AI looks at Bruno Latour's Down to Earth

I’ve also been playing around with AI bots. Because there is so much to read and so little time to read it, I find it’s a useful way to get reasonably good summaries of books. Below is a query I posed to Google’s NotebookLM. I instructed it to summarize the intro and chapter one of Bruno Latour’s Down to Earth, and it did so. Then it provided some additional prompts of its own which are included below. Text is copied as displayed––bolded headings and sentences are in the responses of NotebookLM.

Summarize the Intro of Down to Earth

Coming Down to Earth: A New Political Landscape in the Face of Climate Change

The introduction of Bruno Latour's Down to Earth: Politics in the New Climatic Regime lays out a provocative argument: the global political landscape is undergoing a fundamental shift, driven by the undeniable reality of climate change and the failure of traditional political ideologies to address it. The sources, comprised of excerpts from the book's introduction, argue that this transformation demands a radical reorientation of our political thinking, moving beyond the outdated dichotomy of the Local and the Global and embracing a new attractor, the Terrestrial.

• The End of Easy Modernization: Latour argues that the promise of endless modernization, a central tenet of Western thought, has been shattered by the realization that the Earth cannot sustain the relentless pursuit of economic growth and resource exploitation. The "modern world" has become an oxymoron: modernization without a world to sustain it.
• The Crisis of Belonging: This realization has triggered a profound sense of disorientation and a crisis of belonging, as people grapple with the loss of both the Global dream and the security of the Local. The introduction frames this as a "wicked universality," a shared experience of being deprived of land and a secure future.
• A New Political Actor: Latour posits that this crisis is driven by the emergence of a new political actor: the Terrestrial. This is not simply "nature" as traditionally conceived, but an active agent that reacts to human actions and demands a new form of political engagement.
• Rethinking the Political Spectrum: The traditional political spectrum, with its focus on the Left/Right divide, proves inadequate in this new landscape. The introduction suggests that the Terrestrial attractor requires a reorientation of political positions, forging new alliances based on a shared commitment to inhabiting the Earth sustainably.

The introduction to Down to Earth serves as a call to action, urging a reassessment of our political categories, a deeper engagement with the sciences of the Critical Zone (the thin layer of Earth where life thrives), and a renewed focus on "engendering terrestrials" rather than simply producing goods. The sources emphasize that this is not an abstract philosophical exercise but a matter of survival, driven by the Earth's increasingly forceful responses to human activities.

What does Bruno Latour argue is the relationship between the denial of climate change and the explosion of inequalities?

Denial as a Shield for Elite Retreat: Connecting Climate Change Denial and Inequality

Bruno Latour argues that the denial of climate change is not a separate phenomenon but rather an integral part of a broader strategy employed by a segment of the ruling class to shield themselves from the consequences of a planet in crisis while exacerbating existing inequalities. This strategy, he suggests, is driven by a realization that the Earth's resources are finite and cannot support the continued expansion of a lifestyle enjoyed by a privileged few. The sources, drawing on excerpts from Latour's Down to Earth, paint a picture of an elite class that has effectively abandoned the project of shared prosperity, choosing instead to secure their own future at the expense of the majority.

• The "Political Fiction" of Elite Retreat: Latour uses the term "political fiction" to describe a hypothetical scenario where the elite, recognizing the looming threat of climate change, choose to exploit this knowledge to their advantage rather than mobilize a collective response. This "fiction," he argues, illuminates the otherwise puzzling convergence of climate change denial, the dismantling of social safety nets (deregulation), and the dramatic rise in economic inequality.
• Denial as a Tool for Maintaining the Status Quo: The sources suggest that the elite have strategically chosen to deny climate change to avoid the radical societal and economic transformations that would be necessary to address it. By obfuscating the truth and delaying action, they can continue to profit from existing systems of resource extraction and wealth accumulation while shifting the burden of environmental degradation onto the most vulnerable populations.
• The Construction of a "Gilded Fortress": Latour argues that the explosion of inequality is a direct result of the elite's decision to hoard resources and build a "gilded fortress" for themselves, abandoning any pretense of shared prosperity. He likens this strategy to passengers on the Titanic securing lifeboats for themselves while the orchestra plays on, lulling the other passengers into a false sense of security. This deliberate widening of the gap between the haves and have-nots is further facilitated by the dismantling of social safety nets and the erosion of public institutions, creating a system where the wealthy can further insulate themselves from the consequences of climate change while the majority are left to bear the brunt of its impacts.

Latour argues that understanding this link between climate change denial and the explosion of inequalities is crucial for navigating the current political landscape. He suggests that recognizing the deliberate actions of a select few in shaping this trajectory can help to illuminate the underlying power dynamics at play and mobilize a more effective response. The sources emphasize that confronting this "obscurantist elite" requires a shift away from the traditional political spectrum and towards a new framework centered on the Terrestrial, a concept that recognizes the interconnectedness of human and non-human actors in shaping our shared future.

What does Latour argue is the key factor in understanding the politics of the last 50 years?

Understanding the Last 50 Years of Politics: Centering the Climate Question

Bruno Latour argues that understanding the politics of the last 50 years hinges on placing the question of climate change and its denial front and center. He contends that without grasping the profound implications of our entry into a "New Climatic Regime," we cannot adequately comprehend the seemingly disparate phenomena that have shaped recent decades: the explosion of economic inequality, the push for deregulation and the dismantling of social safety nets, the critique of globalization, and the surge in nationalist sentiment often mislabeled as "populism."

Latour's argument, as presented in the sources, goes beyond simply acknowledging climate change as a significant political issue. He proposes a more radical proposition: the Earth itself, in its reaction to human activity, has become a central political actor, disrupting the established frameworks of modern thought and action. This disruption, he suggests, underpins and connects many of the seemingly disconnected political trends of recent times.

• Climate Change as a Catalyst: Latour posits that the increasing awareness of climate change, especially among a segment of the elite, triggered a fundamental shift in their political calculus. Recognizing the finite nature of the planet's resources and the potential for widespread disruption, this group, according to Latour, chose to prioritize self-preservation and the maintenance of their privileged position.
• Denial as a Political Strategy: The sources highlight the role of climate change denial as a deliberate strategy employed by this elite faction to maintain the status quo and resist the systemic transformations needed to address the climate crisis. By obscuring the truth and delaying action, they can continue to benefit from existing systems while shifting the burden of environmental degradation onto others. This denial, Latour argues, is deeply entwined with the push for deregulation and the widening gap between the rich and the poor.
• The Limits of Traditional Frameworks: Latour emphasizes the inadequacy of traditional political frameworks, particularly the Left/Right divide, in grappling with the complexities of the climate crisis. He suggests that these frameworks, rooted in a linear conception of progress and a separation between the human and the natural, fail to capture the interconnectedness of our current predicament.
• Towards a "Terrestrial" Politics: The sources advocate for a reorientation of politics around the concept of the Terrestrial, recognizing the Earth as an active agent that reacts to human actions and demands a new form of engagement. This "Terrestrial" politics, Latour argues, necessitates moving beyond traditional categories and forging new alliances based on a shared commitment to inhabiting the Earth sustainably. It requires recognizing the limits of modernization and embracing a more nuanced understanding of our relationship with the planet.

By centering the climate question and acknowledging the Earth's agency, Latour offers a framework for understanding the political shifts of the last 50 years that goes beyond traditional analyses. He urges us to recognize the interconnectedness of climate denial, rising inequality, and the retreat from global cooperation, seeing these as interconnected symptoms of a deeper crisis in our relationship with the planet. This shift in perspective, he suggests, is essential not only for understanding the past but also for navigating the political landscape of the future.

Summarize chapter one

The Intertwined Rise of Inequality and Climate Denial: A New Political Landscape

Chapter 1 of Down to Earth, titled "A Hypothesis as Political Fiction," explores the seemingly disparate phenomena of climate change denial and the dramatic rise in global inequality, arguing that these are not separate issues but rather two sides of the same coin, driven by a profound shift in the political landscape. The sources, which comprise excerpts from this chapter, paint a picture of a world grappling with the limits of the "modern" project and the emergence of a new political actor: the Terrestrial.

• The End of Shared Prosperity: Latour argues that a crucial turning point occurred in the 1980s when a segment of the elite, recognizing the impending threat of climate change and the finite nature of Earth's resources, effectively abandoned the pursuit of a shared future. Realizing that the Earth could not support the continued expansion of their privileged lifestyle for everyone, they chose to secure their own position at the expense of the majority.
• Deregulation, Inequality, and Denial: A Single Strategy: The chapter posits that the push for deregulation, the explosion of inequality, and the denial of climate change are all interconnected strategies employed by this elite to maintain their dominance in a world increasingly constrained by environmental limits. Deregulation allows for unfettered resource extraction and wealth accumulation, exacerbating inequality and further concentrating power in the hands of the few. Climate denial, meanwhile, serves to obfuscate the truth and delay action, allowing this system to continue unchecked.
• The "Political Fiction" of Elite Retreat: Latour uses the term "political fiction" to describe a hypothetical scenario that sheds light on the otherwise puzzling convergence of these trends. Imagine, he suggests, that the elite, privy to the scientific evidence of climate change, choose to exploit this knowledge to their advantage rather than mobilize a collective response. They recognize the coming crisis but decide to secure lifeboats for themselves, abandoning any pretense of a shared future and leaving the majority to face the consequences of a destabilized planet.
• The Betrayal of Modernization: This strategic retreat marks a betrayal of the "modern" project, which, despite its flaws, at least held out the promise of progress and prosperity for all. The "modern world," Latour contends, has become an oxymoron: modernization without a world to sustain it. This unraveling of the modern ideal has left many feeling disoriented and betrayed, fueling a sense of resentment and a yearning for a return to a more secure past.
• From the Global to the "Out-of-This-World": Latour maps this political shift by contrasting the traditional poles of the Local and the Global with two emerging attractors: the Terrestrial and the Out-of-This-World. The Global, once seen as a horizon of progress and shared prosperity, has morphed into a project of exclusion, a "globalization-minus" that benefits only a select few. This has fueled a backlash, with many seeking refuge in the nostalgic security of the Local, often expressed through appeals to national identity and closed borders. Meanwhile, a small segment of the elite, recognizing the Earth's limitations, are detaching themselves entirely, seeking to escape the coming crisis through technological fixes and even space colonization - a trend Latour terms the "Out-of-This-World."
• The Rise of the Terrestrial: In contrast to these escapist fantasies, Latour points towards the Terrestrial as the only viable path forward. This is not "nature" as traditionally conceived, but a new political actor that encompasses both the material reality of the Earth and the interconnectedness of all living beings. The Terrestrial, he argues, demands a new form of political engagement, one that recognizes our dependence on the Earth's systems and seeks to negotiate a sustainable future for all terrestrials, not just humans.

Chapter 1 of Down to Earth lays out a provocative framework for understanding the political landscape of the last 50 years, urging us to move beyond the traditional categories of Left and Right, Global and Local, to grapple with the implications of the New Climatic Regime. The intertwined rise of inequality and climate denial, Latour suggests, is not simply a matter of bad policy or individual greed but rather a symptom of a deeper crisis: the unraveling of the modern project and the urgent need to come down to Earth, to recognize the agency of the Terrestrial and forge a new politics of interdependence.

What are the three key phenomena that the author argues are symptoms of a single historical situation?

Three Intertwined Phenomena: Symptoms of a Shifting World

Bruno Latour argues that three key phenomena - deregulation, the explosion of inequalities, and the systematic denial of climate change - are not isolated incidents but interconnected symptoms of a single, overarching historical situation. This situation, he suggests, is characterized by a segment of the ruling class abandoning the project of a shared future and choosing instead to prioritize self-preservation in the face of a planet in crisis.

• Deregulation: Starting in the 1980s, a push for "deregulation" began, dismantling social safety nets and weakening public institutions. This dismantling, Latour argues, is not simply about economic efficiency, but a calculated move by elites to shed the "burdens of solidarity" as they prepare for a future where resources become increasingly scarce. Deregulation allows for the maximization of short-term profit and the concentration of wealth in the hands of a few, while leaving the majority vulnerable to the shocks of a changing climate and a volatile economy.
• Explosion of Inequalities: This period of deregulation coincides with a dramatic rise in global inequality. Latour argues that this is not an accidental byproduct but a deliberate outcome of elite strategy. As the ruling class retreats into a "gilded fortress", they actively exacerbate the gap between the haves and the have-nots, ensuring that the costs of environmental degradation and social upheaval are borne by those least able to afford them.
• Denial of Climate Change: Completing this interconnected web is the systematic effort to deny the reality of climate change. Latour sees this denial as a crucial element in the elite strategy to maintain their position. By obscuring the scientific evidence and delaying action, they can continue to profit from existing systems of resource extraction and wealth accumulation, all while perpetuating the illusion that the current trajectory is sustainable.

These three phenomena, Latour argues, are not merely coincidental, but rather deliberate and interconnected choices driven by a specific worldview. This worldview, shaped by a realization that the Earth cannot sustain unlimited growth and a desire to protect elite privilege, leads to a retreat from shared responsibility and a doubling down on extractive and exploitative systems. The denial of climate change, in this context, acts as a crucial shield, protecting the status quo and allowing the other two phenomena to proceed unchecked.

Latour argues that recognizing this interconnectedness is crucial for understanding the political landscape of the past 50 years and navigating the challenges of the present. He suggests that by acknowledging the agency of the elite in shaping this trajectory, we can begin to dismantle the systems that perpetuate inequality and environmental destruction and move towards a more just and sustainable future.

How does Latour define the "New Climatic Regime”?

Understanding Latour's "New Climatic Regime"

While the sources do not offer a concise definition of the "New Climatic Regime," they provide ample context and detail to construct a comprehensive understanding of this concept. Latour uses this term to describe a fundamental shift in the relationship between humans and the Earth, one marked by the Earth's increasingly active and disruptive responses to human activity. This new reality, he argues, has profound political implications, upending traditional assumptions about progress, globalization, and the very nature of political agency.

Here are some key insights gleaned from the sources about the "New Climatic Regime":

• From Passive Background to Active Agent: The sources emphasize a dramatic shift in the Earth's role in human affairs. Previously conceived as a stable backdrop for human action, a resource to be exploited or a wilderness to be conquered, the Earth under the "New Climatic Regime" emerges as a powerful agent in its own right. It reacts to human actions, often in unpredictable and disruptive ways, setting limits to human ambition and demanding a new form of engagement. This shift, Latour argues, necessitates a fundamental rethinking of traditional political categories and assumptions.
• The End of the Holocene's Stability: The sources point to the relative stability of the Holocene epoch, during which human civilization developed, as a key factor in shaping modern thought. This period of climatic stability allowed for the development of agriculture, cities, and complex societies, leading to a sense of human mastery over nature. The "New Climatic Regime," however, disrupts this sense of stability, bringing with it a new era of uncertainty and volatility, challenging the foundations of the modern project.
• The Anthropocene as a Turning Point: The sources connect the concept of the "New Climatic Regime" to the notion of the Anthropocene, the proposed geological epoch marked by the significant impact of human activity on the Earth's systems. The Anthropocene, Latour suggests, marks a point of no return, a moment where human actions have irrevocably altered the planet's trajectory, ushering in a new era of interconnectedness and interdependence between humans and the Earth.
• A Crisis of Modernity: The "New Climatic Regime," according to Latour, exposes the limits and contradictions of the modern project, particularly its faith in unlimited progress, its separation of humans from nature, and its reliance on a stable and predictable world. The Earth's active responses to human actions challenge these fundamental assumptions, leading to a sense of disorientation and a crisis of meaning. The sources suggest that navigating this crisis requires a radical reorientation of our values, our institutions, and our very understanding of what it means to be human.
• A Call for New Political Alliances: The "New Climatic Regime" demands a new form of politics, one that moves beyond the traditional categories of Left and Right, Global and Local, to embrace the complex and interconnected nature of our relationship with the Earth. This new politics, Latour argues, must be grounded in an understanding of the Earth as an active agent, requiring negotiation, compromise, and a willingness to adapt to a world in constant flux.

Latour's concept of the "New Climatic Regime," though not explicitly defined in the sources, emerges as a powerful framework for understanding the profound shifts underway in the 21st century. It is not merely about climate change as a scientific phenomenon, but about a fundamental transformation in the relationship between humans and the Earth, demanding a radical rethinking of our values, our politics, and our very understanding of what it means to inhabit this planet.

What does Latour argue is the link between the denial of climate change and the explosion of inequalities?

Denying Reality, Exploiting Inequality: The Elite's Response to the New Climatic Regime

Latour argues that the denial of climate change and the explosion of inequalities are intimately intertwined, representing two facets of a single strategy adopted by a segment of the elite to maintain their power and privilege in the face of the New Climatic Regime. This regime, as discussed in our conversation history, signifies a profound shift in the human-Earth relationship, where the Earth ceases to be a passive backdrop and emerges as an active agent, disrupting traditional notions of progress and globalization.

• A Strategic Retreat from Shared Responsibility: Faced with the reality of a finite planet and the limitations it imposes on their ambitions, this elite faction, according to Latour, chose to abandon the project of a shared future and instead prioritize their own self-preservation. They understood the scientific evidence of climate change but opted to exploit this knowledge for their benefit rather than mobilize a collective response.
• Deregulation as a Tool of Dispossession: The push for deregulation, often framed as a means to unleash market forces and spur economic growth, serves a more insidious purpose in this context. Latour argues that deregulation facilitates the rapid extraction of resources and the accumulation of wealth, further enriching the elite while simultaneously dismantling social safety nets and eroding the foundations of solidarity. This dismantling of shared protections creates a more precarious and unequal world, making the majority more vulnerable to the shocks of the New Climatic Regime.
• Inequality as a Buffer Against Crisis: The explosion of inequalities is not an unfortunate side effect of this strategy but a deliberate outcome. Latour suggests that by widening the gap between the haves and the have-nots, the elite create a buffer zone, ensuring that the brunt of the coming crisis is borne by those least able to afford it. This calculated strategy of exclusion allows them to maintain their comfortable lifestyles even as the planet becomes increasingly unstable and resources become scarcer.
• Climate Denial as a Smokescreen: Climate denial, in this framework, plays a crucial role in maintaining this system of exploitation. By actively obscuring the scientific evidence of climate change and sowing doubt in the public mind, the elite can deflect attention from their own complicity in perpetuating the crisis. This denial allows them to continue profiting from existing extractive industries and delay the implementation of policies that might threaten their position.
• A Betrayal of the Modern Ideal: Latour views this strategy as a profound betrayal of the "modern" project, which, despite its flaws, at least held out the promise of progress and prosperity for all. The elite's retreat into self-preservation, fueled by climate denial and the exploitation of inequality, signals the unraveling of this modern ideal, leaving a world increasingly fragmented and a majority facing a future of precarity.

Latour's analysis highlights the deep connections between seemingly disparate phenomena, revealing how the denial of climate change serves not just as a means to protect vested interests, but as a cornerstone of a broader strategy to maintain elite privilege in a world undergoing profound transformation. By recognizing this interconnectedness, he suggests, we can begin to challenge the systems that perpetuate inequality and environmental destruction, and move towards a more just and sustainable future.

What are Latour's three primary arguments for why the denial of climate change, globalization, and growing inequality are all part of a single phenomenon?

The Elite's Retreat: Latour's Arguments for a Unified Phenomenon

Bruno Latour presents a compelling argument that the denial of climate change, the pursuit of globalization, and the growth of inequality are not disparate events, but rather interconnected elements of a single phenomenon driven by the choices of a particular segment of the ruling class. Here are three key arguments he uses to support this claim, drawing from the sources and our conversation history:

1. The End of Shared Progress: A Deliberate Choice

Latour's central thesis is that a faction within the elite, confronted with the realities of the "New Climatic Regime," made a conscious decision to abandon the project of a shared future and instead prioritize their own self-preservation. This choice, he argues, was not a product of ignorance or a lack of understanding but a calculated response based on a clear-eyed assessment of the situation.

• Recognizing the Limits: According to Latour, this elite group recognized that the Earth's resources are finite and that the modern project of unlimited growth was ultimately unsustainable. They understood the scientific evidence pointing towards climate change but chose to exploit this knowledge to secure their own position rather than work towards a collective solution.
• The Flight from Solidarity: This realization led to a retreat from the ideals of shared progress and a dismantling of the social and political structures aimed at promoting a more equitable world. Latour uses the term "deregulation" to describe this dismantling, arguing that it was not simply about economic efficiency but a deliberate attempt to shed the "burdens of solidarity" and maximize individual gain in a world perceived as increasingly competitive and resource-scarce.
• Building a Gilded Fortress: In place of shared progress, this elite faction focused on building a "gilded fortress" for themselves, a protected enclave where they could maintain their privileged lifestyles even as the world outside faced the consequences of climate change and resource scarcity. This fortress, Latour suggests, is built on a foundation of exacerbated inequality, ensuring that the costs of the coming crisis are borne by those least able to afford them.

2. Globalization: From Universal Promise to Elite Escape Route

Latour argues that the pursuit of globalization, specifically in its neoliberal form often referred to as "globalization-minus," is not a force of universal progress but rather a mechanism by which this elite faction seeks to escape the constraints of the "Terrestrial" and maintain their grip on power.

• Globalization-Minus: Narrowing the World: Latour distinguishes between "globalization-plus" and "globalization-minus." The former represents a genuine expansion of viewpoints and possibilities, a true engagement with the diversity of the world. The latter, however, is characterized by a narrowing of vision, the imposition of a singular, often Western-centric perspective on the rest of the world. This form of globalization, he argues, serves to homogenize cultures, extract resources, and concentrate wealth in the hands of a few, ultimately undermining the very idea of a shared world.
• Escaping Accountability: Globalization-minus, for Latour, is a means of escaping the constraints and responsibilities of the "Terrestrial." By operating in a globalized, interconnected world, this elite faction can shift resources, dodge regulations, and avoid accountability for the environmental and social consequences of their actions. They can profit from the exploitation of resources and labor in distant lands while insulating themselves from the direct impacts of these actions.
• The Illusion of a Borderless World: This strategy, Latour suggests, relies on the illusion of a borderless world, a globalized space where capital can flow freely and constraints are minimized. However, this illusion is shattered by the reality of the New Climatic Regime, which reveals that the Earth is not a blank slate for human ambition but an active agent with its own limits and responses. The elite's attempt to escape into a globalized, deregulated world is ultimately thwarted by the very planetary boundaries they seek to ignore.

3. Climate Denial: A Strategic Weapon to Maintain the Status Quo

Latour views climate denial not simply as a matter of scientific illiteracy or skepticism, but as a deliberate political strategy deployed by this elite faction to protect their interests and maintain their grip on power. This denial, he argues, is essential for sustaining the system of exploitation and exclusion built upon deregulation and exacerbated inequality.

• Protecting Vested Interests: Climate denial serves to protect the vested interests of those who benefit from the current system, particularly those involved in extractive industries and those who have accumulated vast wealth through the exploitation of resources and labor. By casting doubt on the scientific evidence of climate change, they can delay the implementation of policies that might threaten their profits and challenge their position.
• Manufacturing Consent Through Disinformation: Latour emphasizes the active role of this elite group in manufacturing consent for climate denial. They invest heavily in disinformation campaigns, using their influence over media and political systems to sow doubt and confusion in the public mind. This orchestrated effort to distort the truth about climate change, he argues, creates a fog of uncertainty that paralyzes political action and allows them to continue their business-as-usual approach.
• A Betrayal of Public Trust: The most egregious aspect of climate denial, for Latour, is the betrayal of public trust it represents. This elite faction knowingly misleads the public, prioritizing their own short-term interests over the long-term well-being of humanity and the planet. This act of deception, he suggests, undermines the very foundations of democratic society and erodes the possibility of a collective response to the challenges of the New Climatic Regime.

Latour's analysis challenges us to see beyond the surface of these seemingly disparate phenomena and recognize the deeper connections that bind them. By understanding climate denial, globalization-minus, and the explosion of inequality as interconnected elements of a single strategy, we can begin to dismantle the systems that perpetuate these injustices and work towards a more just and sustainable future.

What is Latour's argument for why we should focus on the "Terrestrial" instead of the "Globe" when discussing climate change?

The Limits of "Global" Thinking: Why Latour Champions the "Terrestrial"

Latour argues that focusing on the "Terrestrial" rather than the "Globe" is crucial for effectively addressing climate change and understanding the profound shifts in the human-Earth relationship. His reasoning hinges on the limitations of the "global" perspective, which often obscures the material realities and localized consequences of planetary transformation.

• The Globe as a Distant Abstraction: The concept of the "Globe," particularly when viewed from the detached perspective of "nature-as-universe," can lead to a sense of abstraction and disengagement from the concrete challenges of climate change. This distanced view, often associated with the "planetary vision" championed by earlier scientific paradigms, portrays Earth as just one celestial body among countless others, minimizing the urgency and specificity of the crisis unfolding on its surface. Latour critiques this approach as fostering a sense of detachment from the material reality of Earth's systems.
• The Illusion of Uniformity: The "global" perspective can also perpetuate the illusion of uniformity, obscuring the uneven distribution of impacts and responsibilities associated with climate change. Latour argues that the "Global," particularly in its distorted form of "globalization-minus," masks the unequal power dynamics and exploitative practices that drive environmental destruction and exacerbate inequalities. This homogenizing view overlooks the diverse ways in which different communities, ecosystems, and actors experience and contribute to the climate crisis.
• Ignoring the Agency of the Earth: Perhaps the most significant problem with the "global" lens is its tendency to downplay the agency of the Earth itself. When viewed as a passive object within a vast, indifferent universe, the Earth's dynamic responses to human activities are easily overlooked. Latour emphasizes that the "Terrestrial" acknowledges the Earth as an active agent, a force that shapes and is shaped by human actions. This perspective recognizes that the Earth is not a static backdrop but a dynamic participant in the unfolding drama of the Anthropocene.

Embracing the Complexity of the "Terrestrial"

In contrast to the abstract and homogenizing tendencies of the "global," the "Terrestrial" offers a more grounded and nuanced framework for understanding and responding to climate change:

• A Focus on Materiality and Locality: The "Terrestrial" draws attention to the material realities and localized consequences of climate change. It compels us to engage with the specific ecosystems, communities, and actors most directly affected by the crisis and to recognize the interconnectedness of social and ecological processes. Latour advocates for a detailed accounting of the "dwelling places" that sustain life, emphasizing the need to understand the unique dependencies and vulnerabilities of different "terrestrials," be they human, animal, or otherwise.
• Recognizing the Earth as a Political Actor: Central to the "Terrestrial" is the understanding that the Earth is not simply a resource to be exploited or a problem to be solved but an active political actor with its own agency and demands. Latour argues that the New Climatic Regime forces us to acknowledge the Earth's power to shape human societies and to recognize that our political systems must adapt to accommodate this new reality. This perspective challenges traditional notions of sovereignty and borders, highlighting the need for new forms of governance that account for the interconnectedness of human and Earth systems.
• From System of Production to System of Engendering: Latour suggests that a shift towards the "Terrestrial" requires moving beyond the dominant focus on the "system of production" that has characterized modern thought. Instead, he calls for a greater emphasis on the "system of engendering," which acknowledges the interdependence and interconnectedness of all living things. This shift entails recognizing that human well-being is inextricably linked to the health and flourishing of the Earth's ecosystems and that our economic and political systems must reflect this reality.

By emphasizing the "Terrestrial" over the "Globe," Latour invites us to engage with the complexities and challenges of climate change in a more grounded, nuanced, and ultimately more effective way. This shift in perspective is not about rejecting scientific knowledge or abandoning the pursuit of global solutions but about recognizing the limitations of abstract, detached perspectives and embracing a more embodied, interconnected understanding of our relationship with the Earth. It is through this lens, Latour suggests, that we can begin to forge new alliances, develop more sustainable practices, and navigate the uncharted territory of the Anthropocene.