Suchergebnisse

Sustainability is on the center of green politics. Yet this position hardly corresponds to a non-existent conceptual unanimity, spread of the concept has multiplied its meanings & implications. It is therefore necessary to take on a conceptual review of it, for clarity's sake. And sustainability turns out to be a neutral & generic principle, admitting a number of variations & ways of achievement. Such intrinsically normative character is closely related to a dimension of the principle which the literature tends to ignore, specially due to the pre-political definition of it greens tend to embrace: connection between sustainability & democracy. It facilitates the distinction between two forms of sustainability, differently related to social & political organization & to democratic articulation of public participation. It is only on the grounds of such a distinction & of a conception of sustainability aware of its normative character that a renewed & viable green politics is can be constructed, far from early environmentalism dogmatism & able to find a new foundation for sustainability & itself. Tables, References. Adapted from the source document.

Abstract: In the Anthropocene, the unprecedented disruption of planetary systems caused by an ongoing social activity seems to demand from human beings an equally unprecented effort to avert catastrophe -in the form of a «hothouse Earth» scenario that would render the Earth uninhabitable. But is humanity up to the task? In other words: Does even «humanity» as a functioning political category exist? If not, can it be brought into existence? This paper will explore this question. It will begin by pointing out the need for a massive and concerted effort on the part of living generations of humans, since otherwise it will not be possible to counteract the accumulated effect of the species' footprint. Hints of this global sovereign can be found in the climate agreemens and other forms of governance, but the rise of climate populism -as witnessed in the yellow vests movement in France- suggests that an unified action against planetary deterioration has not yet been achieved. The question, then, is how to create such a global political subject. Which form should this demogenesis adopt to be effective? The goal of making the Anthropocene sustainable can, in fact, be the unifying motif that increasingly fragmented and pluralistic human societies have been lacking for sometime now.

How should environmental political theorists deal with environmental science? The question has acquired a new urgency with the rise of the Anthropocene, a geological-cum-ecological concept received with skepticism by many political theorists. In part, this is due to the notion that there is an "oficial" version of the Anthropocene that comes out already linked to a set of normative and policy prescriptions for dealing with climate change and the other manifestations of the new epoch, i.e. a managerial approach that is capitalist-friendly and technologically trigger-happy. However, this in turn reflects deep-seated suspicions about scientific findings and the way in which they are "produced". This paper will reflect on this topic in the framework provided by the Anthropocene, arguing that a clear demarcation is needed between the scientific and the sociopolitical inquiry, whereupon the former provides the latter with findings to be discussed and processed in a sociopolitical fashion -whereas scientists should refrain from making normative or policy prescriptions or, if any, should make them explicitly. After all, environmental political theory would not exist without environmental sciences. The debate on the beginning of the Anthropocene will help to make this point. ; Universidad de Málaga. Campus de Excelencia Internacional Andalucía Tech

How to make sense of both post-truth and post-factualism? As the erosion of truth seems to be on the rise in contemporary societies, apparently threatening the deliberative function assigned to their public spheres and thus the very health of democratic systems, it has become a necessity to deal with these closely related concepts. Do they refer to the same socio-political phenomenon? Where do they come from? What factors may explain their current diffusion? This paper will provide a genealogy for post-truth and post-factualism, carefully distinguishing between them before sheding light on their common roots -a conceptual task that should facilitate a careful assessment of their importance and thus help to devise strategies to counter their negative effects. To such end, the paper will explore three different dimensions of post-truth: (i) the philosophical, which relates to the long theoretical discussion about the possibility of truth, the conclusion of which is largely sceptical about a strong positicion on universally recognizable truths; (ii) the affective, which takes into account the insights provided by the contemporary literature on emotions, so that those features of human subjectivity that restrain a deliberative engagement with truth-seeking processes, or distort the individual perception of arguments and data that contradicts our belief, are identified; and (iii) the technological, which takes into account the social networks that largely organize public discussion nowadays and the way in which they strenghten both post-truth and post-factual tendencies. All in all, the gradual convergence of these three currents explains the rise of post-truth democracies. ; Universidad de Málaga. Campus de Excelencia Internacional Andalucía Tech