Ann C Thresher

The environmental crisis is an immediate existential threat. It is also, however, psychologically overwhelming. This combination is potentially deadly—we need to act fast, but often find ourselves paralyzed, drowning in anxiety, angst, and despair. To combat this, the standard narrative in academia is we ought to turn to eco-hope and eco-optimism. Here, I argue while both of these emotions are important, researchers have left an important tool for combating paralysis off the table: eco-anger. I survey the history of anger as a force for social change, and as a means of motivating action in the face of overwhelming negative emotions, arguing it needs to be pushed to the fore of our eco-emotion conversations. I then show what features eco-anger must have to be productive, distinguish between anger as action-motivating and anger as action-guiding, and respond to worries that anger may be a counter-productive emotion.

The A-Theory of time has long struggled with the results of special relativity. One proposed solution is to stipulate the existence of a physically or metaphysically privileged frame which defines the global present for all observers. Recently this proposal has cropped up in literature on spatially closed universes (SCUs) which seem to naturally instantiate such structures. This paper examines the privileged frame proposal through the lens of SCUs, arguing that even in these space-times which seem overwhelmingly friendly to A-theoretic accounts the theory face insurmountable challenges.

Science is remarkably reliable. It puts people on the moon, performs laser eye surgery, tells us about ancient civilisations and species, and predicts the future of our climate. What underwrites this reliability? This book argues that the standard answers—the scientific method, rigour, and objectivity—are insufficient for the job. Here we propose a new model of science that places its products front and centre. This is the ‘Tangle of Science’. In this book we show how any reliable piece of science is underpinned by a vast, diverse, and thick network of other scientific products. In doing so we bring back into focus areas of science that have been long neglected, emphasising how every product, from the screws that hold the space shuttle together to ways of measuring the consumer price index to Einstein’s theory of general relativity, work together to support results we can trust.

Most current techniques to deal with invasive species are ineffective or have highly damaging side effects. To this end suppression-drives based on clustered regularly inter-spaced short palindromic repeats (CRISPR/Cas9) have been touted as a potential silver bullet for the problem, allowing for a highly focused, humane and cost-effective means of removing a target species from an environment. Suppression-drives come with serious risks, however, such that the precautionary principle seems to warrant us not deploying this technology. The focus of this paper is on one such risk – the danger of a suppression-drive escaping containment and wiping out the target species globally. Here, I argue that in most cases this risk is significant enough to warrant not using a gene-drive. In some cases, however, we can bypass the precautionary principle by using an approach that hinges on what I term the ‘Worst-Case Clause’. This clause, in turn, provides us with a litmus test that can be fruitfully used to determine what species are viable targets for suppression-drives in the wild. Using this metric in concert with other considerations, I suggest that only three species are currently possible viable targets – the European rabbit, ship rat and Caribbean Tree Frog.