar power systems, or a bio-enzymatic cleaner— to help them stay focused on the unfolding ecological trouble rather than fix it. Put another way, sustainable technologies may help humans care for a damaged planet.

However, as sustainable technologies are invented and tamed in scientific work, commodified and purchased in market exchange, and revamped and used as part of domestic routine, ecological concerns are no longer solely at stake. Other concerns regarding, for instance, scientific reliability, economic viability, or hygiene—await them, and interfere with them. To care for our damaged planet entails aligning heterogeneous concerns, constantly. These interferences are productive tensions and inspire stories of how the key emerging order of worth in the Anthropocene comes into being: sustainability.

​

The below articles and working papers are a result of three research projects I undertook as a postdoc at the Institute for Advanced Studies in the Humanities (IASH) at the University of Edinburgh (UK) and the Environmental Policy Group at Wageningen University (Netherlands).