From Inconvenient to Sufficient Truth

Cosmopolitics of the Anthropocene

Abstract

The Anthropocene – the new geological epoch in which the planet’s ecological processes have been seriously impacted by industrial activities – places us in a contradiction, at first sight insoluble, when it comes to the relationship between truth, science and politics. On one hand, we urgently need to recognize as legitimate the “others’ truths” – that is, the various ways in which non-Western peoples express their belonging to the world, including their own, “non-scientific” ways of perceiving the current disruption of the Earth’s cycles. Yet, at the same time, we must not accept the truth that other others claim: these are the climate denialists, who, despite the evidence of the anthropogenic character of climate change, vigorously deny the problem, confusing public opinion and obstructing the political action that would help curb its effects. Thus, how do we deal with this apparent contradiction that leads us to affirm the “truth of the relative” but simultaneously refuse to relativize the “inconvenient truth” of climate change? Can a conception of truth that enables a reconciliation of these two crucial cosmopolitical imperatives of our epoch be established? This article draws inspiration from William James’s pragmatism to propose a consequent relativism that makes room for what I propose to call “sufficient truth.”