The browser you are using is not supported by this website. All versions of Internet Explorer are no longer supported, either by us or Microsoft (read more here:

Please use a modern browser to fully experience our website, such as the newest versions of Edge, Chrome, Firefox or Safari etc.

profile image of Salvatore Paolo De Rosa. Photo.

Salvatore Paolo de Rosa

Postdoctoral Fellow

profile image of Salvatore Paolo De Rosa. Photo.

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

Summary, in English

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.


  • LUCSUS (Lund University Centre for Sustainability Studies)

Publishing year





Frontiers in Conservation Science



Document type

Journal article (comment)


Frontiers Media S. A.


  • Human Geography




  • ISSN: 2673-611X