The revised edition of the Deep Adaptation paper provides six key changes, including a definition of societal collapse, clarification that the paper itself does not prove collapse is inevitable, refined criticisms of past climate science, additional references on Arctic ice and tipping points, clarification on the focus of Deep Adaptation, and a clearer explanation of the Deep Adaptation framework.
Engagement with the Deep Adaptation Paper:
The Deep Adaptation paper has become the subject of strong emotions, bold activism, and heated debates. As a result, it is recommended to disengage with division, open to dialogue, and listen to all the sciences in engaging with this topic in the future.
Disengage with Division:
As awareness about climate change grows, it is important to celebrate and harness new entrants into the movement. However, it is also crucial to recognize the challenges, including the need to address a lack of understanding among some individuals and the potential for division within the environmental movement.
Open to Dialogue:
Supporting researchers to be curious about knowledge and multiple ways of knowing can help prevent scholarship from becoming a battlefield. Encouraging ongoing critique and discussion in a spirit of curiosity and learning is essential to avoid conflictual perspectives.
Misrepresentations in Critique of Deep Adaptation:
A recent critique of Deep Adaptation misrepresented the arguments in the original paper and the author on indigenous issues, according to a leading indigenous scholar.
The author is seeking open dialogue and scrutiny to address misrepresentations in scholarly critiques.
Listen to All the Sciences:
Climate campaigners advocate for listening to all science, including social sciences, as well as natural sciences like climate science.
The wider need to listen to all science remains despite the IPCC's clarity on the risks since 2018.
Simplistic Mistakes in Climate Scholarship:
Many scholars working on climate change make simplistic mistakes due to their lack of awareness about related scholarly areas.
This unintentionally contributes to discourses of denial of adaptation as a valid, urgent, and complementary agenda in climate discussions.
Unconscious Bias in Scientific Contributions:
Scientists' lack of training in certain scholarly areas leads to unconscious bias shaping their contributions, which could become a problem for humanity's understanding of our predicament.
Their empowered views might censor discussion on the internet via fact-checking services, potentially impacting informed climate change discourse.
Critique of a Blog on Tipping Points:
A critique of a blog on tipping points revealed subjective choices in deploying scientific uncertainty and unscientific simplification in framing.
The need for better communications on the state of our climate and the poor level of response is highlighted.
Advocacy for 'Listening to All the Sciences':
Advocacy for 'listening to all the sciences' and normalizing deep adaptation and collapsology is suggested as a complement to wider climate action.
Climate activists and professionals are encouraged to advocate for this new perspective and field.
Engagement with Scholars on Climate Topics:
Scholars engaged in climate topics are called upon to write articles and cite the field of deep adaptation to provide alternative perspectives and engage in meaningful dialogue.
Emotional support and engagement resources are offered for those experiencing greater emotional difficulty about our predicament.