Enlightenment ideas of scientific rationalism and technological domination have reached the edge of an abyss. Unless a new Enlightenment is embraced — one that places ecology and care at its core — there could be no way back.
The Enlightenment that took root in 18th century Europe cast aside old norms and held out the promise of a limitless future. Individuals came to believe that they were free to take charge of their destinies and emancipate themselves from the bonds of religion, tradition and nature.
Rationality would liberate them from prejudice and scarcity, ushering in a new world of peaceful abundance, equality and universal human rights.
Illustration: Constance Chou
The experience of the 20th century suggests that this vision, while commendable in many respects, was deeply flawed and bears some responsibility for a train of environmental degradation and industrial-scale murder.
Indeed, the destructive logic of the false dualism of man and nature continues to threaten civilization.
The new Enlightenment would overcome this dualistic perspective, by bringing about a deep reconsideration of the moral duty toward animals and future generations, and transforming how humans inhabit the Earth.
Instead of thinking of humans as separate from nature, it must be recognized that we are embedded in it, and that even our most mundane actions have significant consequences.
Whatever we eat, wherever we live, however we work — we rely on ecosystems and other living beings.
The new Enlightenment would produce a new social contract that reflects an understanding of this dependence, such as by emphasizing the protection of the biosphere and delivering environmental justice for all people and animals.
An understanding of our earthly condition — the vulnerability that binds us to other living beings and nature — must be central to the new Enlightenment. Rather than focusing exclusively on human freedom, we must recognize the role that corporeality, passivity and interdependence play in defining the human condition. The new Enlightenment must be based on ecology.
Per its Greek etymology, ecology embodies the rationality — logos — of our earthly dwelling — oikos — which is always a cohabitation with others. Ecology can therefore not be reduced only to environmental considerations, such as climate change, biodiversity or pollution.
It also has a social dimension, which demands fairness in the distribution of resources and some changes in the modes of production. It also has an existential dimension, as it demands a deep understanding of ourselves and our place in nature.
Ecology is incompatible with our unbridled exploitation of the natural world and our failure to recognize our vulnerability and finitude.
When paired with instrumental rationality, the denial of our mortal and vulnerable condition, together with our obsession with control, turns ordinary practices of life — working, breeding, governing — into forms of warfare.
Unless we fully acknowledge our limits, it would be impossible to constrain our rights so that they are not a license to do whatever we please.
The new Enlightenment should lead to a reconsideration of agriculture and the role that ordinary workers play in the creation of a more caring society.
Since the Enlightenment, human progress has conventionally been reduced to technological innovation and urbanization. The ancient Greek philosophers believed political order originated in the city — polis.
Karl Marx disparaged the “idiocy” of rural life in his Communist Manifesto: The proletariat herded history, not sheep.
For many Enlightenment thinkers, too, agricultural workers were a backward class.
However, today, the moral revolution that is needed can begin in the village or the fields. While many modern farmers are burdened by debt, long hours and the effects of unsustainable practices, others have broken out of this system and are cultivating new folkways. For example, by replacing monoculture with diversified and ecosystemic agriculture, and moving from intensive livestock production to on-farm models.
They are organizing themselves at the local level, selling healthier food and bringing cooperative ideals to the marketplace. Their efforts have helped to rejuvenate deprived and abandoned regions.
Care includes everything we do to maintain and cultivate the world — including all activities that transform rural and peripheral land — so that we can flourish in it.
By showing deep care for nature and for others, those who practice sustainable farming embody the values that must underpin the new Enlightenment: humility, conviviality and solidarity.
National governments and the EU should support them, instead of providing massive subsidies to industrial farms.
These farmers — and all those who nourish hope for a more caring world — are the quiet laborers and unseen vanguard of the new Enlightenment.
Their creativity is needed to survive what many are calling a global “polycrisis” — climate change, war, debt defaults and more — so we can learn to live well in the 21st century.
Corine Pelluchon is a professor of philosophy at Gustave Eiffel University.
Copyright: Project Syndicate
US President Donald Trump and Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) were born under the sign of Gemini. Geminis are known for their intelligence, creativity, adaptability and flexibility. It is unlikely, then, that the trade conflict between the US and China would escalate into a catastrophic collision. It is more probable that both sides would seek a way to de-escalate, paving the way for a Trump-Xi summit that allows the global economy some breathing room. Practically speaking, China and the US have vulnerabilities, and a prolonged trade war would be damaging for both. In the US, the electoral system means that public opinion
They did it again. For the whole world to see: an image of a Taiwan flag crushed by an industrial press, and the horrifying warning that “it’s closer than you think.” All with the seal of authenticity that only a reputable international media outlet can give. The Economist turned what looks like a pastiche of a poster for a grim horror movie into a truth everyone can digest, accept, and use to support exactly the opinion China wants you to have: It is over and done, Taiwan is doomed. Four years after inaccurately naming Taiwan the most dangerous place on
In their recent op-ed “Trump Should Rein In Taiwan” in Foreign Policy magazine, Christopher Chivvis and Stephen Wertheim argued that the US should pressure President William Lai (賴清德) to “tone it down” to de-escalate tensions in the Taiwan Strait — as if Taiwan’s words are more of a threat to peace than Beijing’s actions. It is an old argument dressed up in new concern: that Washington must rein in Taipei to avoid war. However, this narrative gets it backward. Taiwan is not the problem; China is. Calls for a so-called “grand bargain” with Beijing — where the US pressures Taiwan into concessions
Wherever one looks, the United States is ceding ground to China. From foreign aid to foreign trade, and from reorganizations to organizational guidance, the Trump administration has embarked on a stunning effort to hobble itself in grappling with what his own secretary of state calls “the most potent and dangerous near-peer adversary this nation has ever confronted.” The problems start at the Department of State. Secretary of State Marco Rubio has asserted that “it’s not normal for the world to simply have a unipolar power” and that the world has returned to multipolarity, with “multi-great powers in different parts of the
RSS