An interesting feature of the 2020 COVID pandemic so far1 has been how a large proportion of the population of democratic societies have been more or less willing to accept sometimes quite severe restrictions of their liberty and substantial hits to GDP. It is almost as if millions and millions of people actually do think that their health and wellbeing, and that of their family, friends, and of wider society, is more important than maximising economic activity and the space for libertarian consumption.2 This has not been the case universally, of course. Still, although there have been plenty of cases of apparent government indifference, incoherence and competence-bypass, democratic populations have tended to support government claims to be ‘following the science’ and the health care institutions charged with delivering the results of that science. It seems a good time to be ask whether there might be similar mass support for environmental measures that, whilst not amounting to a ‘full lockdown’, might follow the relevant sciences in bringing about a more ecologically rational and just ‘new normal’. This question brings many further questions in its wake, some of which are considered by the papers in this issue of Environmental Values.3 In the first paper William Davies considers how the current ecological moment might allow a ‘green populism’, very different to that of a Trump or Bolsonaro (Davies 2020). He draws upon the work of Hannah Arendt, ‘for whom the tension between science and politics is central to the identity of both’ (p. 650), to sketch a ‘populism for the Anthropocene’ that strips science of its ‘unworldliness’, bringing it within the realm of politics. On this view, the Cartesian rationalism Weber associated with the ‘vocation’ of modern science (the ‘value-free’ search for disembodied, timeless laws governing a nature devoid of ethical significance and held to be ontologically distinct from humanity) involves a retreat from politics as a realm where actors are only too aware of their finitude and mortality (legendary deeds being the only route to anything like immortality). Gripped by a vocational commitment to objectivity and value freedom, scientists qua scientists are oddly oblivious to the consequences of their endeavours, blind to the value of the preconditions of human life (and so of the scientific enterprise itself), and silent on political questions regarding the organisation, governance and funding of science. The (self-)image of modern science as ‘pure’ apolitical pursuit of objective

中文翻译：

---

民粹主义和否认时代的科学与正义

迄今为止，2020 年 COVID 大流行的一个有趣特征是，民主社会的很大一部分人口或多或少愿意接受有时对他们的自由进行相当严格的限制以及对 GDP 的重大打击。几乎就好像数以百万计的人确实认为他们以及他们的家人、朋友和更广泛社会的健康和福祉比最大化经济活动和自由主义消费空间更重要。 2 这并没有当然，情况普遍如此。尽管如此，尽管有很多明显的政府漠不关心、不连贯和绕过能力的案例，但民主民众倾向于支持政府声称“遵循科学”和负责提供科学结果的医疗机构。现在似乎是询问是否可能有类似的大规模支持环境措施的好时机，这些措施虽然不等于“全面封锁”，但可能会遵循相关科学，从而带来更加生态合理的“新常态”。这个问题随之带来了许多进一步的问题，其中一些在本期《环境价值》中的论文中进行了考虑。 3 在第一篇论文中，威廉·戴维斯考虑了当前的生态时刻如何可能允许“绿色民粹主义”，这与之前的“绿色民粹主义”大不相同。特朗普或博尔索纳罗（戴维斯 2020）。他借鉴了汉娜·阿伦特 (Hannah Arendt) 的作品，“对她来说，科学与政治之间的紧张关系是两者身份的核心”（第 650 页），勾勒出一种“人类世的民粹主义”，它剥夺了科学的“非世俗性”，将其纳入政治领域。在这个观点上，与现代科学的“职业”相关的笛卡尔理性主义韦伯（“无价值”寻找无实体的、永恒的法则，支配着缺乏伦理意义并被认为在本体论上与人类不同的自然法则）涉及从政治作为一个领域的退却演员们太清楚自己的有限性和必死性（传奇事迹是通往永生之类的唯一途径）。被对客观性和价值自由的职业承诺所束缚，作为科学家的科学家们奇怪地忽视了他们努力的结果，对人类生活（以及科学事业本身）的先决条件的价值视而不见，并且对有关的政治问题保持沉默。科学的组织、治理和资助。现代科学的（自我）形象是对客观目标的“纯粹”非政治追求