Commentary: Underestimating the Challenges of Avoiding a Ghastly Future

Jevgeniy Bluwstein, Adeniyi Asiyanbi, Anwesha Dutta, Amber Huff, Jens Friis Lund, Salvatore Paolo De Rosa, Julia Steinberger

Research output: Contribution to journalDebate/Note/Editorialpeer-review


Bradshaw et al. (2021) make a call to action in light of three major crises—biodiversity loss, the sixth mass extinction, and climate disruption. We have no contention with Bradshaw et al.’s diagnosis of the severity of the crises. Yet, their call for scientists to “tell it like it is,” their appeal to political “leaders,” and the great attention they afford to human population growth as a main driver underpinning the three crises, rest on contested assumptions about the role of science in societal transformations, and are scientifically flawed and politically problematic. In this commentary, we challenge Bradshaw et al.’s assumptions concerning the nature of science, polity, and humanity as well as the implicit politics underlying their analysis and messaging. We end with an alternative call to action.
Original languageEnglish
Article number666910
JournalFrontiers in Conservation Science
Publication statusPublished - 2021 May 13

Subject classification (UKÄ)

  • Human Geography


Dive into the research topics of 'Commentary: Underestimating the Challenges of Avoiding a Ghastly Future'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.

Cite this