Noema Magazine’s Post

We are in an epoch when time is no longer differentially distributed along human and non-human scales,” he has said. “There’s no longer a social history separate from natural history. That is over. Human history and Earth history are now indivisible.” “Planetary realism” is the practical manifestation of these new understandings. It departs from the old “realist,” or realpolitik, school of foreign policy that regards nation-states as the principal actors on the world stage engaged in an endless struggle against others in pursuit of securing their own interests. https://lnkd.in/dY9H7Qjf

How good - and bad- urban initiatives spread - virally! This is interesting. I do find it surprising/disturbing that some people, engaged intellectuals usually, when this process of dissemination of ideas leads to working class people and other 'under-educated' deplorables, having thoughts or policies they don't like or approve of, call this 'misinformation'. That is how the Catholic Church responded to the invention of the printing press and the explosion of dissenters and then Protestant sects, it led to. Populism is today's version of such heresy and the internet is today's Gutenberg press. Sadly, most of our sense-making institutions are behaving like the Inquisition did in seeking to stop heretical ideas spreading. They will fail too. I add as I have before: for relativists everything is relative except Relativism: that's an absolute. The attempt to impose a moral equivalence framework on the current situation on the border with Israel is a prime example of this seeming paradox. For them, everything is relative except their own morality. That is just 'Truth' and woe betide if you challenge this. But we have to. I do. Orthodoxies usually turn out to be refuted by facts. Dennis HayesJames WoudhuysenBill Durodie

What is power? Why is it essential for Life at large and for our societies? What is vertical and what is horizontal power? How did power co-evolve with the human species? What are the effects of the over-accumulation of power in the last two centuries? How did the discovery of fossil fuels and its widespread adoption from industrial civilization impact ourselves, our environment and our societies? Is the human species as a whole a superorganism and what is its impact on the world? What do the futures may look like and what should be done to avoid a catastrophe and create better chances for survival during and after the "great simplification"? These are some of the fundamental questions Richard Heinberg addresses in his latest book called "Power: Limits and Prospects for Human Survival", an essential reading for anyone wanting to understand our predicament and the challenges we commonly face. In this episode of "The History of the #metacrisis" Richard presents his book and the answers he managed to come up with, after extensive research and its systems-oriented scientific assessment. Further, we talk about geopolitics and wars, political polarization, artificial intelligence and its societal impact, climate change realities, fossil fuels and the hidden costs of the green transition and the "great unravelling" that lies ahead. Richard serves as a Senior Fellow at the Post Carbon Institute, an organization devoted to making the transition to a post-carbon world less painful and, if possible, not catastrophic. He has served as a University Professor of Ecology and his writings extend over a timespan of four decades. https://lnkd.in/dr_RJZaR

A brilliant piece that captures the zeitgeist of today eloquently and in simple language. Worth a read IMHO.

Is the human race hurtling toward extinction? And if so, should we welcome our own demise? Find out in this conversation with author Adam Kirsch here:

In a month, I will be defending my #PhD. I want to share the 10 papers/books that smost haped my thinking in these past 4 years& thank the authors for helping me navigate this journey 1. The Partisan Brain by Jay Van Bavel, PhD and Pereira https://lnkd.in/eXkMunTi This paper opened my eyes about how ppl may come to hold beliefs untethered from reality. Jay presented this at UCL on my first week of Master's. 5 years later, I am still working on this topic. Thrilled! 2. How Good Is Your Evidence and How Would You Know? Hahn et al. https://lnkd.in/eRiA7k-B I don't think there is a simpler yet more impactful framework of persuasion for me than this paper. I have been citing this from day 1, and my trust inoculation work comes from this. 3. A Theoretical Framework for Understanding Belief Sommers et al. https://lnkd.in/eXM4yPYP I discovered only recently and I have been blown away by the breadth of knowledge. Stunning work. I don't think I'll ever write about understanding beliefs because all is said here. 4. Equivalence Testing for Psychology Daniel Lakens et al. https://lnkd.in/esaKqYCT This paper revolutionize what I believe counts as an "informative experiment". I never plan any studies without thinking about SESOIs and nulls now. 5. A toolkit for understanding and addressing climate scepticism Hornsey & Stephan Lewandowsky https://lnkd.in/e-YFMt-3 How naive of me to think individual-level climate misinfo interventions would fix the issue alone. This paper proved me structural factors rule. 6. Combining interventions to reduce the spread of viral misinformation Bak-Coleman et al. https://lnkd.in/ewATNyBH How naive of me pt. 2. this paper is superb and humbling for anyone working on individual-level misinformation interventions. 7. "Not Born Yesterday" Hugo Mercier I don't agree with the diagnosis of the misinfo problem, but this book will change your mind on how you think about whether people are reasonable or not. It gave me a ray of "infodemic" hope. 8. Thinking clearly about causal inferences of politically motivated reasoning Ben Tappin et al. https://lnkd.in/eH4z7MGB This paper introduced me to DAGs, and now I irriate everyone about how cool DAGs are. Ah, made me stop worrying about MR and love... I am not sure 9. "Statistical Rethinking" Mcelreath I honestly do not think there is a better book to understand how to think clearly about statistical models and about doing science. If I'll ever have a lab, this will be our lab manual. 10. Climate change manylabs Madalina Vlasceanu Kimberly Doell, PhD et al. https://lnkd.in/ewAXhhxV This was a wonderful rollercoaster to be a part of. Taught me that if you bring 258 behavioral scientists together, we kinda do not know how to influence a weird behavior. Best kind of humbling.

I'm liking the word 'symbiocene' - thanks Daniel! It's got me thinking (again) about implicit anthropocentrism in our language around Commons. Ostrom's work on governing the commons drew principles from examples of people collectively managing "common pool resources". Her work was inherently anthropocentric because she was observing what was already being done and how and by and for whom. An awesome starting point, but there's much more work to be done. Like many of us, I feel inspired by the possibilities of Ostrom's principles of commons governance. And I want to draw attention to a frequent tendency to avoid using the word "resources" when we talk about it, due I suspect to its explicit anthropocentrism. (I avoid it too... not pointing fingers here!) But let's confront this tendency head-on for a moment? Avoiding the word "resources" really doesn't address the underlying issue. Well-intended or not, it's really just a form of whitewashing or virtue-signalling. We haven't clearly defined what we DO mean when we talk about "commons", and as a result, I'd suggest, "resources" (and therefore anthropocentrism) is still lurking in the concept and in our ongoing work. I'd suggest, also, that our frequent focus on geophysical boundaries as a way of defining the scope of a commons really doesn't help us step out of the quandary. Other 'commons' are intangible and ineffable - like culture, religion, data, space, language, stories, collective learning. (I would add some more contentious topics too - like AI, banking, money, media.) Anyway. Commons governance is, as Ostrom pointed out, polycentric. But what IS the centre of each 'commons' we seek to govern (i.e. pilot or steer, from the latin 'gubernare')? I'd suggest the centre of a commons is not a 'thing' at all, but rather the commonality itself -- a common 'interest' in relationships BETWEEN organisms (like humans) and environment (of all forms, not just physical environment). If we took that view, the scope (or scale) of a commons would be an emergent property of where the commonality in relationship is. And that commonality would rarely be defined by borders on a map, or even bioregions. It would be more like a continuously shifting membrane. Relationship exists? In. Relationship doesn't exist? Out. Apply this principle to data, for example. Every person who accepts the terms and conditions of using a particular product or service enters into an agreement with the provider of that product or service -- there's a commonality there, which those people might centre commons governance around. How is their data being used, what governance applies to it? And to go back to 'symbiocene' for another example, we might consider the commonality of interest that fish have in a river -- that's a commons for the fish. As a custodial or stewarding species, we humans might, if we care to steward that relationship, act as trustees for the fish-river commons. Let the conversation continue...? 😁

Dr. Dahlia S., a NERPS core member, dives into the Anthropocene's existential challenges in her latest post for Planet Politics Institute. Explore how the shifting Human Development Index reflects the collision course between people and the planet and the crucial choices we face in an era of uncertainty. Find the valuable insight here:

I'm seeing some powerful realism on the LI timeline and I feel brave enough to share! Speaking of timelines, is human history a linear fold-out towards self-destruction? Instead, we could see it as patches and plots of an uneven distribution of circumstances, rights and resources. Use your lot wisely. I wrote here about understanding social relations first. https://lnkd.in/eJiKVBHF

A paradigm shift from globalization to planetary governance? "The Third Great Decentering" @NoemaMag @JonathanSBlake @nils_gilman (Plus- The Price is Right) Thinking systemically: https://lnkd.in/gDcJhpmD (or at the link in the Profile/Bio) #climatechange #competition #cooperation #gameshow #globalgovernance #globalization #history #innovation #nuclearproliferation #paradigmshift #politicalscience #systems #systemsthinking #technology #thepriceisright Nathan Gardels Nils Gilman