Prospects for a Wilder Planet
Biodiversity loss is one of the major drivers and outcomes of human civilization exceeding planetary ecological limits, with current loss rates signalling the risk of total functional collapse. Rewilding has emerged as a promising paradigm for reimagining and redesigning environments, societies, and conservation practices in order to not merely maintain current levels of biodiversity but also reverse its decline—providing additional ecosystem benefits along the way.
But rewilding is contentious, to say the least. Critics have charged that the paradigm is “more sentiment than science,” called it the “New Pandora’s Box” (in light of the risks for unintended environmental and social consequences), and contended that it is a mere repackaging of already existing restoration approaches. Some associate rewilding with geoengineering and other potentially catastrophic proposals
As relevant as those criticisms are, status quo forms of conservation appear to be insufficient to combat dramatic rates of species loss. And trying to hold onto the present state of conservation appears no inherently wiser than pining for a lost age. In examining rewilding, I take a far different tack. Rather than attempt to judge the approach from the outset as inevitably good or intrinsically bad, I explore the question: What are the prospects for doing rewilding intelligently and responsibly? How could it be utilized in ways to maximize learning, allowing humanity to explore far more radical forms of biodiversity conservation while still maintaining the maximum feasible ability to back out or change course?
But rewilding is contentious, to say the least. Critics have charged that the paradigm is “more sentiment than science,” called it the “New Pandora’s Box” (in light of the risks for unintended environmental and social consequences), and contended that it is a mere repackaging of already existing restoration approaches. Some associate rewilding with geoengineering and other potentially catastrophic proposals
As relevant as those criticisms are, status quo forms of conservation appear to be insufficient to combat dramatic rates of species loss. And trying to hold onto the present state of conservation appears no inherently wiser than pining for a lost age. In examining rewilding, I take a far different tack. Rather than attempt to judge the approach from the outset as inevitably good or intrinsically bad, I explore the question: What are the prospects for doing rewilding intelligently and responsibly? How could it be utilized in ways to maximize learning, allowing humanity to explore far more radical forms of biodiversity conservation while still maintaining the maximum feasible ability to back out or change course?
Scientism, Populism, and Hope for Democracy in the Era of Fanatical Truthism
Whether it an issue like vaccines, climate change, or the right response to the Covid-19 Pandemic, the barrier to doing the correct things seems to be some people's rejection of the facts. At least, that is what both sides say. And every few months there seems to be a new book or op-ed lamenting the demise of respect for expertise, with the author wringing their hands over some new outrageous thing that citizens seem to believe and arguing that a stake is nothing less than democracy writ large.
Not only does it seem suspect that any human society has ever existed with a non-post-truth era, where expert testimony straightforwardly resulted in political action, but hopes that somehow citizens could be refashion to respect Truth feel more than slightly naive.
In this book project, I analyze the belief that Truth, whether it be in scientific facts, common sense, nature, or any other claimed source of veracity, can settle our political disagreements. Far from it being the case that disagreement about facts undermines democracy, I find that the real problem is the preoccupation with truth in the first place. When any source of truth becomes dogma, politics becomes fanaticized and any hope for productive understanding, negotiation, and coalition building becomes impossible. Political opponents turn into near mortal enemies.
But Fanatical Truthism doesn't have to be our dominant political language. Surveying decades of work in political behavior, survey data, and psychological experiments, I explore the possibilities for renewing a far richer form of democratic talk, in addition to the broader social changes that will be necessary to practice it. By broadening the way in which discuss and think about public problems, citizens can begin to counter the toxic levels of polarization that infect our democracies.
Not only does it seem suspect that any human society has ever existed with a non-post-truth era, where expert testimony straightforwardly resulted in political action, but hopes that somehow citizens could be refashion to respect Truth feel more than slightly naive.
In this book project, I analyze the belief that Truth, whether it be in scientific facts, common sense, nature, or any other claimed source of veracity, can settle our political disagreements. Far from it being the case that disagreement about facts undermines democracy, I find that the real problem is the preoccupation with truth in the first place. When any source of truth becomes dogma, politics becomes fanaticized and any hope for productive understanding, negotiation, and coalition building becomes impossible. Political opponents turn into near mortal enemies.
But Fanatical Truthism doesn't have to be our dominant political language. Surveying decades of work in political behavior, survey data, and psychological experiments, I explore the possibilities for renewing a far richer form of democratic talk, in addition to the broader social changes that will be necessary to practice it. By broadening the way in which discuss and think about public problems, citizens can begin to counter the toxic levels of polarization that infect our democracies.