Agroecology involves various approaches to solve actual challenges of agricultural production. Though agroecology initially dealt primarily with crop production and protection aspects, in recent decades new dimensions such as environmental, social, economic, ethical and development issues are becoming relevant. Today, the term ‘agroecology’ means either a scientific discipline, agricultural practice, or political or social movement. Here we study the different meanings of agroecology. For that we analyse the historical development of agroecology. We present examples from USA, Brazil, Germany, and France. We study and discuss the evolution of different meanings agroecology. The use of the term agroecology can be traced back to the 1930s. Until the 1960s agroecology referred only as a purely scientific discipline. Then, different branches of agroecology developed. Following environmental movements in the 1960s that went against industrial agriculture, agroecology evolved and fostered agroecological movements in the 1990s. Agroecology as an agricultural practice emerged in the 1980s, and was often intertwined with movements. Further, the scales and dimensions of agroecological investigations changed over the past 80 years from the plot and field scales to the farm and agroecosystem scales. Actually three approaches persist: (1) investigations at plot and field scales, (2) investigations at the agroecosystem and farm scales, and (3) investigations covering the whole food system. These different approaches of agroecological science can be explained by the history of nations. In France, agroecology was mainly understood as a farming practice and to certain extent as a movement, whereas the corresponding scientific discipline was agronomy. In Germany, agroecology has a long tradition as a scientific discipline. In the USA and in Brazil all three interpretations of agroecology occur, albeit with a predominance of agroecology as a science in the USA and a stronger emphasis on movement and agricultural practice in Brazil. These varied meanings of the term agroecology cause confusion among scientists and the public, and we recommend that those who publish using this term be explicit in their interpretation.
The COVID-19 pandemic contributed to making national borders more visible and less permeable, reasserting the centrality of citizenship “as the ultimate marker of belonging and solidarity”, and reaffirming the distinction between citizens and non-citizens. In this context, citizenship and national belonging functioned as rigid categories for determining entitlement to protection and assistance. Many states failed to guarantee social rights to all residents, leading to forms of exclusion, particularly for non-citizens. Simultaneously, the crisis sparked the emergence of new forms of civic engagement and solidarity “from below,” enacted by civil society to fill the void left “from above.” Volunteerism flourished supporting those facing food insecurity, evictions, and economic hardship. In some cases, immigrants themselves became central protagonists of these initiatives. This paper contributes to debates on inclusive citizenship and solidarity by jointly analyzing the concepts of citizenship from below and solidarity from below, applying them to a case study of grassroots practices promoted by migrants and citizens in the city of Naples (Italy) during the pandemic. Drawing on long term ethnographic research, it examines how, through the creation of transversal alliances and mutual aid networks, these actors responded to systemic exclusion and economic marginality. Special attention is given to two intertwined pathways: migrant-led initiatives such as the S.E.E.D.S. project, and actions embedded in the urban commons (beni comuni), self-managed civic spaces that became material and symbolic infrastructures of proximity and care. Both trajectories fostered inclusive solidarity capable of contesting institutional boundaries and reimagining belonging. The paper shows how these practices reframed citizenship, challenging, and renewing how participants defined and enacted their civic roles through social relations. The analysis extends the theory of acts of citizenship by demonstrating how social and political participation during crisis—particularly by migrant actors—produced new grammars of recognition and belonging. These findings encourage a rethinking of solidarity, alliances, membership, borders, and citizenship in more inclusive and dynamic terms.
In this short position paper, I develop a dialectical framework for understanding the political ideology of technological projects. To do so, I draw on critical and emancipatory social science discussions, highlighting how both a project's values and constraints are necessary for understanding its ideology. A brief example is then presented to aid comprehension.
Many topics that scientists investigate speak to people’s ideological worldviews. We report three studies—including an analysis of large-scale survey data—in which we systematically investigate the ideological antecedents of general faith in science and willingness to support science, as well as of science skepticism of climate change, vaccination, and genetic modification (GM). The main predictors are religiosity and political orientation, morality, and science understanding. Overall, science understanding is associated with vaccine and GM food acceptance, but not climate change acceptance. Importantly, different ideological predictors are related to the acceptance of different scientific findings. Political conservatism best predicts climate change skepticism. Religiosity, alongside moral purity concerns, best predicts vaccination skepticism. GM food skepticism is not fueled by religious or political ideology. Finally, religious conservatives consistently display a low faith in science and an unwillingness to support science. Thus, science acceptance and rejection have different ideological roots, depending on the topic of investigation.
In this study, we review work which seeks to understand and interpret the place of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) within the science and politics of climate change in the context of a post‐Paris polycentric governance regime and the culture of “post‐truth” politics. Focusing on studies of how the IPCC has sought to maintain a boundary between the scientific and the political, we offer an historical account of “boundary work” within the IPCC which is instructive for thinking, in an anticipative mode, about emerging and likely challenges to the IPCC's position as a science–policy boundary organization. We suggest that the relationships between climate science and policy are undergoing fundamental transformation in light of the Paris Agreement, and contend that the IPCC will need to be nimble and reflexive in meeting new challenges. Growing calls for more “solution‐oriented” assessment question the IPCC's positioning at the science—politics boundary, where it can function to put some policy options on the table, while obscuring others. Recent controversies over proposed mitigation solutions are indicative of likely future challenges. We suggest that by adopting a mode of “responsible assessment,” the IPCC can continue to exercise its world‐making power in a relevant and legitimate fashion.
This paper emphasizes the analysis of Indonesia's geopolitical perspective through international cooperation that is part of Indonesia's geopolitics in the Indo-Pacific region. The results of this paper explain that Indonesia's geopolitical interests cannot be separated from the importance of building mutual trust, as well as regional development through international cooperation for global interests. In other words, regional development through international cooperation will increase regional stability so as to encourage various economic, political and security activities that not only reduce political friction, but also provide strategic advantages for every actor who has an interest in the Indo-Pacific.
Keywords: Indonesia, Geopolitics, Indo-Pacific, international cooperation
The detection of a pulsar closely orbiting our Galaxy's supermassive black hole - Sagittarius A* - is one of the ultimate prizes in pulsar astrophysics. The relativistic effects expected in such a system could far exceed those currently observable in compact binaries such as double neutron stars and pulsar white dwarfs. In addition, pulsars offer the opportunity to study the magneto-ionic properties of Earth's nearest galactic nucleus in unprecedented detail. For these reasons, and more, a multitude of pulsar searches of the Galactic Centre have been undertaken, with the outcome of just seven pulsar detections within a projected distance of 100 pc from Sagittarius A*. It is currently understood that a larger underlying population likely exists, but it is not until observations with the SKA have started that this population can be revealed. In this paper, we look at important updates since the publication of the last SKAO science book and offer a focused view of observing strategies and likely outcomes with the updated SKAO design.
Our infrastructure systems enable our well-being by allowing us to move, store, and transform materials and information given considerable social and environmental variation. Critically, this ability is shaped by the degree to which society invests in infrastructure, a fundamentally political question in large public systems. There, infrastructure providers are distinguished from users through political processes, such as elections, and there is considerable heterogeneity among users. Previous political economic models have not taken into account (i) dynamic infrastructures, (ii) dynamic user preferences, and (iii) alternatives to rational actor theory. Meanwhile, engineering often neglects politics. We address these gaps with a general dynamic model of shared infrastructure systems that incorporates theories from political economy, social-ecological systems, and political psychology. We use the model to develop propositions on how multiple characteristics of the political process impact the robustness of shared infrastructure systems to capacity shocks and unequal opportunity for private infrastructure investment. Under user fees, inequality decreases robustness, but taxing private infrastructure use can increase robustness if non-elites have equal political influence. Election cycle periods have a nonlinear effect where increasing them increases robustness up to a point but decreases robustness beyond that point. Further, there is a negative relationship between the ideological sensitivity of candidates and robustness. Overall, the biases of voters and candidates (whether they favor tax increases or decreases) mediate these political-economic effects on robustness because biases may or may not match the reality of system needs (whether system recovery requires tax increases).