Can We Do Ecological Justice?

Here we provide our take on ecological justice.  What does ecological justice look like?  Can we as a species achieve ecological justice?  How will we know?  How will we do it?

We begin by introducing foundations of ecology and conservation, including the Half-Earth project, followed by a discussion of how the Upper New Basin fits into that model.  We then compare the concepts of ecological and environmental, and think about how this affects human exceptionalism, followed by a brief overview of three phases of ecological literacy.  Looking at how systems thinking, systems wisdom, and leverage points for complex intervention are elements of ecological literacy and justice, we then explore what intuitive justice is, how it works, and how we can compare ecological literacy and ecological justice as equivalents.

We then briefly explore what ecological justice looks like beyond humans, considering various interspecific interactions.  This is followed by a discussion of connections between ecological justice and commoning (The Commons) as well as a comparison between sustainability and ecological justice.  We conclude with a brief exploration of how we might measure progress toward achieving intuitive ecological justice, followed by an introduction to the Postropolis project as a model for how ecological justice can be achieved by humans, a major paradigm shift.

Initially, this web page was published to complement a poster presented at The 2024 New River Symposium.  It should be considered a living document which we will expand with new material about the TPOTS project as we have time.

Foundations: Ecology + Conservation


When we explore ecology, whether in terms of ecological justice or for other reasons, we like to consider elements of functional ecology and community ecology.

Functional ecology is “a branch of ecology that focuses on the roles, or functions, that species play in the community or ecosystem in which they occur,” and community ecology (also referred to as synecology) “is the study of the interactions between species in communities on many spatial and temporal scales, including the distribution, structure, abundance, demography, and interactions between coexisting populations.”

We like the way these two perspectives of ecology align with the internal (agent-based) and external (aggregate) perspectives associated with reciprocal reasoning about complex (nonlinear) systems, such as how all species interact within the global biosphere over time.

Speaking of interactions, a big part of community ecology is understanding interspecific interactions, such as competition, predation, mutualism, commensalism, amensalism, parasitism, and neutralism.  We’re really interested in these interspecific interactions, which are essentially different forms of transactions and relationships, especially in terms of ecological justice, which has a lot to do with the navigation and negotiation of relationships within and across communities.

Continental Conservation and Rewilding

Drawing from Rewilding North America (Foreman, 2004), we make connections between rewilding and continental scale conservation by delineating conservation, design, and action.

Foreman quotes heavily from Soulé and Noss (1999), noting they  “recognize three independent features that characterize contemporary rewilding: (1) large, strictly protected core reserves (the wild), (2) connectivity, and (3) keystone species.”  These are distilled as the three Cs of conservation: cores, corridors, and carnivores.  Soulé and Noss note two justifications for rewilding as part of conservation: (1) “the ethical issue of human responsibility,” and (2) “the subjective, emotional essence of ‘the wild’ or wilderness.

Foreman observes: “Wilderness is hardly ‘wild’ where top carnivores, such as cougars, jaguars, wolves, wolverines, grizzlies, or black bears have been extirpated. Without these components, nature seems somehow incomplete, truncated, overly tame. Human opportunities to attain humility are reduced.” (p. 129)

Concerning wilderness area selection and design, Foreman continues: “Rewilding is not just science; it is conservation – the blending of traditional wilderness values of beauty, inspiration, and pioneer travel with ecological values. Nor is planning for rewilding only a scientific exercise. It is ecologically informed, muddy-boots conservation aimed at flesh-and-blood, root-and-leaf, fire-and-flood upshots in the political world as well as the wild world.” (p. 191)

Foreman suggests a laundry list of specific actions for continental conservation, including strategies such as:

  • Reintroduce carnivores wherever possible
  • Generally halt predator and “pest” control
  • Reform wildlife management to adopt a more ecological approach
  • Restore a natural fire ecology
  • Remove destructive, unnecessary dams
  • Prioritize removal of exotic species that threaten native species and wildlands


To best explain the Half-Earth concept set forth by E. O. Wilson, we turn to a portion of the summary provided by the Half Earth Project of the E. O. Wilson Biodiversity Foundation:

“Half-Earth proposes an achievable plan to save our imperiled biosphere: devote half the surface of the Earth to nature. In order to stave off the mass extinction of species, including our own, we must move swiftly to preserve the biodiversity of our planet, says Edward O. Wilson in his most impassioned book to date. Half-Earth argues that the situation facing us is too large to be solved piecemeal and proposes a solution commensurate with the magnitude of the problem: dedicate fully half the surface of the Earth to nature.”

The Half-Earth Project:

Here’s Wilson’s (2016) implication of Half-Earth as a form of ecological justice: 

“Only a major shift in moral reasoning, with greater commitment given to the rest of life, can meet this greatest challenge of the century. Wildlands are our birthplace. Our civilizations were built from them. Our food and most of our dwellings and vehicles were derived from them. Our gods lived in their midst. Nature in the wildlands is the birthright of everyone on Earth. The millions of species we have allowed to survive there, but continue to threaten, are our phylogenetic kin. Their long-term history is our long-term history. Despite all of our pretenses and fantasies, we always have been and will remain a biological species tied to this particular biological world. Millions of years of evolution are indelibly encoded in our genes. History without the wildlands is no history at all.”  (p. 211)

Upper New Basin as (08 HUC) module of Continental Conservation

Map showing relationship of contiguous wilderness area to the Upper New Basin along the Blue Ridge escarpment.

The Upper New Basin sits on the cusp of over 25,000 acres of basically contiguous wilderness, including Thurmond Chatham Game Lands, Doughton Park of the Blue Ridge Parkway, and Stone Mountain State Park.  The map above shows the relationship between this wilderness and the Upper New Basin.

According to the NC DNCR, “Stone Mountain State Park is a 14,353-acre (58.08 km2) North Carolina state park in Alleghany County and Wilkes County, North Carolina.”

The total area of Doughton Park is approximately 6300 acres (quoted differently in various sources).

NC Wildlife notes that “the main portion of the game land (4,958 acres) lies west of Doughton Park (Blue Ridge Parkway) and east of N.C. Highway 18, “D Section” (1,506 acres) lies between Doughton Park and Stone Mountain State Park, and the Basin Creek Camping area (7.7 acres) lies immediately south of Doughton Park (Appendix 1, Map 4).

14,353 + 6,300 + 6472 = 27,125 acres of wilderness

What might the implications be for how The Upper New Basin (along with the Upper Yadkin Basin) fits into the scheme of continental conservation and Half-Earth?

Environmental vs. Ecological: Human Exceptionalism? 

There are plenty of discussions around the similarities and differences between ecology and environment, especially concerning the scientific approaches to each.  We approach the differentiation from a social (human) perspective, in order to understand the appropriate role of the human species within the environment, within the biosphere.  We think ecologically about the role of humans in the environment.

Let’s start with a particular definition of ecology that we find useful in beginning this understanding (provided by the Ecological Society of America).

“Ecology is the study of the relationships between living organisms, including humans, and their physical environment; it seeks to understand the vital connections between plants and animals and the world around them. Ecology also provides information about the benefits of ecosystems and how we can use Earth’s resources in ways that leave the environment healthy for future generations.”

We think ecological thinking is more ecocentric than “environmental” thinking, which we think is more anthropocentric, conducive to the human exceptionalism paradigm, which involves a separation of humans from “the rest” of the environment.

“Human exceptionalism (HE) is one such conceptual framework, involving the belief that humans and human societies exist independently of the ecosystems in which they are embedded, promoting a sharp ontological boundary between humans and the rest of the natural world….In other words, the human exceptionalist paradigm denies the ecosystem-dependence of human society. This can be contrasted with a view in which humans are one species among many involved in interdependently linked biotic communities that shape social life.” (Kim, et al, 2023)

Environment as Text: Three Types of Ecological Literacy

Stables (1998) delineates three types of ecological literacy: functional, cultural, and critical.  From a domain independent perspective, he describes critical literacy as an “active exploration of significance and meaning” (p. 158).  While functional ecological literacy “involves a series of complex skills and an accumulation of knowledge which has unlimited capacity for growth,” (p. 158), a person exhibiting high levels of functional ecological literacy does not engage with what the environment means – neither to the self or other individuals or groups.

Cultural ecological literacy involves the recognition of the significance of natural images in human culture as well as why (and to whom) they are important.  While cultural ecological literacy can empower the learner through access to socially powerful perspectives, it cannot alone empower the learner into action.  Essentially, a person exhibiting high levels of cultural environmental literacy is more aware (and likely better with navigation) of socio-ecological systems – and the human impact upon natural systems (and vice versa) over time.  According to Berkes, Colding, and Folke (2003), the “navigation” of socio-ecological systems is the dynamic nature of human societies dealing with change during the interaction of social and ecological systems – as well as increasing one’s capacity to adapt to this change.

Stables (1998) insists that it is only critical ecological literacy that can facilitate effective environmental action by any individual, noting that achieving critical ecological literacy entails “the power to develop an understanding of the factors that contribute to environmental change and to have a view on how to further oppose that change in a way that can be translated into action” (p. 160).  He reiterates this point from the perspective of environmental education: “only critical environmental literacy…can result in the kinds of action many would accept as education ‘for’ the environment” (Stables & Scott, 1999, p. 153).

Systems Thinking, Systems Wisdom, and Leverage Points: “Components” of Ecological Literacy (and thus Ecological Justice)

Three components of ecological literacy (and thus ecological justice) are: systems thinking mindset shifts, the principles of systems wisdom, and leverage points for intervening in complex systems.

Examples of systems thinking mindset shifts include shifts from hierarchies to networks, from contents to patterns, and from measurement to mapping. (Capra 2005)

Meadows’ (2005) principles of systems wisdom are indicators of how one should apply these mindsets to certain systems, or essentially how a person should behave in systems, such as “before you disturb the system, watch how it behaves” and “look for the ways that the system creates its own behavior”.

Meadows (2005) also identifies twelve leverage points for intervening in any complex system.  She orders them from weakest to strongest, with the weakest being “numbers” and the strongest being “transcending paradigms”.   Others include stock and flow structures, feedback loops, information flows, rules, self-organization, and goals. 

How do these components relate to the function and achievement of ecological justice as part of achieving ecological literacy?

Understanding Intuitive Justice

What is intuitive justice?

According to the authors of The Coddling of the American Mind, intuitive justice is a combination of distributive justice and procedural justice. (Lukianoff & Haidt, 2019).  Essentially, distributive justice is the perception that people are getting what is deserved, and procedural justice is the perception that the process by which things are distributed (and rules are enforced) is fair and trustworthy.

This is a core assertion of equity theory: when the ratio of outcomes to inputs is equal for all participants, people perceive equity and fairness.  Lukianoff and Haidt lean on the work of Tom Tyler: “Intuitive justice is not just about how much each person gets. It’s also about the process by which decisions about distributions (and other matters) are made. The social psychologist Tom Tyler is one of the pioneers of research on ‘procedural justice.’ His central finding is that people are much more willing to accept a decision or action, even one that goes against themselves, when they perceive that the process that led to the decision was fair.” (p. 219)

They then draw up their own summary of intuitive justice:

“Combining the two forms of justice, we can say this: Intuitive justice involves perceptions of distributive justice (as given by equity theory) and procedural justice. If you want to motivate people to support a new policy or join a movement in the name of justice, you need to activate in them a clear perception, or intuition, that someone didn’t get what he or she deserved (distributive injustice) or that someone was a victim of an unfair process (procedural injustice). If you can’t elicit at least one of those feelings, then people are much more likely to be content with the status quo, even if it is one in which some people or groups end up with more resources or more status than others.” (p. 220)

Ecological Literacy = Ecological Justice?

What is the connection between ecological literacy and ecological justice?  

We see ecological justice as the collective achievement of ecological literacy.

Essentially, if we as a single species in a biosphere full of “other” species can establish and maintain intuitive ecological justice for all species, it means, collectively, we are probably becoming fairly mature practitioners of critical ecological literacy.

To put it simply: if we are doing ecological justice, we are demonstrating our ability in the arena of critical ecological literacy at high levels of proficiency.  How do we get there?

Recently, Jordan, Singer, Vaughan, and Berkowitz (2009) have presented a “knowledge space” framework for ecological literacy, which includes: 1) evidence-based habits of mind, 2) ecological concepts and connections, and 3) self knowledge (i.e., human-environment connectedness) – with a focus upon the intersection of these three elements.

This intersection helps define the arena of demonstration of ecological literacy through intuitive, distributed, procedural ecological justice throughout the biosphere.

Stables (1998) recognizes two potential avenues for positive contribution to society from those that have achieved acceptable levels of functional, cultural, and critical ecological literacy:

  1. “understanding how and why approaches to the environment have change and developed over time” (p. 161)
  2. “ensuring that choices about environmental action take into account ethical and aesthetic, as well as scientific considerations with respect to their likely consequences…” (p. 161)

Ecological Justice for ALL

What does ecological justice look like, across trophic levels, from the perspective of keystone species, foundation species, and “ecological engineers”?

A trophic pyramid (a) and ecological food-web (b) – used with CC 3.0 license

How does ecological justice play out in interspecific interactions, such as competition, predation, parasitism, mutualism, commensalism, especially when we are able to shift our own mindsets away from human exceptionalism?

Some species are capable of being predators of the human species.  What does ecological justice look like for these interspecific interactions?  

From the perspective of the biosphere and all species as part of an ecological community of practice: Who gets to decide what counts as distributed and procedural justice in such interspecific interactions?  Why do they get to decide?  What is the correct decision?  How do we know?

Ecological Justice and The Commons

In his text Think Like a Commoner, Bollier (2014) gives us a brief overview of what The Commons is, and how The Commons works, in a form of action called “commoning”.

The Commons is:

A social system for long-term stewardship of resources that preserves shared values and community identity

A self-organized system by which communities  manage resources (depletable and replenishable) with minimal/no reliance on Market or State

A sector of the economy and life that generates value in ways that are often taken for granted and often jeopardized by the Market/State

Bollier notes that inherited and created wealth must pass on undiminished or enhanced, to our children, and this collective wealth includes gifts of nature, civic infrastructure, cultural works, and traditions and knowledge.  Furthermore, “a commons arises whenever a given community decides it wishes to manage a resource in a collective manner, with special regard for equitable access, use, and sustainability.”

Of particular importance to the essence of ecological justice, Bollier notes that “new commons forms and practices are needed at all levels (local, regional, national, global) and there is a need for new types of federation among the commoners and new linkages between different tiers of commons.”  Specifically at the global (biospherical) level, Bollier insists: “Transnational commons are especially needed to help align governance with ecological realities and serve as a force for reconciliation across political boundaries.” (p. 175-177)

Establishing a biospherical commons for all species is how we start to DO the commoning required for ecological justice to occur.

Sustainability and Ecological Justice?

Considering “sustainable development” as a manifestation of ecological justice, we must pose the question: What does it look like for 10 billion humans on Earth to behave sustainably within the biosphere?  What is fair and just for 10 billion people to do?

Researchers at the Stockholm Resilience Centre have generated a “wedding cake” model of the United Nations Sustainable Development Goals, which they describe here:

“Speaking at the Stockholm EAT Food Forum 13 June 2016, former centre director Johan Rockström and board member Pavan Sukhdev pushed for a new way of viewing the economic, social and ecological aspects of the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs).  They argued that all the sustainable development goals are directly or indirectly connected to sustainable and healthy food.  The illustration describes how economies and societies should be seen as embedded parts of the biosphere. This vision is a move away from the current sectorial approach where social, economic, and ecological development are seen as separate parts.” (SRC, n.d.)

“Wedding Cake” diagram of UN Sustainability Goals. created by Azote for Stockholm Resilience Centre, Stockholm University CC BY-ND 3.0.

While we think the focus of interconnectedness should be broader than just food to feed humans, we recognize the validity of this model of sustainability and “sustainable development” due to its focus on the biosphere as the foundation of the process.  Economies are embedded in societies, and societies are embedded in the biosphere, shared with all living organisms.  Essentially, there are no externalities in the model.

Without a biosphere, there’s no point in any kind of economy or society.  We’re dead.

Measuring Progress Toward Intuitive Ecological Justice

In order to evaluate whether or not ecological justice has occurred (and is being maintained), we must be able to make valid assessment decisions using reliable measurement instrumentation.

Essentially: what is the “proof” of ecological justice in the biosphere?  What is the evidence we need to show that ecological justice is happening (and continues)?

Humans are tasked with this evaluation process.  We are the responsible party.  Is there a formula for the evaluation?  PJ + DJ = IJ → EJ?

What should we be measuring and assessing in order to evaluate ecological justice in the biosphere?  We need to measure as many transactions and relationships between all species, as frequently as is necessary to make valid evidence-based decisions and judgements in service of justice.  Forever.  We can’t stop assessing or we won’t have sustained ecological justice.

Diagram of the conceptualized Assessment Delivery Construction (ADC) platform.

We must consider the interplay of people, machines, information, and environments within the relationships we have with all species in the biosphere.  We can implement tools such as the Hybrid Simulation Relationship Assessment (HSRA) framework to help us understand these transactions and relationships.

We can use a toolset such as the Assessment Delivery Construction (ADC) platform to help us design, develop, and implement appropriate assessment tools for achieving these global tasks.

This is one major area of research we are undertaking here at The Upper New.

Intuitive Ecological Justice and “Postropolis”

Diamond shaped logo of the Postropolis project

Please note: The Postropolis project was initially conceptualized by Upper New founder Benjamin Erlandson nearly a decade ago, and is being revitalized within the purview of The Upper New.

What is Postropolis?

The term Postropolis is derived from the Greek root -polis meaning city-state, or independent self-governing community in which everything was decided by a social process, combined with postro-, a conflation of the roots post- (after) and metro- (measure), to form postropolis.  

Postropolis is the conceptualization for what comes after cities in human civilization, in service of the continued habitability (and restoration) of the biosphere.  It is the process, framework, and platform for the conversations that need to happen as we move toward this point in civilization.

We are one species sharing the biosphere with all other species.  Based on this fact, let us conceptualize and build an “after-city-state” network of dynamic human habitation distributed appropriately across the planet according to natural physical boundaries and ecological systems.

Postropolis is an eco-socio-technical system: people build and control technology in the service of the habitability of the biosphere.  Within this ecological perspective, the initial areas of emphasis in the formation of the Postropolis concept are food; shelter; communication and learning; access, mobility, and transportation; and employment or livelihood (as a life-work balance).

Postropolis is our model for how ecological justice can happen.

Postropolis Learns

We are establishing Postropolis as a learning system, conceptualizing Postropolis as one extensible hybrid global schoolhouse opening its doors across human generations for a continued understanding of interspecific transactions and relationships in the biosphere.

The HSRA framework can be used to establish an understanding of Postropolis as a global hybrid learning system (across human generations and interspecific relationships) as well as how Postroplis as a platform can serve as a basis for designing relationships between humans, machines, information, and places across time and space for the purpose of continuous learning.

Does this mean we are reimagining ALL of human society/systems as one comprehensive learning environment? 

Yes, it does. To exist in the biosphere is to learn.

Postropolis Sleeps: Urban Core Districts

Urban Core Districts (UCDs) are habitation clusters where humans sleep and function in indoor capacities as individuals or groups.  These UCDs are modeled and understood as a basic concept, then explored through units of organization (continents, watersheds, and smaller units), variables of design, the necessity of population density, and connectivity, as well as how UCDs will interface with ecological corridors (massive wilderness reserves) in which they may eventually exist as islands, as these reserves continue to expand up to or beyond Wilson’s proposed half-earth reserve goal.  This progression also begs the question of how UCDs should be designed to degrade over time as balanced participants within these ecosystems, in accordance with the arguments made in What We Leave Behind (Jensen & McBay, 2011).

Postropolis Moves: HTNs

Human transportation networks (HTNs) are initially described in terms of human-scaled infrastructure for human-powered, wind-powered, solar-powered, and animal-powered vehicles for moving people and cargo between UCDs in terms of speed, presence, and collaboration.  Internal and external networks within and between UCDs and other relevant nodes are articulated from a variety of perspectives, including overlap and engagement with wilderness areas.

In understanding how we move (and how this should change), we can explore a “settlers and nomads” argument, with a specific eye toward the positive and negative impacts of tourism on the lives of residents (both human and non-human) in any given location.  Elements of transportation, mobility, and place will be explored from the perspective of fuel use, metabolism, prioritization, and problem-solving.  The design of UCDs to accommodate any number of feedback policies, including the possibilities of transition areas and pandemic buffers, will also be explored.

Postropolis Works

What does human work look like in Postropolis, in service of the biosphere?  We explore learning, experience, movement, and sense of place—as well as the revolutions of industry and platform—in order to better understand the potential futures of work (and the life-work balance) in the Postropolis paradigm.  Labor and the gig economy within the age of automation will be explored in comparison to the possibility of ending coercive employment for all, leaving us to apply our labor to our livelihoods within the biosphere.

Here we also revisit modes of belonging in communities of practice and how this relates to work, effort, achievement, purpose, and value.

Postropolis Eats

Here, nourishment for survival and well-being are explored as a series of interspecific relationships, placing humans back within food webs, considering each of us as future food for decomposers, and what this means about what we should and should not be processing with our own metabolisms.

Wilson’s Half-Earth proposal, coupled with concepts of natural ways of inserting ourselves back into the nutrient cycles of the planet, such as those considered by Heinrich (2013) in Life Everlasting.

This can provide us with a basis to explore how we can use the HSRA framework to articulate a “metabolism as currency” argument for exchange and cost benefits analysis, which in turn could be applied to an argument for barter and trade within a new paradigm of labor negotiations, as well as a continued understanding of our metabolic relationship with the animals (and animal products) we consume for nourishment, as well as the metabolisms of work animals.

Postropolis Heals

We explore connections between health, wellness, and fitness, reconnecting wisdom, ecology, learning, sleeping, moving, working, eating, especially concerning the perspective of lifelong learning as continued personal growth.   Interspecific interactions are explored from the perspective of psychological well-being, and the “fitness” of our species within various ecological niches.

We can also explore recent histories of positive psychology and the effect it has had on individuals, communities, and our ideas of what it means (and what it takes) to be “happy”, and how Postropolis may be able to help us sort this out in a more reasonable fashion.  Modes of belonging within communities of practice (considering individual and community health and wellness as continued practice) will be explored in light of healthcare, continuing as a dissection of the commodification of “healthcare as a service”, culminating with an articulation of this individual and collective journey along the pathway of functional, cultural, and critical ecological literacy.

Postropolis Believes

In order to foster learning, growth, and change, we must also understand the importance of belief (and faith) within the human perspective and experience of the biosphere in which we exist, and how we come to terms with our time in this biosphere, both as individuals and communities.  There must be a clear connection made between knowledge and belief, and how these two functions work together (and against each other) as we carve our own pathways through time, making decisions and mistakes all along the way.

How does this relationship between knowledge and belief play out in terms of systems thinking, systems wisdom, problem-solving, ecological literacy, leverage points, behavior change, and paradigm shifts? What are all the things that people actually believe, and how does this translate into a faith of any kind, whether it is faith in any number of deities, or faith in the pursuit of truth through scientific endeavor? 

How are these beliefs formed and changed, and what can a rational system like the Postropolis platform do to help understand and articulate these changes, especially when the time comes that any individual wants to understand and change their own beliefs (or help someone else achieve a similar change)?  We can also articulate the importance of belief and narrative as motivators for change and stasis, and where it is that concepts of myth (regardless of the story) fit into the ongoing growth and transformation of the lifelong learner, using premises such as the four functions of mythology as set forth by Campbell and how his proposed pedagogical view of these functions as a pathway to human maturity can be further understood, articulated, and fostered by the Postropolis framework, process, and platform.  Once again, we can integrate Campbell’s pedagogical perspective of mythology with modes of belonging (communities of spiritual, philosophical, and existential practice?) as well as our growth through the functional, cultural, and critical phases of ecological literacy, especially considering Jensen’s thoughtfully proposed Myth Of Human Supremacy.

Postropolis as Commons

Following the lead of Bollier’s Think Like a Commoner, we explore the potential of various sharing economies (which are promoted in a different light as part of the Fourth Industrial Revolution) to explore how Postropolis as a place, an idea, a platform, and an open learning system can be a commons, especially in terms of governance, social (and interspecific) relationships, and knowledge production and dissemination.  Themes explored include resource stewardship, shared values, collective wealth, responsibility, transparency, and accountability as manifest in distinct combinations of resources, communities, protocols, values, and norms managed appropriately over time.  

Practical local, regional, national, continental, and global issues are articulated as measurable scenarios within and across UCDs throughout HTNs, especially through ecological and interspecific lenses afforded by the HSRA framework, including concepts for comfort and “happiness” in the commons, building a foundation for critical thinking and analysis for collective self-governance and citizenship, invoking again such principles of systems wisdom as building feedback policies for feedback systems, and expanding time horizons, all in service of an ecoliterate society maintaining intuitive ecological justice.

Loving Resistance for Ecological Justice: Eco-Socio-Techno-Postropolis

Following a brief articulation of Postropolis technologies as practical applications of intelligence, we engage in critical analysis of our relationships with technology and our environment over time (including interspecific effects) as interpreted through Postman’s concept of the Loving Resistance Fighter, taking the perspective that every technology inherently contains a program, agenda, and philosophy requiring scrutiny, criticism, and control.

Postropolis as a massive paradigm shift in service of the achievement and maintenance of intuitive ecological justice is articulated as a space for fostering Deep Green Resistance (set forth by Jensen, McBay, and Keith) against capitalism, neoliberalism, popular environmentalism, positive psychology and its inherent celebration of egoism—including an articulation the deep green resistance “taxonomy of action”, and how this might be translated for generating measurable results from these actions using a commons-based self-governance hybrid learning assessment system built with the ADC and the HSRA—even if this results in an expedited transition beyond the Postropolis paradigm as we continue the long descent from fossil fuel consumption.