Deep and Bright Green

I had a discussion way back when with labgnome on Deviantart, where talked about Green politics.

I think it’s safe to assume that in a couple of generations, all serious politicians will be “Green” to the extent that their platforms include policies aimed at solving environmental problems. But how will they solve those problems?

One approach (they call themselves “Deep Greens,” others call them “Dark Greens”) is conservative: limit human interference to preserve nature. Their goal is perpetual stewardship.

The other approach (the “Bright Greens,” or “Light Greens” if you don’t like them) is progressive: support human technology to solve environmental problems. Their goal is perpetual growth.

Deeps say that Brights are crazy. When their vaunted super-technologies do not arrive and save us all, the Earth’s capacity to support human life will crash, and our species will go extinct. Brights say Deeps are evil. When they crushed all opportunities for advancement, society will collapse into “Warden-Aristocrats” and oppressed peasants.

In practice, most governments take a middle path, with a few exceptions heading out into the extremes on either the Bright or Dark side. Which side would you fall on?