- Email: [email protected]
Catastrophe can set you free
culture
Catastrophe can set you free The Metamorphosis of the World: How climate change is transforming our concept of the world by Ulrich Beck, Polity, £14.99 New Earth Politics: Essays from the Anthropocene edited by Simon Nicholson and Sikina Jinnah, MIT Press, $68 Seeds: Safeguarding our future by Carolyn Fry, Ivy Press, £19.99 A World to Live In: An ecologist’s vision for a plundered planet by George Woodwell, MIT Press, $29.95 How Did We Get Into This Mess? Politics, equality, nature by George Monbiot, Verso, £16.99
on climate change has become a supermarket for apocalyptic scenarios,” as Beck puts it. We may have the diagnosis, but we lack the prescription. We are transfixed, like rabbits in the headlights, knowing that we need to abandon carbon-based fuels, but without the politics to achieve it. And we face similar problems in other areas of global risk, too, he says – from escalating economic inequality to the epidemic of digital surveillance uncovered by Edward Snowden. Faced with catastrophe, we can change. We have done it before, says Beck. The Holocaust triggered the collective horror from which modern ideas developed about human rights and the legal notion of crimes against humanity. Now we need new norms to outlaw crimes against the planet. The modern political world was forged from notions of nationhood, exemplified by declarations of independence. But nationhood is outdated in this era of global threats, says Beck. To
EVER wondered how climate change might save the world? Probably not. But the renowned German sociologist Ulrich Beck, who died last year, did. In The Metamorphosis of the World, Beck declares that global warming has the power to change us as well as the planet. And for the better. The looming disaster is set to exemplify what he calls “emancipatory catastrophism”. It could be the key to unlocking a transformation in global politics that will be our salvation. “However we may love what we think of as ‘wild’, Peering over the precipice could nature is mostly a mash-up bring us to our senses. Or, to put of natural and man-made” it in the language of sociology, it will change our “normative horizons”. herald the new era, he calls for a We have no excuse. Thanks to “Declaration of Interdependence”. the natural sciences, “never before This year sees a wave of books in human history has political life about how the advent of the been saturated by this much Anthropocene, the period we knowledge about a pending global are in now, in which planetary emergency”. Being forewarned, processes are seen to be however, does not seem to mean dominated by human activities, we are forearmed: “The literature requires a change in our way of 42 | NewScientist | 30 April 2016
fredrik naumann/Panos Pictures
Don’t bother diagnosing climate change: the point now is to act, finds Fred Pearce
governing the world. Like Beck’s work, a collection of essays called New Earth Politics is a heroic attempt to find optimism amid impending catastrophe. Editors Simon Nicholson and Sikina Jinnah agree that a better world is possible, even though “the Earth’s great web of life is being unraveled… the shadow cast by the Anthropocene has the potential to be long and dark”. There could be a “good Anthropocene”, they say. A central conundrum identified in both books is that even as the protection of nature and natural processes comes to the fore as a planetary necessity, our ideas about the environment no longer seem adequate. “Traditional notions of ‘nature conservation’ become less relevant on a ‘New Earth,’ where there is no nature left that is not shaped, harmed,
managed, modified, or controlled by humans,” says Frank Biermann, a political and environmental-policy scientist, in his chapter in New Earth Politics. Ecologists find this hard to accept. They still see nature as something apart from us that can and must be protected, and, where necessary, recreated. But the Anthropocene is no time for Edenlike myths. However we may love what we think of as “wild”, most of nature is now a mash-up of natural and human-made worlds. Journalist Carolyn Fry’s Seeds never even mentions the Anthropocene. But her splendidly illustrated kaleidoscope of the science and history of the seeds that sustain us is a manual for the new era – pinpointing how seeds transformed our ability to feed ourselves, how we in turn transformed them, and what
For more books and arts coverage, visit newscientist.com/culturelab
Svalbard’s seed bank: the world is guarding diversity in gene stores
conservation means in a world dominated by humans. Refrigerated seed banks have become stores that “conserve the genetic diversity… in wild plants”, as well as that among cultivated plants, she says. “They offer the chance to breed diversity back… to make new crops that are resilient to climate change.” In this company, the latest book from ecologist George Woodwell seems old-fashioned. A World to Live In is subtitled An ecologist’s vision for a plundered planet. In fact, it is more just a vision of a plundered planet. Look what we have done, it says. How awful. Woodwell calls for some kind of eco-governance, but offers little to suggest what that might entail. Ecologists such as Woodwell,
along with climate scientists, have done great work exposing how we humans are straining our planet’s ability to function as a life-support system. But when it comes to the what next, they are bereft. Biermann’s essay sheds light on this at the small scale. He writes of the Oostvaardersplassen, a Dutch nature reserve created on farmland reclaimed from the sea in the 1950s. This is now an artificial wilderness, emblematic of the Anthropocene, he says. The question is, what should the Dutch do with it? There is a policy vacuum, in which conservationists, hunters, animal-welfare activists, ecologists and others fight over what this rewilding should be for. In the Anthropocene, we have no option but to grab the controls, whether of Oostvaardersplassen or spaceship Earth. But has anyone seen a manual? And who should be at the helm? Should the coming catastrophe emancipate us and trigger a new politics that is up to the task, few have thought more about what lies ahead than environmental commentator George Monbiot. Normally, we might not bother reviewing a book largely comprising collected columns from the Guardian newspaper. But How Did We Get Into This Mess? is as good an attempt to answer the question in the title as you are likely to find. Monbiot lays blame widely. He attacks both the destructive forces of laissez-faire capitalism and the misguided ideas of fellow environmentalists who cannot see that nuclear energy might be handy in fighting climate change. And because his answers are overwhelmingly political, they offer solutions. Monbiot’s clear-sighted egalitarian internationalism suggests what Beck’s “emancipatory catastrophism” might mean in practice. That is a good place to start. n
Sci-Fi London film competition results The shortlist of our film-pitch competition saw chilling entries – and a worthy winner IN FEBRUARY, we asked you to send us science-fiction scenarios that you’d like to see on the big screen. Now six of your ideas have inspired this year’s entrants to the Sci-Fi-London film festival’s 48-hour challenge, which tasks teams to devise an original short film, from concept to shooting, editing and delivery, in the space of a weekend. Some of the one-liners you sent really got under our skin. Sandra Sackett wondered what would happen if the common cold was tampered with – and not in a good way. In Klaus Mogensen’s world, unemployed youths of the near future sell their blood to the wealthy and aged, who use it to rejuvenate. (If you think that’s farfetched, just read New Scientist.) Other ideas showed how artificial intelligence continues to both charm and chill us. Johann Chipol asks whether, in a world where everyone has their own AI assistant, one of these could be smart enough to do something The Clause by Jupiter Surprise, a past submission to the challenge
terrible, like cover up a murder. But Jane Bromley reckons that if AI really was smart, it would probably find better things to do. She has a robot with deep-learning software guiding visitors around a gallery by day and, inspired by its job, making its own art at night. We asked for solid scientific ideas – but Terence Kuch proved adept at slipping magic past us, with a technology that allows you to medically “unremember” an event, but leaves the unwanted memories orphaned and looking for a home. No one could beat Melissa Sterry for sheer eeriness, though. Her scenario involves a child bringing home an innocuouslooking egg, which turns out to contain a new kind of human. Our six finalists are invited to this year’s 48 Hour Film Challenge awards ceremony on 4 May at Stratford Picturehouse, London. Jane Bromley’s optimistic take on AI made her our overall winner. She wins two VIP tickets to New Scientist Live, our festival of ideas and discovery, at Excel London from 22 to 25 September. n
Fred Pearce is a consultant for New Scientist 30 April 2016 | NewScientist | 43
Catastrophe can set you free The Metamorphosis of the World: How climate change is transforming our concept of the world by Ulrich Beck, Polity, £14.99 New Earth Politics: Essays from the Anthropocene edited by Simon Nicholson and Sikina Jinnah, MIT Press, $68 Seeds: Safeguarding our future by Carolyn Fry, Ivy Press, £19.99 A World to Live In: An ecologist’s vision for a plundered planet by George Woodwell, MIT Press, $29.95 How Did We Get Into This Mess? Politics, equality, nature by George Monbiot, Verso, £16.99
on climate change has become a supermarket for apocalyptic scenarios,” as Beck puts it. We may have the diagnosis, but we lack the prescription. We are transfixed, like rabbits in the headlights, knowing that we need to abandon carbon-based fuels, but without the politics to achieve it. And we face similar problems in other areas of global risk, too, he says – from escalating economic inequality to the epidemic of digital surveillance uncovered by Edward Snowden. Faced with catastrophe, we can change. We have done it before, says Beck. The Holocaust triggered the collective horror from which modern ideas developed about human rights and the legal notion of crimes against humanity. Now we need new norms to outlaw crimes against the planet. The modern political world was forged from notions of nationhood, exemplified by declarations of independence. But nationhood is outdated in this era of global threats, says Beck. To
EVER wondered how climate change might save the world? Probably not. But the renowned German sociologist Ulrich Beck, who died last year, did. In The Metamorphosis of the World, Beck declares that global warming has the power to change us as well as the planet. And for the better. The looming disaster is set to exemplify what he calls “emancipatory catastrophism”. It could be the key to unlocking a transformation in global politics that will be our salvation. “However we may love what we think of as ‘wild’, Peering over the precipice could nature is mostly a mash-up bring us to our senses. Or, to put of natural and man-made” it in the language of sociology, it will change our “normative horizons”. herald the new era, he calls for a We have no excuse. Thanks to “Declaration of Interdependence”. the natural sciences, “never before This year sees a wave of books in human history has political life about how the advent of the been saturated by this much Anthropocene, the period we knowledge about a pending global are in now, in which planetary emergency”. Being forewarned, processes are seen to be however, does not seem to mean dominated by human activities, we are forearmed: “The literature requires a change in our way of 42 | NewScientist | 30 April 2016
fredrik naumann/Panos Pictures
Don’t bother diagnosing climate change: the point now is to act, finds Fred Pearce
governing the world. Like Beck’s work, a collection of essays called New Earth Politics is a heroic attempt to find optimism amid impending catastrophe. Editors Simon Nicholson and Sikina Jinnah agree that a better world is possible, even though “the Earth’s great web of life is being unraveled… the shadow cast by the Anthropocene has the potential to be long and dark”. There could be a “good Anthropocene”, they say. A central conundrum identified in both books is that even as the protection of nature and natural processes comes to the fore as a planetary necessity, our ideas about the environment no longer seem adequate. “Traditional notions of ‘nature conservation’ become less relevant on a ‘New Earth,’ where there is no nature left that is not shaped, harmed,
managed, modified, or controlled by humans,” says Frank Biermann, a political and environmental-policy scientist, in his chapter in New Earth Politics. Ecologists find this hard to accept. They still see nature as something apart from us that can and must be protected, and, where necessary, recreated. But the Anthropocene is no time for Edenlike myths. However we may love what we think of as “wild”, most of nature is now a mash-up of natural and human-made worlds. Journalist Carolyn Fry’s Seeds never even mentions the Anthropocene. But her splendidly illustrated kaleidoscope of the science and history of the seeds that sustain us is a manual for the new era – pinpointing how seeds transformed our ability to feed ourselves, how we in turn transformed them, and what
For more books and arts coverage, visit newscientist.com/culturelab
Svalbard’s seed bank: the world is guarding diversity in gene stores
conservation means in a world dominated by humans. Refrigerated seed banks have become stores that “conserve the genetic diversity… in wild plants”, as well as that among cultivated plants, she says. “They offer the chance to breed diversity back… to make new crops that are resilient to climate change.” In this company, the latest book from ecologist George Woodwell seems old-fashioned. A World to Live In is subtitled An ecologist’s vision for a plundered planet. In fact, it is more just a vision of a plundered planet. Look what we have done, it says. How awful. Woodwell calls for some kind of eco-governance, but offers little to suggest what that might entail. Ecologists such as Woodwell,
along with climate scientists, have done great work exposing how we humans are straining our planet’s ability to function as a life-support system. But when it comes to the what next, they are bereft. Biermann’s essay sheds light on this at the small scale. He writes of the Oostvaardersplassen, a Dutch nature reserve created on farmland reclaimed from the sea in the 1950s. This is now an artificial wilderness, emblematic of the Anthropocene, he says. The question is, what should the Dutch do with it? There is a policy vacuum, in which conservationists, hunters, animal-welfare activists, ecologists and others fight over what this rewilding should be for. In the Anthropocene, we have no option but to grab the controls, whether of Oostvaardersplassen or spaceship Earth. But has anyone seen a manual? And who should be at the helm? Should the coming catastrophe emancipate us and trigger a new politics that is up to the task, few have thought more about what lies ahead than environmental commentator George Monbiot. Normally, we might not bother reviewing a book largely comprising collected columns from the Guardian newspaper. But How Did We Get Into This Mess? is as good an attempt to answer the question in the title as you are likely to find. Monbiot lays blame widely. He attacks both the destructive forces of laissez-faire capitalism and the misguided ideas of fellow environmentalists who cannot see that nuclear energy might be handy in fighting climate change. And because his answers are overwhelmingly political, they offer solutions. Monbiot’s clear-sighted egalitarian internationalism suggests what Beck’s “emancipatory catastrophism” might mean in practice. That is a good place to start. n
Sci-Fi London film competition results The shortlist of our film-pitch competition saw chilling entries – and a worthy winner IN FEBRUARY, we asked you to send us science-fiction scenarios that you’d like to see on the big screen. Now six of your ideas have inspired this year’s entrants to the Sci-Fi-London film festival’s 48-hour challenge, which tasks teams to devise an original short film, from concept to shooting, editing and delivery, in the space of a weekend. Some of the one-liners you sent really got under our skin. Sandra Sackett wondered what would happen if the common cold was tampered with – and not in a good way. In Klaus Mogensen’s world, unemployed youths of the near future sell their blood to the wealthy and aged, who use it to rejuvenate. (If you think that’s farfetched, just read New Scientist.) Other ideas showed how artificial intelligence continues to both charm and chill us. Johann Chipol asks whether, in a world where everyone has their own AI assistant, one of these could be smart enough to do something The Clause by Jupiter Surprise, a past submission to the challenge
terrible, like cover up a murder. But Jane Bromley reckons that if AI really was smart, it would probably find better things to do. She has a robot with deep-learning software guiding visitors around a gallery by day and, inspired by its job, making its own art at night. We asked for solid scientific ideas – but Terence Kuch proved adept at slipping magic past us, with a technology that allows you to medically “unremember” an event, but leaves the unwanted memories orphaned and looking for a home. No one could beat Melissa Sterry for sheer eeriness, though. Her scenario involves a child bringing home an innocuouslooking egg, which turns out to contain a new kind of human. Our six finalists are invited to this year’s 48 Hour Film Challenge awards ceremony on 4 May at Stratford Picturehouse, London. Jane Bromley’s optimistic take on AI made her our overall winner. She wins two VIP tickets to New Scientist Live, our festival of ideas and discovery, at Excel London from 22 to 25 September. n
Fred Pearce is a consultant for New Scientist 30 April 2016 | NewScientist | 43