Science as Public Reason and the Planetary Commons as a Beacon | Newspaper

release

In recent years, the world has moved in an erratic fashion, from right to left, from left to right. Every turn of the wheel has become more active, every change in direction more abrupt. Increasingly closer to the shoulders and further away from the center, which is where the basic consensus and basic agreements should live. The world moves because time is running; sometimes there seems to be no other reason.

In this winding path, the boundaries of the common gradually become contested boundaries and science gradually becomes a matter of faith. However, empirical analysis of reality reveals initial collective challenges that require unduly coordinated and urgent responses. The framework where development Humans are mutating. Boundary conditions development Climate change is determined by biodiversity, climate, availability of natural resources and environmental quality, and not necessarily for the better.

Australian chemist Will Steffen and some of his prominent colleagues devoted to the study of Earth sciences warned of this a few years ago. “In little more than two generations, humanity (or a small part of it) has become a force for planetary-scale change.” Until the mid-20th century, “human activities were small compared to the biophysical functioning of the planet, and the two could operate independently. However, it is now impossible to see one in isolation from the other. The trends of recent decades have provided a clear vision of “the emerging coupling, through globalization, of the social and economic system and the biophysical functioning of the planet.” According to Steffen and his collaborators, “we now live in an unprecedented world.”

In this fragmented and unprecedented world, where any disagreement is a pretext for occupying the trench, it is worth asking: How can consensual actions between dissident factions be legitimated? What are the functional criteria for constructing the foundations upon which shared social projects based on different worldviews can legitimately be built? In times when we move between fractured borders, what agreements might be necessary to maintain the basic conditions that make life not only livable but also sustainable? good living Of all the spirits?

Science as Public Reason in a Post-Truth Age

The voices that have recently challenged the scientific consensus with cunning and functional arguments for political and economic purposes are neither few nor insignificant, nor are they declining. One need only look across the pond or at the US electoral process to find two clear examples. In light of this reality, how can viable futures be built on such massive opposition in liberal democracies, or how can we legitimize and justify political action that persists over time in pluralistic societies before the world of citizens?

In John Rawls’ view, the legitimacy of political intervention lies in building consensus on its basis. General reasonsThat is, in the controversial elements derived from “general beliefs and forms of reasoning accepted by common sense” or from “the methods and conclusions of science when they are not controversial”. How then can science produce non-controversial conclusions? This question is of course debatable. In his essay “Science as Public Reason: A Rethinking”, Cristóbal Belolio rescues the idea that science should not support existential truths, but provisional truths. Provisional truths in the sense that they should be understood as the best collective knowledge we have at the moment about the physical structure of the world. Belolio subscribes to John Stuart Mill’s vision of the validity and importance of facts, not as beliefs immune to scrutiny and criticism (dogmatic truths), but on the contrary, as ideas that, having been confronted and subjected to critical judgment, on countless occasions, have emerged stronger. Truth as the center of systems of thought. In this sense, science will be the material for constructing public reasons, and thus the foundations of the legitimacy of political action. A role not insignificant in these times.

If science is therefore an essential tool for constructing and legitimizing policy, strengthening the scientific system must constitute the minimum common denominator in the exchanges that will begin to crystallize on the public agenda these days. It would be appropriate to learn some lessons from the storms of recent years. Moreover, research and innovation are essential conditions for development “in its broadest sense” (see the series of notes “Research and innovation: transformative examples and their link to economic and social development” by Callejas, Tancredi, Alonso, Acerenza and Brito, published in newspaper). It seems that giving priority to policies related to science and technology, moving towards a knowledge-based economy and accompanying aspirations with investment to meet challenges, is pending for Uruguay.

Planetary Commons as a Beacon for Troubled Navigation

The unprecedented world that Will Steffen, Paul Crutzen, and John McNeil, among others, warned about a few years ago, features a novelty of the coupling of human activities with the biophysical functioning of the planet. For example, July 2024 recorded the warmest day since instrumental observations were made, and perhaps the warmest in tens of thousands of years. June 2024 was the warmest June on record, extending to 13 consecutive months the same record. In addition, it ended a year in which average monthly temperatures were consistently more than 1.5°C above pre-industrial levels (although this does not mean violating the Paris Agreement target of long-term averages). Ocean surface temperatures and ice cover have also reached record levels in recent months, and examples of this kind could go on for pages. It is difficult to ignore the unprecedented global emergency.

In the view of the Swedish scientist Johan Rockström, “in a few decades we have gone from being a small world within a large planet, where we can achieve unsustainable growth without realizing the effects, to now being a large world within a small planet,” where “system destabilization cannot be ruled out.” Specifically, the recent article by Rockström and his collaborators, “Planetary Commons: A New Model for Protecting Earth’s Regulatory Systems in the Anthropocene,” reviews the classical concept of the global commons in the light of the latest data and proposes an innovative approach that, among other things, reinforces the principle of common but differentiated responsibilities (we all bear responsibility for global problems, but these responsibilities differ according to our ability to respond and the degrees of our contribution to the origin of the problems).

In particular, the authors raise the importance of changing the focus of international environmental governance, moving from the governance of system elements (e.g., international waters, the seafloor, or Antarctica) to the collective governance of the functional organization of the system (e.g., the hydrological cycle, the integrity of the biosphere, monsoon systems, or oceanic carbon pumps). This new focus requires a fundamental change: moving from focusing solely on the management of non-excludable shared resources beyond national jurisdiction to ensuring the critical functions of the Earth system, and establishing a “custodianship obligation” over them, regardless of national borders.

Ultimately, the proposed new framework (“planetary commons”) differs from the existing framework (“global commons”) by including not only shared geographic areas, but also important biophysical systems that regulate the Earth’s resilience and its condition. And thus its status as a habitable planet. The main contribution of this work is to simultaneously recognize the integrated nature of the system and the vital importance of its functions. A necessary and long step.

Given today’s accumulating evidence, the problematic trajectory of global (and local) environmental conditions will constitute an uncontroversial scientific conclusion, and thus a common ground on which to build consensus and legitimize policies. Moreover, environmental degradation is essentially a regressive collective problem, meaning that its consequences place a proportionately greater burden on the most vulnerable populations, deepening pre-existing social and economic gaps and triggering potentially catastrophic situations. The keys to charting viable and just future paths must therefore be based on common interests, without controversial shortcuts, without evading responsibilities, and without complacency analysis. Along these lines, it is also important to demand perspectives that take into account historical processes and local realities, for which the existence of scientific systems reinforced in all their dimensions is essential.

Living conditions are of common importance to everyone, everywhere. They are essential to maintaining the basics of development and preserving the basic frameworks that ensure conditions for social and intergenerational justice. Despite the apparent distance from current issues, routines and distractions, this practice of putting the pieces together aims to defend the common good as the inevitable basis for a viable future, inclusive and informed participation as a fundamental principle of its government and the essential role of science in building and legitimizing genuinely transformative political action.