The Discrediting of Green Aesop

Ever since I've been spending more time on the internet (particularly the media analysis sections of it) I have noticed that, especially in the Turn of the Millennium, there's been a lot of pushback against the Green Aesop. Justifications of it vary, ranging from unsubtlety, lack of nuance, misanthropic undertones, to its ubiquity in the '90s era of And Knowing Is Half the Battle, and even early into the 2000s, with some claiming these morals are shoved everywhere for no reason.

In the current times, we see more and more direct effects of negative human impact on the world, which probably would expect us to see a revival of this trope, considering the urgency of the current developments, and yet very few environmental tales are to be seen, regardless of quality. As a result, I've been wondering - has the 2000s media discourse rendered Green Aesop a Discredited Trope, and if so, is it in need of Reconstruction to be pulled off without scrutiny and eyerolls?

I honestly think it's at least in part due to a deliberate smear campaign by many corporations tha have environmentally damaging practices.

IDK if I'd say it's "discredited" so much as there's a pushback against how on-the-nose and forcefully the aesop used to be presented. And, yeah, the hypocrisy of the studios hasn't gone unnoticed. But to say it's discredited would imply that people are turning against the idea of saving the planet.

iirc, that pushback was taking place close to 10 years ago, with a lot of people online (like many a Video Review Show) and otherwise claiming "oh god not another 'save the planet' message". Wouldn't it make sense, though, for this sort of messaging to become relevant again now, with more light shed on these problems? That, however, isn't happening.

Edited by AoeAbility on May 9th 2024 at 5:00:30 AM

I haven't seen any of that mindset personally, and a lot of online critics (and general online discourse) sways toward Accentuate the Negative. Maybe it's discredited but that relies on assuming the people who complain about it A) mean it and B) are the majority.

Good point.

Media analysis aside, Green Aesop is a prime target for Genre Throwback imo.

For what it's worth, a video game just recently came out that seems to be basically one big Green Aesop (specifically, about microplastics and about the pollution of our oceans).

(That game being Another Crab’s Treasure.)

It really seems a lot of media today makes the villain somebody who opposes racism or environmental destruction but ""goes too far"", while the hero is passive at best outside of stopping the villain or actively supports the status quo at worst.

It could be incompetent attempt to make sympathetic villains, or the writers might be trying to demonize things like environmentalism and anti-racism.

There is also the third option that they're attempting to depict cases in which "the ends don't justify the means": presenting villains with sympathetic goals, but who seek to achieve them through objectionable methods.

Not touching the racism part since I don't want to let this derail...

It's all too easy for eco-concious villains to end up, like, committing eco terrorism and trying to wipe out humans. That is usually the reason they're seen as bad, not simply because of their goals. It's definitely just another brand of Well-Intentioned Extremist.

With Green Aesop, it isn't entirely discredited, see Avatar. But it's definitely correct that the public is not overly receptive to these sorts of messages.

I will say that's not directly because of some deliberate smear campaign by the powers that be, at least not necessarily.

I think it's largely because they came across as talking down to the viewer in some manner, such as by being misanthropic or vaguely anti-industrial generally. Essentially, it came across as a lot of hippy-dippy soapboxing that caused some people to resent it.

They also tend to be conflated with Animal Wrongs Group like PETA which are hated for their own reasons.

Eco-Terrorists as villains:

Perhaps it's surprising to say, but environmentalism is an ideology most people sympathize with on some level. But not to the extent that they'd see it as a justification for violence or strictly illegal actions. You might say this is too passive an attitude about it, and perhaps you're right. People see it as a distant issue and caring about it as a luxury.

But, a person who commits violence in the name of environmentalism is seen as having a believable and slightly sympathetic motive, but still evil. And of course, a lot of people who

I will note that in fairness, eco-terrorism not only exists but can actually be pretty vile. They're often not really well-intentioned extremists.

For example: If you want to reconstruct the eco-terrorist, I would argue the best way to do it would be to have them be something like a greenwashed White Supremacist militia. They view pollution as something caused by their racial enemies. Groups like this do exist.

Now if you want to reconstruct the Green Aesop, there's a few ways you can do it. Truth be told, something like a Captain Planet reboot actually isn't all that bad an idea.

Personally, I'm rather fond of a series of artworks I found on the internet called "Big Five" by Robert Chew. This depicts a future in which people use militarized robotic animals to fight poachers. I'd love to see a show or a video game based on this premise.

To add. Thanos can be seen as an example of an eco-terrosit. a Malthusian who saw overpopulation as a bane to be routed by all means nessecary.

This isn't obvious the case (largely because the entire biopshere is in his crosshairs, and of course he has self-serving reasons for the acts) but it isn't difficult to translate that into a bigot using the environment has his dogwhsitle to make his acts more palatable to others.

another example is Ted Faro of Horizon Zero Dawn, who both ahs a background in climate restoration (being hailed as the one who solved the climate crisis) and also the one that doomed the planet for unrelated reasons (deadly indomitable nanobots as war machines, the only connection is the sue of biofuel). A few changes there would make him a suitable example for a reconstrcted eco-terrorist. (simply have the war machines be covered by a front of environmental stewardship and trash disposal specialists, with the public unaware of what the customers saw as "trash", "waste" or even "dirt" here)

I think a lot of modern environmental messaging in fiction is more subtle and rational, while the cases it isn't are the ones usually being mocked. Like the last two science fiction books I read (The Mountain in the Sea and Children of Time) both involved environmental problems as pretty central plot-points. In fact, I'd argue in science fiction environmental disaster has become the "default" doomsday replacing a nuclear exchange to the point where rising tides and smog seem to be almost expected of works set in the future.

That being said I think there was a really critical way it's taken a pretty big step backwards; while lots of old goofy media would try to encourage audiences to live more sustainably a lot of more modern media places the blame entirely on society and corporations. While both are to blame and the old way often ignored the larger sociological problems, I think taking agency away from your average person is appealing to audiences that don't really want to change their lifestyle and would rather feel doomed.

I have more issues with environmentalist media being but the more I think about it the more I realize it would really make sense as its own thread.