Climate change and other contemporary harms are often depicted as New Harms because they seem to constitute unprecedented challenges. This New Harms Discourse rests on two important premises, both of which we criticise on empirical grounds. First, we argue that the Premise of changed conditions of human interaction—according to which the conditions regarding whom people affect (and how) have changed recently and which emphasises the difference with past conditions of human interaction—risks obfuscating how humanity’s current predicament is merely the transient result of long-term, gradual processes and developments. Second, we dispute the Premise that New Harms have certain features that render them new and argue that New Harms share characteristics with other (past) harms. On the basis of these premises, the New Harms Discourse concludes that climate change is a unique social challenge that requires radically new moral thinking, but we argue that this Uniqueness Myth distracts attention from the valuable lessons we can draw from humanity’s successes and failures in dealing with past harms. We will illustrate how action to tackle climate change and other complex, systemic harms can be informed by the interdisciplinary study of historic harms. We will argue that rejecting the New Harms Discourse is not only empirically justified, it also gives cause for optimism, because it opens up the possibility to draw upon the past to face problems in the present and future.

中文翻译：

---

新危害究竟有多新？气候变化、历史推理和社会变迁

气候变化和其他当代危害通常被描述为新危害，因为它们似乎构成了前所未有的挑战。这种新危害话语建立在两个重要前提之上，我们都根据经验对这两个前提进行批评。首先，我们认为，人类互动条件改变的前提——根据该前提，关于人们影响谁（以及如何影响）的条件最近发生了变化，并强调了与过去人类互动条件的差异——有可能混淆人类目前的困境仅仅是长期、渐进的过程和发展的短暂结果。其次，我们对新危害具有某些使它们具有新特征的前提提出异议，并认为新危害与其他（过去的）危害具有相同的特征。在这些前提的基础上，新危害话语的结论是，气候变化是一种独特的社会挑战，需要全新的道德思维，但我们认为，这种独特性神话分散了人们对我们可以从人类应对过去危害的成功和失败中汲取的宝贵教训的注意力。我们将说明如何通过对历史危害的跨学科研究来了解应对气候变化和其他复杂的系统性危害的行动。我们将争辩说，拒绝新危害话语不仅在经验上是合理的，而且还提供了乐观的理由，因为它开辟了利用过去来面对现在和未来问题的可能性。但我们认为，这种独特性神话分散了人们对我们可以从人类应对过去伤害的成功和失败中汲取的宝贵经验的注意力。我们将说明如何通过对历史危害的跨学科研究来了解应对气候变化和其他复杂的系统性危害的行动。我们将争辩说，拒绝新危害话语不仅在经验上是合理的，而且还提供了乐观的理由，因为它开辟了利用过去来面对现在和未来问题的可能性。但我们认为，这种独特性神话分散了人们对我们可以从人类应对过去伤害的成功和失败中汲取的宝贵经验的注意力。我们将说明如何通过对历史危害的跨学科研究来了解应对气候变化和其他复杂的系统性危害的行动。我们将争辩说，拒绝新危害话语不仅在经验上是合理的，而且还提供了乐观的理由，因为它开辟了利用过去来面对现在和未来问题的可能性。