For this special Earth Day edition of "The Rethink" blog series, we spoke with Professor Tom Oliver, Associate Pro-Vice-Chancellor for Research (Environment) at the University of Reading and ASRA network member, about the Nature-Centric Catalyst initiative and why rethinking our relationship with nature is essential to tackling today’s systemic risks.
Q1: Leading science-policy initiatives -- IPBES, IPCC, UNDP, etc --have established that governance approaches focused solely on technology, regulation, and economics are insufficient. Western society is trapped in the 'Consumer Story'—what social norms need to change?
Many of our social norms must change if we are to avoid the exacerbation of dangerous systemic risks that threaten humans and other lifeforms, and this is increasingly recognised by science-policy initiatives. In late 2024, for example, 147 governments ratified the IPBES Transformative Change report, which highlighted the need for change in “views, structures and practices in ways that address the underlying causes of biodiversity loss and nature's decline”. This absolutely means going beyond superficial economic and regulatory tweaks and technofixes. Instead, IPBES prompts us that we need to reconsider our worldviews and even our self-identity.
The report highlights that two primary driver of nature’s decline are 'disconnection from and domination over nature and people' and 'prioritization of short-term, individual and material gains'. These are actually both related because a sense of connection to nature broadens our circle of compassion and makes us more mindful of what we purchase in order to minimise impacts on nature. We can move from consuming merely to satisfy short term egoic concerns, to instead being citizens of a more-than-human planet, taking responsibility for our daily choices.
Q2: The Nature-centric Catalyst initiative aims to shift cultural narratives about human-nature relationships. Can you share an example where recognizing the sentience and interconnectedness of 'more-than-human' species has successfully driven pro-environmental behavior?
There are actually hundreds of examples documented, and they’ve been collated into ‘meta-analyses’– syntheses of many scientific studies testing a certain hypothesis. Broadly, these studies find that when people feel a greater sense of connection to nature, i.e. their sense of identity overlaps with other species–they tend to recycle more, reduce their carbon footprint, purchase more sustainably and are more likely to join environmental organisations.
So, creating a shift in our modern western mindset to restore our sense of nature connection, could precipitate a tidal wave of positive action, helping to restore a flourishing Planet Earth. What's more, evidence shows that such changes in worldview can also ‘cascade up’ to transform institutions – our legal systems, our education systems, our economy – changing the way these function, meaning they actually protect nature rather than being drivers of ecocide.
Q3: How do you respond to critics who argue that ideas like granting legal personhood to ecosystems are symbolic rather than transformative?
I’d agree with them to some extent! I think granting personhood rights to Nature– the movement known to some as ‘earth jurisprudence’ or ‘Rights of Nature’– is an important stepping stone. It can help raise the profile of the need to recalibrate our relationship with nature, from one of domination and utilitarianism (i.e. treating nature as an economic ‘asset’), to a relationship where all life if due appropriate respect, care, and a right to flourishing. The Rights of Nature movement, is a formalisation of alternative worldviews that feel a sense of sacredness towards nature (often still common in some indigenous cultures), which leads to a sense of duty and care. So, the legal mechanism is just a means to facilitate that deeper perspective shift.
Yet, it’s perfectly possible to have the legal mechanism and forget the sacredness aspect, which would be problematic. Also, our legal systems are still not ideal; for example, treating each natural entity as a sovereign individual that has its own rights is problematic and, scaled up, would lead us to become mired in debates about conflicting individual rights. Therefore, I see this movement as a stepping stone, and there may be ways to refine our legal systems to make them more fit for the protection of Nature, as well as simultaneously promoting ways for people to feel awe, wonder and a sense of the sacred, which might ultimately minimize the need for legal protection of Nature.
Q4: What are the biggest barriers - and opportunities - for advancing biocentric governance in today’s world?
Great question! We are actually holding a workshop in May 2025 asking diverse experts exactly that. There are various ways to govern in a nature-centric way. A note on terminology is perhaps helpful here: we are using use nature-centric as umbrella term for ‘biocentric’ approaches that recognise the interconnection and value of all life on earth, as well as ‘ecocentric’ approaches, which additionally confer value on non-living entities such as mountains or rivers. Governance, we define as providing direction not only in government but also in business and civil society. Many science-policy reports now highlight that existing governance approaches are insufficient in preventing ecocide.
There are alternatives worth exploring, and our workshop is looking at approaches like Interspecies Councils, Rights of Nature, and putting ‘Nature on the Board’ of corporations. We will consider potential opportunities and risks, as well as how to enable these nature-centric approaches. Barriers to are likely to include factors related to self-identity and culture (the delusion that we are all atomised, isolation individuals is something I have written about in a previous book called ‘The Self Delusion’, as well as a forthcoming one called ‘The Nature Delusion). There are also structural barriers, like developing appropriate legal and knowledge architectures.
Q5: As we seem to be witnessing a regression of progressive rights-based policy, and in some places, the return of authoritarian and fascist imaginaries, how do you see nature-centrisms future offering a different vision?
Old paradigms don’t give up easily, and in the face of adversity there is a real risk of vicious cycles, where we double down on authoritarian and nationalist ideologies. Nature-centric approaches offer a fundamental re-imagining of our relationship to the rest of humanity and other species. In principle (and supported by growing scientific evidence) this leads to greater compassion, kindness and is a pathway to genuine sustainability.
What we need now is to harness the power of the arts and humanities to help people develop their own vision of a more nature-centric world, and the sciences and other applied branches of knowledge (e.g. business, law, political economy) to help overcome the barriers to make this a reality.
Q6: The initiative is driven by a mix of “writers, artists, and academics.” In an era where data is abundant but the information landscape is increasingly toxic (polarized, overwhelming, and often misleading), do you see cultural expression as a more effective way to shift mindsets and drive systemic change?
There is a quote I love by the poet TS Elliott: “Where is the wisdom we have lost in knowledge, where is the knowledge we have lost in information”. We could even extend this to 'where is the information we've lost in data Modern society has progressed a lot in technical know-how, but we’ve stalled in the development of wisdom. It’s certainly not wise to destroy the biosphere and atmosphere that sustains us, yet the rate of this damage has massively increased in recent decades. To transform this system now is hard, as people have identities invested in the way things currently work, and you can’t change that by simply presenting them with information and data. There is certainly a role for scientific and technical understanding, and I’m a scientist myself, but I certainly see those disciplines in the service of the humanities, which helps people take a deeper look at themselves and question the direction we are headed.
Q7: The Rethink Blog Series seeks to make systemic risk clear and actionable. In what way could a nature-centric approach to risk management lead to different strategies to mitigate or prepare for the challenges we face today?
At the basic level, if we only focus on protecting humans that will lead to more damage to the biosphere. Even from an instrumental, anthropocentric viewpoint (i.e. ‘nature exists for humans’), that will come back and bite us, as we cannot exist without a functional biosphere. So, we need to understand how systemic risks cascade to affect the rest of nature, i.e. systemic risk assessment must move beyond a blinkered anthropocentric approach to consider other species. A deeper reason is that we also want to be in a position where society’s actions do not continue to generate new systemic risks (e.g. through chemical pollution, ecocide, unsustainable resource extraction etc.). The best way to do this is to tackle the mindsets that ultimately underpin this harmful socio-economic system we have created.
Coming back to the IPBES report mentioned at the start, the evidence is now in that our sense of separation from nature is a key driver of damage to the biosphere, and the generation of many systemic risks. So, I see nature-centrism as a crucial systemic risk response, enabling us to not only enjoy safer and more secure lives, but also ones that are more fulfilling, truthful, and joyful.
