Many anthropologists are pursuing their careers in the hope that what they do matters in the world beyond their immediate, professional field.11 This ideal has always been around (e.g. Firth 1981). Many want to change the ways their contemporaries think about and act on particular issues, from race to the environment, from economics to art, or from migration to education, to name but a few. Many are inspired and encouraged by various forms of activism and social movements that they encounter in their research or in the media. And many anthropologists are frustrated in their endeavours to meaningfully engage.

The new climate change activism has offered novel openings for anthropological engagements. In order to make the most of these, as anthropologists, we would be well advised to look into recent experiences of our colleagues in public debates, including Ruben Andersson’s reflections on what he calls ‘the price of impact’ (Andersson 2018). He had published a book on Mediterranean migration and European border control (Andersson 2014) just before the so‐called ‘refugee crisis’ began to dominate media and political discussions.

Suddenly turned into an expert for national and supra‐national security issues, Andersson had to learn to navigate a terrain where, on the one hand, anthropological insights seemed high in demand, but on the other hand, discussants and journalists repeatedly reduced his inputs to contributions towards a solution for keeping refugees out of Europe. Andersson concludes by recommending a more strategic approach to public engagement, fostering collaborative networks – also when there is no immediate crisis – that allow for sustained outreach rather than haphazardly ‘hurtling towards impact’.

It is remarkable that the recent School Strike for the Climate has not resulted in a comparable turn towards anthropological expertise as the refugee crisis did a few years earlier. This phenomenon, too, drew in the expertise of many scholars. However, these scholars were predominantly natural scientists. Anthropology, among other humanities and social sciences, was conspicuously absent from the discussion. Climate change, in the eyes of the young activists, was foremost a meteorological phenomenon. This echoed the general discourse on climate change as a ‘real’ problem, where the planet is physically burning and in need of physical rescue.

Social and cultural issues figure as hopelessly secondary in this project, as tools, at most, to fix the ‘real’ issues. Leading climate scientist Hans Joachim Schellnhuber (2007), for example, likened the consideration of social factors in climate change mitigation to rearranging the deck chairs on a collision‐bound Titanic. Conversely, Tim Ingold has warned his colleagues not to present anthropology as the study of ‘culture’, which is often considered ‘a luxury of affluence, and is therefore the first to go when austerity sets in’ (2018: 109) or another crisis is to be confronted.

I was extremely honoured, therefore, to get an opportunity to speak about my current research in the Canadian Arctic at an event with the Fridays for Future group of a German university town in early 2020. I prepared copiously for this event, emphasising that climate change and other ecological crises are not merely physical, biological or meteorological problems. I pointed out how they are much wider issues, for example interwoven with the colonial history of Arctic Canada and with other transformation processes, like economic change. I had formulated some clear conclusions that challenged the activists to consider real humans, colonial entanglements and situated perceptions of problems and catastrophe in their understanding of climate change.

The group seemed to be very interested in my story, but I feel I ultimately failed them: at least two of them asked me what they are supposed to do now that they have a wider perspective on climate change. And at least twice I didn’t know how to reply. I realised that I had only prepared two of three crucial questions of public speaking: I knew the ‘what?’ (the facts and stories), I had communicated the ‘so what?’ (why they matter), but I had nothing to offer concerning the ‘now what?’ (the practical implications).

This is, of course, a widely shared shortcoming among anthropologists, many of whom are reluctant to formulate predictions, solutions or prescriptions. It is uncomfortable, given our habit of critique and our sensibilities for reflexivity. But it is extremely necessary: if we don’t formulate the ‘now what?’ ourselves, the journalists and commentators will do this for us and on their terms, which may be far from our convictions, as Andersson’s experience demonstrates. For example, Anderson’s explanations, in an interview on migration, that border fences may generate ‘short‐term political rewards, accompanied by grave problems’ (2018: 231) were rendered in print as ‘In the short run they may work, responds Ruben Andersson, anthropologist and researcher at the LSE’ (2018: 231). It is crucial that anthropologists do not leave the formulation of conclusions to others, but do this in cooperation with – or instead of – journalists and other commentators.

The recent flurry of analyses and commentaries on the coronavirus crisis serves to illustrate this point. The crisis has proven the viability of much of what the School Strike for the Climate had demanded: decision‐makers at all levels are listening to ‘the scientists’ and governments have displayed their efficacy through swift and radical regulations, even to the detriment of ‘the economy’. And similar to climate change activism, this field is firmly controlled by bio‐medical experts and statistical modelling, with anthropologists virtually absent. There is, of course, ample relevant expertise in medical anthropology, the anthropology of crises and disasters, and other anthropological research (e.g. Caduff 2020). A number of anthropological blogs, journals and platforms have dedicated special series to the pandemic.22 These include a ‘Corona’ thematic thread on Allegra Lab (https://allegralaboratory.net/category/thematic‐threads/corona/), the series ‘Witnessing Corona’ on Boas Blogs (https://boasblogs.org/witnessingcorona/), the ‘Covid‐19’ editors’ forum in Cultural Anthropology (https://culanth.org/fieldsights/editors‐forum/covid‐19), the series ‘Dispatches from the Pandemic’, including two installations of a ‘Covid‐19 Forum’ in Somatosphere (http://somatosphere.net/series/dispatches‐from‐the‐pandemic/) and the dedication of an entire issue of Social Anthropology/Anthropologie Sociale to an ‘urgent anthropological COVID‐19 forum’ (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/toc/14698676/2020/28/2). But their rich insights are not taken up more widely.

This stands in blatant contrast to the extremely influential blog entries by IT marketing manager Tomás Pueyo, whose posts ‘Coronavirus: why you must act now’33 https://medium.com/@tomaspueyo/coronavirus‐act‐today‐or‐people‐will‐die‐f4d3d9cd99ca and ‘Coronavirus: the hammer and the dance’44 https://medium.com/@tomaspueyo/coronavirus‐the‐hammer‐and‐the‐dance‐be9337092b56 have reached tens of millions of readers, including high‐ranking decision‐makers, in dozens of languages. Not an epidemiologist either, Pueyo was nevertheless tremendously successful in gaining traction, as he not only mastered the ‘what?’ and ‘so what?’ of his argument, but also had it seamlessly integrated with a ‘now what?’ set of clear recommendations.

Both Andersson’s (2018) struggles and my own experience suggest that there is, indeed, wider interest in anthropological insights. But as the discussions on migration, climate change and the coronavirus all make clear, we must be ready to formulate answers to the ‘now what?’ question. This will be challenging, and is likely to require some practising. But it is necessary if we want to engage in current issues to which we feel we can meaningfully contribute.

At the same time, we must continue our reflective research into complex realities. Andersson and most contributors to the coronavirus fora did not have something to say concerning a current issue because they jumped the bandwagon, but because they had been doing in‐depth research long before ‘the refugee crisis’ or ‘the pandemic’ became a public concern. Therefore, we must concentrate on our climate‐change‐related research also during a period when public attention is elsewhere. Only then will we stand the chance of formulating even the most tentative answer next time someone asks us, ‘now what?’

许多人类学家正在追求自己的职业，希望他们所做的事超出其直接的专业领域在世界范围内的重要性。11这个理想一直存在（例如Firth 1981）。许多人想改变当代人思考和解决特定问题的方式，从种族到环境，从经济学到艺术，或者从移民到教育，仅举几例。许多人在研究或媒体中受到各种形式的行动主义和社会运动的启发和鼓舞。许多人类学家对有意义地参与的努力感到沮丧。

新的气候变化行动主义为人类学活动提供了新颖的机会。为了充分利用这些作为人类学家的知识，我们建议我们在公开辩论中研究同事的最新经验，包括鲁宾·安德森（Ruben Andersson）对他所谓的``影响价格''的反思（Andersson 2018）。在所谓的“难民危机”开始主导媒体和政治讨论之前，他曾出版过一本有关地中海移民和欧洲边境管制的书（Andersson，2014年）。

突然，安德森（Andersson）变成了国家和超国家安全问题的专家，他不得不学会在一个似乎对人类学见解有很高要求的领域中航行，但另一方面，讨论者和记者反复将他的投入减少到为解决使难民远离欧洲的解决方案做出了贡献。最后，安德森（Andersson）建议采用更具战略意义的方法来提高公众参与度，并在不存在紧急危机的情况下建立协作网络，以实现持续的服务范围，而不是无所不用其事地“努力取得影响”。

值得注意的是，最近的气候学校罢工并未像几年前的难民危机那样导致人类学专业转向。这种现象也吸引了许多学者的专业知识。但是，这些学者主要是自然科学家。讨论中，人类学以及其他人文科学和社会科学显然缺席。在年轻的活动家看来，气候变化首先是气象现象。这呼应了关于将气候变化视为“真实”问题的一般性论述，其中地球正在物理燃烧，需要进行物理救援。

社会和文化问题在该项目中被视为绝望的次要问题，至多只能作为解决“实际”问题的工具。例如，著名的气候科学家汉斯·约阿希姆·谢恩胡伯（Hans Joachim Schellnhuber，2007年）将缓解气候变化中的社会因素比喻为在受撞的泰坦尼克号上重新布置躺椅。相反，蒂姆·英戈尔德（Tim Ingold）警告他的同事们不要将人类学作为对``文化''的研究，这通常被认为是``富裕的奢侈品，因此是紧缩政策（2018：109）或另一场危机时的第一次要面对的。

因此，我非常荣幸能够有机会在2020年初与德国大学城的“未来星期五”小组的一次活动中谈论我在加拿大北极地区的最新研究。我为这次活动做了大量准备，强调气候变化其他生态危机不仅是物理，生物学或气象问题。我指出了这些问题的范围之广，例如与北极加拿大的殖民历史以及诸如经济变化之类的其他转型过程交织在一起。我已经提出了一些明确的结论，这些挑战使活动家们在了解气候变化时要考虑真实的人，殖民纠结以及对问题和灾难的感知。

这个小组似乎对我的故事非常感兴趣，但是我觉得我最终使他们失败了：他们中至少有两个问我，既然他们对气候变化有了更广阔的视野，他们应该怎么做。至少有两次我不知道该如何答复。我意识到我只准备了三个重要的公开演讲问题中的两个：我知道“什么？” （事实和故事），我传达了“那又怎样？” （为什么如此重要），但对于“现在呢？”，我一无所有。（实际意义）。

当然，这是人类学家之间普遍存在的缺点，其中许多人不愿提出预测，解决方案或处方。考虑到我们的批评习惯和自反性，这很不舒服。但这是非常必要的：如果我们不制定“现在怎么办？” 正如安德森（Andersson）的经验所表明的那样，我们自己，记者和评论员将按照我们的意愿为我们做到这一点，这可能与我们的信念相去甚远。例如，安德森（Anderson）在关于移民的采访中的解释是，边境围栏可能会产生``短期政治奖励，并伴有严重问题''（2018：231）被印刷成印刷版，因为``在短期内它们可能会起作用，鲁宾回应道。 LSE'的人类学家兼研究员Andersson（2018：231）。至关重要的是，人类学家不要将结论的制定留给其他人，而应与新闻工作者和其他评论员合作（或代替新闻记者和其他评论员）。

最近对冠状病毒危机的大量分析和评论有助于说明这一点。这场危机已经证明了“应对气候变化学校挑战”所要求的大部分内容的可行性：各级决策者都在倾听“科学家”的声音，各国政府通过迅速而激进的法规展示了其有效性，甚至损害了“气候变化”。经济”。与气候变化行动主义类似，该领域由生物医学专家和统计模型严格控制，几乎没有人类学家。当然，在医学人类学，危机与灾难人类学以及其他人类学研究（例如Caduff 2020）方面，有足够的相关专业知识）。许多人类学博客，期刊和平台都针对大流行病编写了专门的丛书。22其中包括Allegra Lab（https://allegralaboratory.net/category/thematic-threads/corona/）上的“ Corona”主题线程，Boas Blogs（https://boasblogs.org/witnessingcorona）上的“见证电晕”系列。/），文化人类学中的“ Covid-19”编辑者论坛（https://culanth.org/fieldsights/editors-forum/covid‐19），“大流行派遣”系列，其中包括“在Somatosphere举行的Covid‐19论坛（http://somatosphere.net/series/dispatches-from‐the-pandemic/）中，将整个社会人类学/ Anthropologie Sociale献给了一个“紧急人类学COVID-19论坛”。 （https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/toc/14698676/2020/28/2）。 但是他们的丰富见解并未得到更广泛的利用。

这与IT营销经理TomásPueyo的博客文章极富影响力，后者发表了“冠状病毒：为什么必须立即采取行动” 3的文章。3 https://medium.com/@tomaspueyo/coronavirus-act-today-or-people-will-die-f4d3d9cd99ca 和“冠状病毒：锤子和舞蹈” 44 https://medium.com/@tomaspueyo/coronavirus-thehammer-and-the-dance-be9337092b56数十种语言已经吸引了数以千万计的读者，其中包括高级决策者。Pueyo也不是流行病学家，但他不仅获得了“什么？”，而且在吸引人方面取得了巨大的成功。还有“那又怎样？” 的论点，但又将其与“现在是什么？”无缝集成 一整套明确的建议。

无论是安德森（Andersson，2018）的挣扎，还是我自己的经验都表明，对人类学洞察力的确感兴趣。但是，随着有关移民，气候变化和冠状病毒的讨论都清楚了，我们必须准备好为“现在怎样？”提出答案。问题。这将具有挑战性，并且可能需要进行一些实践。但是，如果我们想参与我们认为可以为之做出有意义贡献的当前问题，则这是必要的。

同时，我们必须继续对复杂现实进行反思性研究。安德森（Andersson）和大多数冠状病毒论坛的贡献者对于当前问题没有什么可说的，因为他们跳了潮流，但是因为他们在“难民危机”或“大流行”成为公众关注之前就已经进行了深入的研究。 。因此，在公众关注的另一个阶段，我们也必须专注于与气候变化有关的研究。只有这样，下次有人问我们“现在呢？”时，我们才有机会甚至提出最初步的答案。