This has quite a number of scientists, social scientists, and philosophers. Looks like an interesting event put on by the Breakthrough Institute if you are in Bay area come June: http://thebreakthrough.org/index.php/dialogue/agenda/
Here is the description:
Over the last few years, ecomodernist thinkers have articulated a vision of a “good Anthropocene,” one where humans use our extraordinary powers to shrink our negative impact on nature. They have argued for the embrace of modernization processes to ecological ends. It is a vision of: urbanization, as people in cities have more opportunities and use resources more efficiently; intensified food production to increase yields and leave more room for nature; the expanded use of nuclear energy, which has zero emissions and the smallest land footprint of any energy source; greater development of GMOs to reduce chemical use and increase yields; animal-free meat; “re-wilding” former farm and pasture lands with wolves, buffalo, mountain lions, and even formerly extinct species — all the while supporting universal human dignity.
But the very discussion of a good Anthropocene triggered a critical response from some who see modernization processes and the age of humans itself as inherently risky and destructive. Since it is only under Holocene conditions that we know human civilization can survive, there can be no “good” Anthropocene, only less bad variants, they say. Raise global temperatures two, four, or six degrees and all bets are off. As such, critics of the good Anthropocene say, ecomodernism doesn’t adequately consider the potential for civilization-ending catastrophe or for a stronger societal connection to nature. Technology cannot correct for human greed, hubris, and profit-driven development, they say.
In light of this debate, Breakthrough Dialogue 2015 will focus on the question: “What is our vision of a good Anthropocene?” And it will ask related questions: Given global complexity, inequality, and ideological diversity, should we speak of many Anthropocenes rather than a single Anthropocene? How do these visions draw on and break from traditional environmentalism, on the one hand, and the status quo, where modernization processes seem to be proceeding? Given declining visits to national parks, the popular preference for pastoral landscapes, and the suburban backlash to increased wildlife, is more wild nature really what anybody really wants?