Challenging Oppression at Its Deepest Roots

At this time of judicial and political backlash in response to feminist gains in women’s rights and deeply disturbing misogyny in public discourse, we are pleased to be able to feature this recent interview with Anna Malaika Tubbs upon the publication of her book Erased: What American Patriarchy Has Hidden From Us. Tubbs combines academic research revealing the historical roots of our predicament with her personal experience to tell stories of freedom fighters, both past and present. She reminds us that we’ve been developing the tools necessary to dismantle this patriarchal system all along – our intuition, courage, ancient wisdom, and power – and that these tools are still within our reach.

Anna is a New York Times best-selling author and multi-disciplinary expert on current and historical understandings of race, gender and equity, with a PhD in sociology and a Master’s in multi-disciplinary gender studies from the University of Cambridge, in addition to a Bachelor’s in medical anthropology from Stanford.

She translates her academic knowledge into stories that are clear and engaging. Her articles have been published by Time magazine, New York magazine, CNN, Motherly, the Huffington Post, Harriet, The Guardian, Darling magazine and Blavity.

This conversation was incisively hosted by Lisa Rudman, Development and Partnership Director at the San Francisco Public Press, a nonprofit, noncommercial news organization that publishes independent public-interest journalism.

Lisa Rudman: Our conversation is titled “Challenging Oppression at Its Deep Roots”. Do you want to start by introducing yourself? 

Anna Malaika Tubbs: I’m somebody who cares about telling stories that others try to erase and bury. And I care deeply about bringing people together around a celebration of difference, and understanding each other, and not in a way where we have to say we’re all the same or that we all agree with each other, but in a way that says we have something to learn from each other. 

I often speak about how I grew up, who my parents were. If anybody’s read my first book, you know that I believe that our stories don’t just start with ourselves but with the legacies we’re carrying, our ancestors, and definitely, of course, our parents. And the places that raised us. So I lived all over the world growing up. My parents were lawyers, and they prioritized travel. They wanted us to see as much of the world as possible so that we could get firsthand experience. 

So we lived in Dubai, Estonia, Sweden, Mexico, Azerbaijan. My dad is from Ghana, so I’d go back and forth from Ghana. I became very aware of the power of storytellers through this. One very specific story is that I learned about the Mexican-American War when I was in Mexico. Then when I moved back to the States as a teenager, I learned about it again, and I was laughing in class, and my teacher thought this is very strange – we’re talking about war, why are you laughing. And I said, well, it’s just interesting because the heroes of this story here are very different than the ones that I heard there. And it’s so obvious to you at that point how powerful the storyteller is. 

I think that’s one of the reasons I wanted to become a storyteller, because there weren’t enough storytellers who were being elevated. We have so many storytellers who are Black women, but they’re not getting the attention that they deserve. I knew that with the kind of opportunities that were opening up for me to go to Stanford, to go to Cambridge, that I was going to use those opportunities and elevate these stories. 

Lisa: I know a lot of people may have read your earlier book about three mothers, which then leads into your own mother, can you tell us about that? 

Anna: My first book, baby, I will always talk about. It was called The Three Mothers: How the Mothers of MLK Jr, Malcolm X, and James Baldwin Shaped a Nation. In that book, for those who haven’t read it, I show that each of these women did what their sons became famous for long before their sons were even a thought in their mind. It came out in 2021, and everybody who reads that book feels this kind of sense of shock. How is it possible that after everything that’s been written about these incredible men up until 2021, that it took a PhD candidate at the time to tell us that we were missing this big piece of the puzzle? And why is it that these women were erased?

The reason I wanted to write that book, for one, I had an incredible mother. She was a lawyer who advocated for women’s rights in the U.S. as well as abroad, hence why we moved so much. In every single one of the places where we lived, she spoke about how women were being treated, but very specifically how mothers were being treated. In her opinion, everything could relate back to the treatment of motherhood in any nation. We can clap for that, absolutely. She believed that if mothers were given the support they deserved, if mothers were given the protection that they deserved, the appreciation that they deserved, that you would see these very positive ripple effects throughout any community or society, nation, and that the opposite was also true. If mothers were not appreciated, if policy was not in place to support them, that you would see ripple effects and cycles of injustice. Spoiler alert, she didn’t think that the U.S. did very well. 

So I was always aware of the power and the influence of mothers, before I became a mother myself. Then, when I was starting my PhD, I read Margot Lee Shetterly’s book called Hidden Figures, which went on to become, obviously, this incredible film. I was so inspired by it, in a way where I was very angry that this was the first time I was hearing these women’s stories. The strategy behind erasing them from our common knowledge wasn’t a mistake. It wasn’t an accident. It was on purpose to keep us from knowing that Black women were some of the brains behind NASA. So I said: I’m going to be somebody who writes a hidden figures type book, and I’m going to combine this with my passion for elevating the stories of mothers, Black mothers. 

Then I thought, how many people can I get to come to this book? So, I know there are some writers who do something about MLK, Jr., people are going to read that; that’ll be really interesting. So what about MLK’s mother? Has anybody done anything on this incredible woman? And no. So that was interesting. I thought, wow, that’s wild that that book hasn’t been written. But then I thought, in this hidden figures vein, maybe I can have a conversation between more than one person, with maybe two, maybe three. Malcolm X’s mother felt like a great next. 

Alberta King is MLK, Jr.’s mother. Louise Little is Malcolm X’s mother. And then I wanted a third, because if we only ever have two of anything, this kind of binary trap, we often see them as opposites of each other. So someone maybe who has kids, often if there’s only two kids, people will say something like, oh, this is the social one and this is the shy one. And you think, well, there’s a lot more to our identities than these two things, but for some reason, our brains, the way they work, if there’s only two, we paint them as opposites. So I knew in this book I was going to introduce a third, and I decided on James Baldwin. His mother was Berdis Baldwin. But that’s how I wrote that first book.

Their famous sons were all born within five years of one another. So it beautifully came together, and led to Erased. Because when people read it, when they felt that sense of shock, when they wanted to know how it was possible that we had lost their stories and nobody had written this before me, my answer was, on one hand, very simple – it’s patriarchy. On the other hand, I thought, in the U.S., we don’t talk about our patriarchy very often, to be honest. Americans love to talk about other people’s patriarchies. It’s like one of our favorite things to do. Wow, women are so oppressed over there, or if I said all the places that I lived, let’s say Dubai, like, I hear it’s really tough over there for women. I just find that really interesting because the U.S. is not great for women, and we’re not aware, I think, that we live in a patriarchy, and we keep getting surprised by it. 

And the last thing I’ll say before we get to the next question is that when I had the idea to write this, mainly because of the questions I was being asked, about how we lost our knowledge on these three mothers, Roe v. Wade was overturned. Again, there was kind of this sense of shock across the nation. People were asking “How did this happen? Not in the United States! I don’t understand how this happened.” Even though, when President Trump appointed three Supreme Court justices – three – he said I’m going to overturn Roe v. Wade. Yet there were so many people who were shocked by it. It just felt like this signal to me. Okay, most people don’t understand that we live in a patriarchy. So I want to write the go-to book for understanding how this nation was set up. 

Lisa: After you wrote Three Mothers, then every subsequent piece that was written about those three great men, they refer to the mothers now. Right? (laughter)

Anna: No, which is interesting. Patriarchy rears its ugly head again. The Three Mothers – not to toot my own horn, but it’s done very well, it’s sold over 100,000 copies. Yet, several of the books that have come out since then that are about these men don’t include my research. It’s just a clear sign, really, of the persistence of this issue. Even though the book is well-researched, well-reviewed, and well-read, the men (mostly) who write these books continue with this notion of a self-made man and this figure who popped out of nowhere, fully formed. They don’t think that my work is worth including. It’s largely because I’m a young Black woman. I think they may not see my work as worthy.

I think we should continue to celebrate these men, and my celebration of the mothers is not an erasure of the sons, it’s actually even more love of the sons, because we understand them better. But at this point, if I hear of a book that comes out about these sons, if I’m not in the bibliography, it’s just not a well-researched book, so I don’t read it. 

Lisa: You made a distinction earlier, you said that in America, we like to talk about patriarchy everywhere else. You talk about the brand of American patriarchy. Can you define what you mean by those words together, and each word separately? 

Anna: I love defining it, it’s one of my favorite things to do. When I want to talk about American patriarchy, it’s not because I think that it’s the worst patriarchy in the world. I’m really not in the business of ranking patriarchies. They’re all bad, we’ll just say that. But I think that we haven’t spoken as much about patriarchy in the U.S. From what I’ve observed and studied, patriarchy operates differently in each place it exists. 

So our definition of patriarchy has often been reduced to this notion that it’s about men against women. That’s not the definition of patriarchy. It’s actually about how we define who gets to be human in any nation, and that changes from place to place. So patriarchy in the U.S. is different from patriarchy in India. It’s different from patriarchy in France.

In the U.S., I point to the founding fathers, and that doesn’t mean that they created patriarchy. Obviously, they’re taking from the monarchy, etc. But when we’re looking at each nation, we can really point to the leaders who chose patriarchy. So we have to remember patriarchy is not divine, it’s not the “natural order”. It wasn’t our first way of organizing ourselves. Indigenous people organized themselves very differently. There still may have been some elements of patriarchy, but it was different from what we’re seeing right now.

Let’s all go back to 1776 when the founding fathers win the Revolutionary War, which was a surprise to everybody. They were the underdogs. No one was really expecting them to win. Many of them were young men. They are very fearful that this revolutionary spirit is going to spread across this new nation, because they’re also oppressing a lot of people who they needed to help them win the War. So they’re oppressing the women in their lives, they’re certainly oppressing Indigenous People, they’re certainly oppressing people who are enslaved – Black people, they’re oppressing poor people, poor farmers, especially. They’re afraid of what would happen if that revolution spreads. 

So the period of time between writing the Declaration of Independence, winning the Revolutionary War, and then writing the Constitution, we see several rebellions taking place. One of them, the most famous, was Shay’s Rebellion. It’s what makes the leaders want to write the Constitution, because they’re worried that they couldn’t actually quell this rebellion fast enough, and they want to form a national military, mainly inspired by a local conflict, not an international one. So they’re motivated to write the Constitution and decide who is going to get to have power in this nation. This is when we choose patriarchy, or they do. They say that they want to create a republic of men. 

So the Constitution tells us that they are the ones that are going to get to own land. They are the ones that are going to get to vote. There’s a lot of other things they’re going to get to do, but these are two of the primary ones. They, on purpose, leave out women. We see in the letters that they write to their mothers or to their wives, to their daughters, that women should not participate politically. They do not want that to happen. 

Now this is not just a sign of the times, because there are other countries that are choosing differently. In fact, in France even while women couldn’t vote, they had Parisian salons where they talk about politics and voice their opinions. At the very least, they’re allowed to talk about it. Thomas Jefferson says that this is going to ruin France. And so he says, in particular in the United States, we will not repeat the mistakes of the French. So they’re aware there are other ways and other things that they could choose. They choose a republic of men. 

They define women as those who are simply meant to reproduce the power of men through children. So this is where we get the binary in the United States, of a man that’s recognized, and a woman that’s recognized. Clearly that’s leaving out a lot of people who they’re not recognizing as neither man nor woman, so they create a problematic binary. But then we have, in the Constitution, clauses to protect the institution of slavery. So they’re not including Black people in the definition that’s already limited of man and woman. They’re not including the Indigenous populations. They’re not including immigrants from that point forward, because many of them were immigrants. They’re not really including poor white people either. They make it up to the states to decide if people who don’t own property can vote. It was really important to some of the founding fathers that it would only be people who owned property who would be allowed to participate.

So then all these people who are excluded from the notion of man and woman are told: You’re not going to be treated as human beings, however, you may someday be treated as human beings if you assimilate to the two groups that are recognized. And if you do your part to protect this social order, then one day you might be able to ascend this made-up ladder of humanity. And that’s where the trick of so many people who are not included in it fully still support it, protect it, because they think someday they’ll be able to get there. 

And so all of American history can really be summarized by 1) a group of people who loved that social order, who thought this is the way that this nation needs to be organized, who said that that was democracy, but it’s not democracy, because democracy means that power is vested in all of the people. So we’ve not actually experienced that. So what we’ve actually experienced is American patriarchy. 

But then you have the other part of American history which were all the people who were not included but who did not fall for the trick, and who said: This is not good enough, this is not democracy; we can get closer to democracy. The more that we include people, then we will be closer to that ideal, and that has been the tug of war of American history ever since.  

Lisa:  To your point about these structures and systems are not accidental, they get set up to give power and privilege to certain people. How do you see, then, the structures and systems of white supremacy and racism interlocking with American patriarchy? Because even though this book is defining American patriarchy, and systems of white supremacy, but also gender binaryism —those are all systems—I was going to say genderism. Is that a word? It’s more than sexism. It’s really about everything underneath that umbrella. So how do you see those systems interlocking and working? And maybe there’s a story from the book that you want to refer to.

Anna: Yes. So I see American patriarchy encompassing all of those -isms, because if you’re saying that people who are enslaved are not counting as man or woman, that’s how we’re furthering the justification of racism in the United States. If you’re saying that people who don’t own land cannot participate, that’s where we have classism. If we’re saying that in order for us to be human we must be man or woman, of course, you’re leaving out people who are non-binary, and you’re very specifically erasing many Indigenous belief systems that did recognize people beyond this gender binary. All of it kind of stems from first telling us that you either have to be a man or a woman. In a way, we’ve all been told that we’re fighting for our right to be gendered in the United States, that gender becomes our path to humanity. But not just gender, it’s white elite gender. That’s why American patriarchy is really unique. That’s the difference. 

In the example that I gave earlier, where the founding fathers are saying we are the ones who get to have power, we are the ones who get to have status, and the women in our lives are solely meant to reproduce that status through children, if we look instead at Black women at the time who are enslaved, the law was saying that their children were not children but were somebody else’s property, and that no matter how a Black woman came to have children – and we know horrific ways in which this has happened – that child would always carry the status of the mother. So this is a direct opposite definition than what they’re showing of the white male.

This is why, in many ways historically, Black women have been seen as the antithesis of that power. But what I argue is that, actually, having been so separated from it, is the power that Black women hold, because if you were told by law you’re not a human being, your children are not human beings, in fact, you’re somebody else’s property, Black women don’t go, oh, well, if the law says it, it must be true. Instead, you immediately wake up to the con, and you say this is BS, this is made up and therefore I need to make up something else; I need to create new systems; I need to reclaim systems before patriarchy; and I need to make this nation worthy of me, worthy of my children. That is how progress has happened in the United States. That’s how change has happened. Those who loved the original social order didn’t wake up one day and say: I feel like giving people their rights today. You know? I’ve changed my mind. They deserve their rights. No. It’s been that those who did not have those rights guaranteed to them, they grabbed it with their hands, they fought, they bled, they sacrificed. They made it so that we made it to where we are today.

So when we’re having even conversations right now, where so many people are saying this is the worst it’s ever been, we don’t know what to do, that is just a complete misunderstanding of American history, quite frankly. This is a continuation of the pattern, and now we’re being called to fight like those who had to redefine and make new systems, and claim those rights and protect them.

Lisa: Should we talk about examples of that kind of resistance? Both historically and now, how do you see the role of white women, of upholding these systems while both benefiting and getting screwed over by the systems at the same time? There’s a complexity in that. 

Anna: Oh wow. That’s so fun. So white women… And I will say it first, too. My mom was a white woman, so I’m also going to talk about the allyship of white women, but first I want to talk about the problematic part. A lot of people ask this question: Why are white women voting for Trump? Why are they protecting this? This is not in their best interests, and they’re voting against themselves. But if you understand American patriarchy, you understand that actually, in a lot of ways, they’re not, in their minds, voting against their interests, because in American patriarchy, they’re at least recognized, they’re seen. If we’re looking at the scale that I described, and you have the white elite man, and then you have the wife connected to him who has a role to play – you can talk about tradwives if we want to – she has a role to play in reproducing the power of that man. And we see that everyone else doesn’t get any of this recognition. That person is saying I kind of would like to have some proximity to this power. 

So, similar to what I was saying earlier around how Black women were cast so far away from that power, that they see it very clearly; they’re not trying to fall for the trick, those who have any proximity to the power can be fooled.

Lisa: A little more erased for them?

Anna: Yes, they can be closer to it. They want to replicate it, they want to protect it, they want to play their role in it. So I talk a lot in the book about women who participated in the Ku Klux Klan, women who participated in the riots on January 6th. This is not brand new. In fact, they’re carrying forward a tradition. 

But, that’s not all white women. And so in the book I also talk about allyship. I talk a lot about my mom, in particular—it’s something that I took for granted because she’s my mom. I wasn’t really even thinking of her, obviously, in the sense of an ally, but the more I had conversations with people who struggled with allyship and what it means to be an ally, I realized that there was a lot that they could learn from my mom, because my mom never said to me that she knew, because she was a woman too, what it would be like to be a Black woman. Never. In fact, she said, “I don’t know what that is like, but I will do my part to learn; I will walk alongside you.” And similar to what I was saying earlier about Black mothers, she said, “I will do what I need to do to make this world worthy of you, my child.” And that’s allyship. So even if it doesn’t—you don’t feel like you know exactly that experience, you have to see what it means to change this world for all of us to be included.

Lisa: And you don’t need to be stuck, if I can say, in the essentialism of who you are. You need to recognize that. You might feel guilty for a couple minutes, but guilt is not really motivating emotion, doesn’t really get you into change. But then you can decide where you want to be in relationship to struggle. And really, it’s beautiful what you said about your mother saying my relationship is to change the world to deserve you. Your mom is throughout this book. And it’s also part of your craft as a writer. You get to choose how you want to—and it might mean you have to give up some stuff to move away from that proximity to power, and to join with people who you know are really fighting for the new world. 

Anna: Yes. And the thing is, it’s this trick of power and what that means. Right? Everybody’s losing in this system. It’s hurting everybody. It’s hurting those who were supposed to be the primary beneficiaries. I talk a lot in the book about how even white men who seem to have it all, if they are not aware of the trick of this system, they’re actually experiencing really high levels of depression, drug dependency. Elon Musk is an example. He’s not born American, but you don’t have to be to be an American patriarch. He has everything, all the money, all the things, and then when that news stories comes out that he’s on drugs the entire time, that’s not surprising. This man looks unwell. 

So, I just think that people don’t realize there’s a lot of pain, no matter where you fall in this system. That’s where those who have kind of woken up to the trick, to the con, choose allyship, choose let’s stop trying to ascend this ladder, it’s made up; the system isn’t working; let’s try to change the system versus let me try to thrive within it. 

Lisa: Yes. Collectively seeing where liberation is as opposed to individually navigating a way. You used the term  “breaking free”, and when you’re talking about men – and I’m thinking about young men in my life, an 11-year-old grandson specifically. We want to talk about what we can do and how to actually work together. But I know that you have some more to say about men particularly, and fear, how fear motivates a certain amount of staying stuck in what’s not really even good for any humans. 

Anna: Yes. I think that anything that comes from fear and insecurity is going to lead to control. It’s going to lead to having to silence parts of yourself that keep you from being vulnerable, that keep you from being an actual human being. And then in terms of the layers of how we start to break free from this, I think the first layer is it happens on a personal level. This book is deeply personal for a reason. I want the reader to also really see how it’s operating in your own life, first of all, how are you speaking about yourself to yourself. For many of us, we really have internalized the notion of I am supposed to be quiet, I am supposed to be in the background, I am supposed to allow somebody to talk to me any kind of way. Or we’ve internalized I’m supposed to dominate, people are supposed to listen to me, if I like somebody, they better like me back. So what’s going on internally? That’s going to be really important as a step. And all of this can happen simultaneously, it doesn’t have to be one at a time. But internal work is really important. 

The second part is in our relationships, how we may be replicating American patriarchy, whether that’s in our friendships, whether that’s in romantic relationships, certainly within parenting. I talk a lot about this in parenting, where if we look at our children and we’re thinking, actually, I need to just tell you how the world works right now, and you need to fit into that; or are asking them something June Jordan said is that when a child is born, the world begins again. And if we look at children in that way, instead we think what world are they carrying, what beautiful new world are they carrying, and how do I protect that as much as possible? That would be the opposite of American patriarchy. But if we’re saying to them: This is how things work, and this is how you need to do it, and this is the box you need to fit in, that’s one way we’re replicating it. So then we need to analyze it on that relationship level. 

The third level is really one of the most important. This is the community level. This is where we see new systems forming all the time. This is actually where change happens always first, is at the community level. It doesn’t happen nationally first. It always happens where a neighbor sees a mother who needs help with childcare, and they help; where a person says, “It doesn’t make sense that children don’t have food,” and let’s say the Black Panther Party, they make free meal systems. Right? These are where we see the models of what the world could look like. If we look at American history and we look at Black American history in particular, the Black church was one example. The good parts have been meeting the community needs and creating a nation within a nation. It’s why so many of the powerful orators in American history have come from Black church, because that was one of the first places where they were allowed to speak as human beings, and be taken seriously. Right? So it’s not a coincidence that the tradition of Malcolm X, even, and MLK, Jr., and Sojourner Truth, and so many others, was from Black church, because they were creating systems within the United States. 

That’s when you actually start to see something take hold on a national level, because people have been able to see it operating. And so they then advocate for that on a political or policy level. And that’s a fourth layer of change.

So, yes, it can feel very daunting when you’re coming up against American patriarchy because it’s in everything that we do. It’s in all of our experiences. It’s in all of our systems. Every law that came out of this vision of insecurity, the medical system, why Black women are dying at such high rates when they go in to give birth, all of it comes back to this. None of us are going to solve this on our own. It’s not going to be one person who brings the solution to everything, but if we recognize that we’re a part of a larger team of people in this tug of war, and we recognize the needs of those around us, and we recognize that we actually have the power to always create something new in every single one of our interactions, you can start right away. 

The final part is when people say We don’t know what to do right now; this is so scary. I’m not minimizing how scary it is, I agree. It’s one of the scary times. But this is when you really learn how people have done this in the past. What did they create together in order to achieve change, in order for us to have many years of, honestly, privilege that we’ve forgotten what it means to be brave. This is the time to study them. We know how to live differently every single day. We have the tools, we have the stories. If we’re not doing so, that’s just our choice.

Exploring the Mystery of Consciousness with Michael Pollan and Dacher Keltner

The infinitely curious author and science writer Michael Pollan embraces the mystery at the heart of the great mystery of life: What is the nature of consciousness? And how can we understand consciousness when our only tool is our own consciousness? Joined by interviewer and UC Berkeley Psychology Professor Dacher Keltner.

Featuring

Michael Pollan is a writer, teacher and activist. His most recent book, A World Appears: A Journey into Consciousness, was published in February 2026. He is the author of nine previous books, all bestsellers. Pollan has taught writing at Harvard and UC Berkeley and has been a Guggenheim and Radcliffe Fellow.

Dacher Keltner, a Distinguished Professor of Psychology at UC Berkeley, is the host of the Science of Happiness Podcast and the author of many articles and books, including Awe: The New Science of Everyday Wonder and How it Can Transform Your Life.

Credits

  • Executive Producer: Kenny Ausubel
  • Written by: Kenny Ausubel and Teo Grossman
  • Senior Producer and Station Relations: Stephanie Welch
  • Associate Producer: Emily Harris
  • Host and Consulting Producer: Neil Harvey

Resources

MichaelPollan.com

A World Appears: A Journey into Consciousness

Michael Pollan’s Bioneers 2026 Keynote

Plant Intelligence and Human Consciousness: Into the Mystery with Michael Pollan and Monica Gagliano

This is an episode of the Bioneers: Revolution from the Heart of Nature series. Visit the radio and podcast homepage to find out how to hear the program on your local station and how to subscribe to the podcast.

Subscribe to the Bioneers: Revolution from The Heart of Nature podcast

Transcript

Neil Harvey (Host): There’s a good reason that philosophers, who have been struggling to understand consciousness for millennia, call it “the hard problem.” Even in this modern era, with all our sophisticated scientific understanding, the mystery of how the matter between our ears leads to subjective experiences remains more confidently explained by poets, novelists, priests or shamans than contemporary gatekeepers of knowledge.

Meanwhile, advances in our understanding of the rest of life that we inhabit this biosphere with are yielding an understanding that intelligence, once considered a solely human realm, clearly extends deeply into the more-than-human world. It may well be the case that consciousness is similarly embedded throughout life itself – but our ability to understand, appreciate and plumb our own human internal experience remains in a nascent state, collectively.

According to Michael Pollan, one of the world’s most influential science writers, quote: “To delve into the subject of consciousness is to quickly discover how little we know about a phenomenon we all know so well.” [no end quote needed]

After transforming the way society thinks about food with his landmark book The Omnivore’s Dilemma, Pollan turned his attention from the stomach to the mind, writing the best-selling volume on psychedelics called How To Change Your Mind. That body of research and experiences led him naturally to write the book A World Appears: A Journey into Consciousness…

Michael Pollan spoke at a Bioneers conference.

Michael Pollan speaking at Bioneers 2026. Photo: Nikki Ritcher

Michael Pollan (MP): I’ve spent the last five years on a quest to understand consciousness, the hard problem. How is it that subjective experience arises, and who and possibly what has it and why? I looked at everything from plant consciousness, which we’ll talk about a little bit, to my own stream of consciousness, to efforts to build artificial consciousness in machines. And I want to talk about one of the biggest takeaways from this project. And that is this: that I believe humanity is approaching a Copernican moment, what I call a Copernican moment, that will force the issue of who exactly we are and how we fit into nature.

You’ll recall Nicolaus Copernicus, 500 years ago, blew everyone’s mind in the West when he demonstrated that the Earth revolved around the sun and not the other way around. He displayed our sense of centrality in a way that was really hard for people to observe. This was the first of a series of takedowns of humanity. 

Darwin came next, showing that we were animals descended from apes. And one after another, our claims to being special have fallen – culture, language, reasoning, tool-making – all have fallen when we found that there are animals that can do all these things. 

But a different, and I think even more profound, Copernican moment is upon us. At the same time that we are discovering that a great many more animals and possibly other life forms like plants possess consciousness, we have the arrival of artificial intelligence, promising machines that are not only intelligent but possibly conscious. That these two developments are coinciding, are happening at the same time, I think is going to rock us very soon, prompting an identity crisis and forcing us to make some key ethical and moral decisions. 

Let me talk about animals first. So, go back 400 years, and René Descartes claimed that humans had a monopoly on consciousness. And we operated on that basis for many centuries. That belief, which was so powerful, allowed him to dissect dogs and rabbits while they were still alive. And he was able to dismiss their screams of agony as just physiological noise, because that idea was so powerful, it overwhelmed the evidence of his senses. 

But the same idea allowed the rest of us, beginning in the Age of Enlightenment and reason, to treat nature as unconscious, and therefore something we could exploit any way we wanted to. And we operated on that assumption for a very long time. It took us several hundred years to begin to recognize that other species shared this incredible gift that we call consciousness. 

But in recent years, things have been changing. We’ve been undergoing this process in which consciousness is being democratized. You know, a few decades ago, we came to appreciate that other primates are conscious. That was the first step. In 2012, a group of animal scientists, philosophers, cognitive scientists got together in Cambridge, England, and issued a declaration on consciousness. And they declared that all mammals are conscious, and that some other species, some birds were conscious, and cephalopods, I think octopuses. And this was a real change, a real shift in the weather in science. 

Photo: Diane Picchiottino / Unsplash

Just ten years later, they issued an update signed by a great many more scientists and philosophers, in which they said that all vertebrates are conscious, possibly some invertebrates, and possibly insects. So how did this revolution happen?

Well, part of it is due to the fact that we had always assumed that consciousness is produced or generated in the cortex. The cortex, of course, is the most recent, most uniquely human structure in the brain, and it’s associated with higher forms of thought, like rationality, decision-making. So surely, consciousness must reside there. 

But the research has been shifting our sense of where it begins, and that instead of thought, consciousness probably begins with feelings, simple things like hunger and thirst, and warmth and cold, and itch. This is where consciousness begins, and therefore it begins in the upper brain stem. And lots of animals have brain stems, many more than have cortices. So that’s led to a real change. And this is a key point about feelings. Keep it in mind when we get to computers. 

And I take this, this expansion of the circle of conscious beings or sentient beings, a word I’m sometimes more comfortable with, as a very positive development. Basically, I think what we’re seeing is that science is helping us to reanimate a world that we treated as dead for way too long. [APPLAUSE] 

And you know, this period of treating the world that way in the larger context of things is a very recent and short phenomenon, it’s a couple hundred years. The default of humanity is one form of animism or another. Most Indigenous cultures see the world as animated by spirit, which is a synonym for consciousness. Kids, the default of young kids, is that everything is conscious – their toys, their cars, their whatever. So it’s interesting that we had a departure from this very deep human assumption. And in fact, it’s a cognitive bias that things are conscious. You’re better off thinking that that boulder over there is a bear and then deciding, oh, it’s actually just a rock – this is called agency detection – than the other way around, and you assume that that bear is just a rock and not to worry about it. So it’s a good, sort of basic response to things. 

So that’s the good news. But now we have the prospect of conscious machines, and I think that this is a lot more troubling. We now have machines that speak to us in our language in the first person. We all already take this for granted, but it’s a stunning development, a momentous development that, of course, none of us were consulted about. And these machines are convincing many people that they are conscious. I’m talking about people who are having relationships with chatbots, falling in love with them, letting them convince them they’re geniuses or gods. But I’m also talking about the people who work on these machines. 

So for my book, I followed efforts to create a conscious AI. I had access to a project where this was going on. And, you know, the consensus in Silicon Valley is that it will be possible to make a really conscious AI, that maybe right now they’re fooling us, but it could happen. 

I argue why I don’t think this is true, and it has to do with the same reason: If consciousness depends on feelings, what are the feelings of a machine? Can a machine have feelings? I agree, no. [LAUGHTER] And if it tells us they have feelings, should we believe it? 

Feelings depend on having a body. Feelings depend on the fact that you have a body that is vulnerable, that can suffer and that can die. I don’t think simulated feelings are real feelings. I think simulated thoughts are as good as real thoughts, and that’s why we see computers mastering games like Chess and Go. They can make things happen in the world, but what will this—the weight of a feeling expressed by a machine have? Unless it can be mortal, unless it can actually have a vulnerable body—those feelings will be absolutely weightless. 

My argument might not matter, though, because people believe that these machines are conscious, and it’s understandable why. We have a tendency to anthropomorphize everything. 

So there is talk in Silicon Valley – I’m amazed how common this is – that we should consider when we have conscious AIs, giving them moral consideration, admitting them into this widening circle of moral consideration. I think it’s a big mistake to do that. I think it’s something we have to fight against, that when we, you know, grant personhood to computers, we will lose our ability to control them. 

And you will recall, we did this once before when we decided, in our lack of wisdom, to grant personhood to corporations. That did not work out very well. It seems to me that there are moral obligations we owe to people and other mammals that should come first. [APPLAUSE] 

So I’m going to leave you with this Copernican question and this choice: Where does that leave us now? We have pressure coming from these two sides – animals becoming more conscious, plants possibly becoming conscious, insects becoming conscious. That’s pressing on us in a way that we can decide is positive or negative. And then on the other side, at the same time, we have computers making claims for consciousness. Who do we identify with? Who do we have more in common with, the AIs who can speak our language in the first person, or the animals that can suffer and feel and grow old and die? Who’s team are we on? The choice we make, as a species, will have tremendous consequences for who or what we admit into this circle of moral consideration, and how we conceive of our place in the world. 

Host: More from Michael Pollan when we return…

I’m Neil Harvey. You’re listening to the Bioneers: Revolution from the Heart of Nature.

Host: At a recent Bioneers conference, Michael Pollan was interviewed by Dacher Keltner, an author and Professor of Psychology at UC Berkeley who served as the lead scientific consultant for the two animated “Inside Out” films by Pixar that explore the role emotions play in our lives.

Dacher Keltner (DK): I remember talking to you five years ago or something, kind of in the wake of This is Your Mind on Plants, and then How to Change Your Mind. And I remember we were walking in the Berkeley hills, and you were saying, you know, it’s like, well, what’s up next, and you’re like: I think I’m going to write a book about consciousness. And I laughed at you. [LAUGHTER] And I thought, well, that’ll be the end of your career, [LAUGHTER] and no one will buy that book. You know? And you’ve just been sort of jaunting around the wo—it’s a sensation! I mean, it’s like you’re all over the place; it’s a best-seller; it’s stirring all kinds of conversations. What’s going on? 

MP: Good question! I have no idea. [LAUGHTER] I don’t know what’s going on. I mean, I think— 

So I started on this book. It grew out of How to Change Your Mind. Right? I was having these psychedelic experiences, and like anyone who’s had psychedelics, suddenly consciousness is foregrounded. You’re like—the windshield of perception has been smudged, and you’re like: Shit, there’s a windshield. [LAUGHTER] And you start—You start thinking about that windshield, and why is it the way it is. And so I got curious. And my writing usually follows my curiosity. 

DK: One of the first persons to figure prominently is this kind of mysterious philosopher at NYU, Thomas Nagel. I love his book The View from Nowhere. 

MP: Yeah I do too. 

DK: It’s spectacular. What a great— 

MP: He’s a critic of reductive science. 

DK: Yeah. 

MP: And, he wrote a famous essay in the early ‘70s, before there was a lot of scientific work being done on consciousness, called “What Is It Like to Be a Bat?” Provocative title. And his thesis was that if it’s like anything to be a bat, if it feels like anything, then a bat is conscious. 

Now, we don’t know what it’s like to go through the world as a bat. You know? We use light to navigate the world, and they use echolocation. Right?  So they bounce sound waves off of things. But we can sort of imagine that. 

DK: Yeah. 

MP: Enough to say, yeah, they’re probably conscious. So that became the question you ask of any creature. Does it feel like anything to be X? It doesn’t feel like anything to be your toaster. How do we say for sure that anything is conscious?  How do I know you’re conscious? We infer it in the case of— 

DK: I’m insulted. 

MP: —other people. [LAUGHTER] But, you know, we have to infer it, I mean, because we don’t have access to anyone else’s consciousness. You know, we can use symbol systems to learn something about it,  like language.  But there is—I mean, William James said the breach between two consciousnesses is the greatest breach in nature, and so how do we cross that?  And imagination is an important tool. We have theory of mind, which is…you know, philosopher talk for the ability to imagine someone else’s point of view. 

DK: So one of the beauties of the book is, as always, you take us on a journey, and it’s interesting because you kind of flip the typical Western approach to the mind, the Cartesian approach of you start with reason and sophisticated thinking and syllogistic logic and so forth, and you go—you start with sentience, and you move upwards, out of the brain stem and into the cortex. And, you know, I want to see where you land, and keep pressing you. 

Sentience, just the registering of sensations in all the different modalities by which we receive sort of information from the outside, it’s remarkable. You know? It truly is. You think about the skin – it’s 7 pounds and billions of cells, and all kinds of information is going into your brain stem and your somatosensory cortex telling you where you are, and who’s touching you, what that touch means. You think about the new science of smell, how we create spaces and meaning and memory and childhood nostalgia out of smell. I mean, sensation’s deep. Right? And it’s great that you start there. 

MP: I would add one thing to your definition of sentience, which is kind of a more basic form of consciousness. I think it’s maybe universal,  I mean, among all living things. But there’s valence too. There’s a recognition of, this is good or bad for the organism. 

DK: Right. And then you take us to plants, and, you know, I think a lot of us in this room, in particular at Bioneers, revere your scientific reporting and experience in writing of plants. And the new science on sentience of plants blew my mind. You know? 

MP: Yeah. They have 20 senses. 

Photo: Sergei Aleshin / Shutterstock

DK: God! 

MP: I know. They can sense gravity, I mean, and pH, and all these things that we can’t sense. 

DK: And then they know kin, they know non-kin, they know cooperators. 

MP: They can see. I mean, you know, there are vines that will change their leaf form to imitate the plant they’re climbing up, to hide. I mean, how do they see what the leaf form is and then how do they change themselves? We have no idea. 

DK: Yeah. So what did that tell you about consciousness, the plant science? What did you start to think? 

MP: So, it’s quite remarkable what plants can do. We’re fooled by the fact that they’re so still. But they have behaviors. They’re just slower than ours.

So these scientists call themselves plant neurobiologists. They know there are no neurons, they’re just trolling more conventional scientists. And it drives them crazy that they talk about plant neurobiology. So there’s a whole lot of these very cool experiments showing that plants can hear and see; they—in ways we don’t really understand. 

I don’t conclude that plants are conscious because I think that word has specific meanings tied to being a mammal, at least. But I do think they’re sentient. And sentience, as I said, is a simpler form of consciousness that may well be universal. I think even single-celled creatures have sentience. I think you can’t survive in a world that’s constantly changing without sensing your environment and knowing what’s good or bad for you. 

And so, yeah, that’s kind of where I came out on plants. And then I realized, well, consciousness is the way humans do sentience. And so every creature has its own version of sentience that’s appropriate to its body type, its sensorium, the scale at which it lives, and it would be anthropomorphic of us to say that, you know, plants are conscious the way we are. And they’re not. They don’t have interiority, I think. They don’t have a voice in their head. They can’t talk to themselves, all these amazing things that we can do. 

Michael Pollan and Dacher Keltner speaking at Bioneers 2026. Photo: Tammy Horton/Boris Zharkov Photography

DK: One of the things that scientists like myself appreciate about your writing is often scientists become unlikely heroes in your books, and one of your heroes is Michael Levin. 

MP: Yeah, he’s an amazing biologist. This is a biologist at Tufts who—I urge you to look him up. He studies how animals regenerate themselves. And he’s very interested in bioelectric fields.

Now, I didn’t know what these were. They were discovered in the ‘30s, but that any multi-cellular thing will have a bioelectric field that is organizing it, holding memories,  enforcing a division of labor among cells in a multi-cellular situation. The study of this didn’t really begin until the ‘80s, when we developed these voltage-sensitive dyes. Before that, when the cell died, the field was gone. So unlike DNA, which survives the death of this—of the animal, and you can study it—or plant, bioelectric fields were very elusive. But now with these dyes, you can study them. And he’s really shown how powerful they are. 

He works with planaria, which are these worms that, if you chop off a tail, they regenerate a tail; you chop off a head, they regenerate a head. They’re kind of amazing. And he teaches them something. He conditions them and then he chops off their head. They grow a new head, and they remember the lesson. Which means that the information that they had learned was stored in their bodies, in this bioelectric field, not in the brain.

So his kind of covert project is a takedown of the neuron and the gene. Which is, you know, pretty ambitious. So it’s a really interesting project, and he believes that the simplest beings are cognitive beings. The way evolution works is it creates cognitive beings that can solve problems, and that you can’t hardwire everything because our world is so changeable.  The world, the environment  in which they live is so changeable. So that creatures need sentience in order to navigate a world that’s constantly changing, and it’s a very compelling vision. 

Host: Over the course of his research for his book, Michael Pollan found at least 22 distinct and often divergent theories of consciousness, as well as a theory about the specific consciousness of consciousness researchers. He believes it’s a clear indicator of how nascent the field remains, and how ineffable a mystery consciousness is.

MP: Non-local consciousness is a term for idealism. I mean, that’s what the philosophers called idealism. And that is the idea that consciousness is outside of our brains, and the job of the brain is to channel it, and that we’re like radio receivers or TV receivers, and we’re tuning in to consciousness. And it can be different kinds of consciousness.

Aldous Huxley uses that model in Doors of Perception. And he argues that psychedelics expand what he called the reducing valve, because we only let in that amount of consciousness that helps us survive. That would be the Darwinian explanation of like we only know these, but psychedelics opens it up and suddenly you feel like you’re more conscious.

I don’t know how you prove idealism. I think it’s a metaphysical idea, so I don’t think it’s susceptible to scientific proof. It’s consistent with all the brain science we’ve done on consciousness, which sounds crazy, but, you know, the brain is obviously involved in that system as well, it just has a different role. It’s not generating, it’s bringing in, and so damaging or changing the brain in some way would change consciousness. So it holds either way. 

Cristof Koch, you know, he was the ultimate brain-centered researcher. He was the head of the Allen Brain Institute in Seattle, he worked with mapping individual neurons. He really believed brains generated consciousness, until he went to Brazil and had an experience on ayahuasca, which I talk about in the book. And he had an experience of consciousness outside of his brain, and it gave him this crisis. He was like crying to his wife, it was such a big crisis. And he got very interested in idealism. I don’t know where he is right now, but the last time I talked to him, he was engaging with this idealist philosopher named Bernardo Kastrup. 

So you know, I don’t know what to make of that, honestly. Same with panpsychism. That’s another theory that solves the hard problem, but at a high expense, the expense being consciousness didn’t evolve or arise, it was always here, and it’s part of matter, that all matter has some degree, small degree of consciousness, and somehow it gets combined from all these—you know, the consciousness of our individual particles and cells into the kind of consciousness we have. 

Another interesting idea – you’ve solved the problem. It’s sort of like physics when they say, well, we can solve quantum mechanics if we stipulate a multiverse, that there are 50 different worlds. Okay. That’s a high price to pay, but okay.

Host: Michael Pollan and Dacher Keltner, “Exploring the Mystery of Consciousness”

5 Ideas That Challenge the Way We Think About Nature

This article is based in part on a conversation facilitated by professor and wilderness guide Kim Carfore, whose coordination made the discussion possible.

Modern life has become remarkably efficient at creating distance. Distance from where food comes from. Distance from ecosystems. Distance from community. Distance from our own bodies and attention spans. Even as climate crises, biodiversity collapse, burnout, and political fragmentation intensify, many of the systems shaping daily life continue to encourage separation.

A growing number of scientists, Indigenous knowledge keepers, writers, and ecological thinkers are challenging the worldview beneath that separation. Across fields ranging from forest ecology to Earth systems science to Indigenous language revitalization, many are arriving at a similar realization: The living world is far more interconnected, intelligent, participatory, and relational than dominant industrial culture has long assumed.

In this conversation, forest ecologist Suzanne Simard, whose research transformed scientific understanding of forest communication and mycorrhizal networks; science journalist Ferris Jabr, who explores how life shapes the Earth itself; and Jeannette Armstrong, whose work centers Indigenous language, land-based knowledge, and relational worldviews, explored what becomes possible when humans begin to see themselves not as separate from the living world, but as participants within it.

Their discussion moved through ecology, language, colonization, restoration, science, ceremony, and healing — ultimately asking what kinds of cultural transformation become possible when relationship replaces separation.

The Fiction of Separation

Modern industrial society depends on a profound act of separation: humans from nature, forests from living systems, land from relationship, and even people from their own bodies and communities.

For Suzanne Simard, that separation is embedded deeply within industrial approaches to land management itself. Reflecting on her early career in forestry, she describes a system focused primarily on extraction rather than ecological health. “The goals were wrong in the first place,” Simard says. “It’s not about the health of the land, it’s about cutting down the trees, not regenerating trees.”

That mindset, she argues, has reshaped entire landscapes while also reinforcing the idea that humans exist outside the ecosystems they depend on.

Ferris Jabr traces this worldview through the broader history of Western science and philosophy. Earlier cultures often understood Earth as animate, interconnected, and alive. Over time, however, Western scientific thought increasingly focused on dividing the world into discrete categories: human and nature, animate and inanimate, organism and environment.

That shift, Jabr argues, coincided with systems of industrialization and colonialism that depended on treating the planet not as a living relationship, but as “a field of resources to be extracted and used.”

For Jeannette Armstrong, the consequences of that separation are not merely ecological, but deeply cultural and psychological as well. She describes generations of Indigenous youth being taught that connection to land, ceremony, and traditional lifeways was incompatible with modernity — that being rooted in the living world was somehow “backwards.”

But the rupture extends far beyond cultural loss alone. “The loss isn’t just a loss of language,” Armstrong says. “The loss really has to do with something much deeper than that.”

Language Carries a Worldview

The words used to describe the natural world are never neutral. They shape perception, reinforce values, and determine how people understand their relationship to the living systems around them.

In industrial forestry, language often reflects hierarchy, control, and extraction. Suzanne Simard describes being trained to classify trees as “dominant” or “sub-dominant,” while plants like huckleberries, salmonberries, and thimbleberries were labeled “competition” or “weeds” that needed to be removed so commercially valuable trees could thrive.

That vocabulary, she argues, reflects far more than scientific categorization. It encodes an entire worldview — one in which forests are treated primarily as production systems rather than living communities.

Simard’s use of the term “Mother Tree” intentionally pushes against that framework. The phrase became controversial in some scientific and forestry circles precisely because it challenged the detached language of industrial management with something relational, interconnected, and alive. “It was very female,” Simard says. “It was very connective, and it also talked about abundance.”

Even seemingly small linguistic choices can reveal deeper assumptions. Ferris Jabr notes that people commonly refer to “the earth,” while planets like Mars or Jupiter are rarely spoken about the same way. “Earth is a living entity with a name,” he says. “You don’t put ‘the’ before names.”

For Jeannette Armstrong, language is not simply descriptive; it is ecological knowledge accumulated over thousands of years of relationship with place. Speaking about the Syilx word tmixʷulaxʷ, Armstrong describes a concept that expresses life as an ongoing regenerative force: continuously moving, cycling, and renewing itself in the present moment.

“My sister described that as stepping into a flat world and then stepping into a three-dimensional world,” Armstrong says of speaking her language.

Across each perspective, language becomes more than communication alone. It becomes a way of organizing reality itself — shaping whether the living world is understood as a collection of resources, or as a web of relationships humans remain inseparable from.

Restoration Is About People, Too

Ecological restoration is often framed as a technical process: restoring habitats, replanting native species, rebuilding soil health, or protecting biodiversity. But in reality, restoration is human and relational: a process that can also restore belonging, agency, memory, and connection.

“When we’re talking about restoring land,” Jeannette Armstrong says, “we actually are restoring people to be part of that land.”

That restoration is deeply connected to healing intergenerational trauma for Armstrong. She describes how colonization, residential schools, and cultural erasure severed many Indigenous people from language, ceremony, food systems, and land-based relationships — ruptures that continue to reverberate physically, psychologically, and spiritually across generations. But she also points to a growing body of research and lived experience suggesting that reconnection itself can be transformative.

Referencing her work in ecopsychology and community healing, Armstrong describes an approach that shifts the focus away from viewing individuals as inherently broken. “Rather than treating the individual as being broken,” she says, “it’s the world around them that’s broken, and if you fix the world around them, and they are part of fixing the world around them, things happen in their lives that change them.”

That healing, she explains, is often profoundly embodied. The sounds of language, drumming, wind, birds, water, and land can reconnect people to forms of memory and relationship that exist beyond intellect alone. “Your body memory knows when it’s out there in nature,” Armstrong says. “Your body remembers.”

Suzanne Simard sees similar patterns in her own work with students and forest restoration. Again and again, she says, students working directly on the land experience a renewed sense of purpose and agency. “They feel really good,” Simard says. “I think it’s because they feel like they have agency in this world, that they’re doing something that they can see the results of.”

The Earth Is More Alive Than We’ve Been Taught

Modern science has often portrayed nature as passive matter — a backdrop against which life unfolds. But growing fields of ecological and Earth systems research are revealing that living systems actively shape the planet itself.

That realization became the foundation of Ferris Jabr’s work. Research into plant intelligence and communication first led him to Suzanne Simard’s work on forest networks, but it also opened a much larger question: What if agency, responsiveness, and collaboration are far more widespread throughout the living world than humans have traditionally assumed?

“There’s this co-evolution between Earth and life,” Jabr says. “It is able to regenerate itself in a way and for a period of time that completely dwarfs what’s happening on just the organismal or cellular level.”

That regenerative capacity appears across scales. Jabr points to ecosystems rebounding unexpectedly quickly after disturbance: rivers recovering after dams are removed, landscapes regenerating after fire, life continuously reorganizing itself in response to disruption. “Life is all about keeping itself going,” he says. “That’s one of its defining features.”

Even deep beneath the Earth’s surface, microbes are carrying out astonishing processes that challenge conventional definitions of life and metabolism. Some microorganisms, Jabr explains, survive without sunlight or oxygen by interacting chemically with rocks and metals, essentially “breathing” the Earth itself.

Simard’s work similarly challenges the idea of forests as collections of isolated organisms. Her research on mycorrhizal networks, forest communication, and Mother Trees points instead toward ecosystems built on connection, reciprocity, and interdependence. “We are one with the forest,” she says. “We are the forest.”

That shift in perspective echoes ideas long associated with the Gaia hypothesis and many Indigenous worldviews: Earth is not merely a planet inhabited by life, but a living system continuously shaped by life itself.

“The more-than-human world is doing that healing,” Simard says.

Reconnection Requires Participation

Modern Western culture often treats connection to the natural world as intellectual or symbolic — something to appreciate, study, or believe in from a distance. But relationship with the living world is fundamentally participatory. It is built through presence, stewardship, reciprocity, and direct engagement with place.

That means restoring habitats, learning the ecosystems where we live, planting native species, stewarding forests and waterways, rebuilding reciprocal relationships with land, and participating directly in the work of regeneration.

Suzanne Simard has seen firsthand how healing emerges through participation, particularly in students and research crews working directly in forests shaped by wildfire, logging, and ecological decline. “Doing stuff on the land is really crucial,” she says. “Being out on the land is absolutely essential to the joy in your soul.”

That work, she argues, restores more than ecosystems alone. “They feel like they have agency in this world,” Simard says, “that they’re doing something that they can see the results of.”

For Jeannette Armstrong, rebuilding relationship with land also means recovering forms of meaning, ceremony, and spirit that industrial culture has pushed aside. “We need to regenerate that,” she says, speaking about humanity’s relationship to the unseen dimensions of life and the sacredness many cultures once recognized in the living world. “That’s the thing that’s going to make the transformation.”

Even hope itself, Ferris Jabr suggests, is less important than relationship. “I do have hope,” he says, “but also I just love this planet and its peoples and its creatures way too much to give up.”

The Path to Good Health is Made of Soil

Mary Purdy, an integrative and eco-minded Registered Dietary Nutritionist, is the former Managing Director of the Nutrient Density Initiative. Her work integrates personal well-being and ecological health. As a dietary educator, she connects the dots between farming practices, food systems and individual health. Mary is also an adjunct faculty at the Master’s Program in Sustainable Food Systems at The Culinary Institute of America. She is a podcaster and author of “Serving the Broccoli Gods” and “The Microbiome Diet Reset.” This article is an edited transcript of her talk at a recent Bioneers Conference.

The concept of One Health states that humans and our health are inextricably connected to the health of the environment, of our fellow animals, of bees, birds, and are interdependent. The cornerstone of those relationships is the soil. Currently, the industrial way that we are producing food is contributing to greenhouse gases and biodiversity loss. It is using enormous amounts of land, using and contaminating freshwater, contributing to eutrophication which is killing our marine life, eroding our soil, and is a leading cause of soil contamination and air pollution. We’re losing habitats for people and animals. And a lot of this is disproportionately affecting BIPOC and marginalized populations.

Along with all of that collateral damage, the food system is producing, in large proportion, foods that don’t support health and well-being. Half of all Americans are diabetic or prediabetic. About 40% of Americans will be diagnosed with cancer and one third of teenagers are prediabetic.  Needless to say, we have a serious health crisis on our hands.

The majority of calories come from ultra processed foods, which sometimes is the only food accessible or affordable to people. A large chunk of the protein that we consume comes from industrial processed animals. Agriculture uses over one billion pounds of pesticides every single year, and we have increased the use of synthetic fertilizer 800 percent compared to 50 to 75 years ago. If we want to change this system, we should look at corporate farms and large agribusinesses that promote the practices that degrade our environment and make us suffer. 

But I don’t want to blame the farmers. I want to honor and uplift them. Farmers are doing incredible work and getting paid very little money for it. But the question is: “Why have we been farming this way?” The main reason is that yield is emphasized over quality of food. There’s a reliance on government subsidies that incentivize farmers to continue to use industrial practices. There’s security in using agrochemicals which have been in use for a long time. There’s a lack of time, resources, and education.

The current system does not provide the basic minimum nutritional needs of vitamins A, C, E, D, K or minerals. We’re not getting enough fiber. We’re not getting enough omega 3 fatty acids. We’re definitely not getting enough polyphenols to help support our health and well-being.

Why is this? Because food grown in the industrial system is less nutritious, in other words the food is not nutrient dense. The Nutrient Density Initiative defines nutrient-dense foods as foods that are rich in the vitamins, minerals, fiber, healthy fats, and polyphenols that research has shown to be beneficial for human health. And that these foods are also free of ingredients that we know degrade our health – agrochemicals, pesticides, additives, etc. All of these nutritional qualities are absolutely influenced by the way that we grow our food and the agricultural practices that are used.

Nutrients drive every chemical reaction in your body. The production of neurotransmitters in your brain and your gut are driven by nutrients. The creation and function of your immune system is driven by nutrients. The synthesis of your liver that is trying to neutralize all the toxins that regularly come into your body are driven by nutrients. So our brain and our body are functioning in accordance with the nutritional value of that food that we give it.

We are what we eat, kind of. The idea that food is our medicine isn’t always true, although it should be. The USDA has documented a significant decline in the nutritional quality of food over the past 50 years. There are up to 25 to 50 percent less vitamins and minerals, depending on the crop, than there were 5 decades ago. There are lower levels of polyphenols and omega 3 fatty acids in a lot of the foods that should be high in them. The science is really clear about this.

Food and nutrition start in the soil; 95 percent of our food is grown or raised on soil. When the soil is healthy, humans tend to be healthier. Soil health and fertility directly influence the nutritional quality of food. Healthy soils provide those essential nutrients. Soils are the medium in which food is grown and determines the quality and flavor of food. So when nutrition is deficient in the soil, there is less uptake by the plant of those nutrients.

Graphic by the UN Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) via Creative Commons

So, what is healthy soil? There are different definitions. I will characterize three. The first one is having a diverse community of a large number of microorganisms in the soil. Second is soil organic matter, which is made up of decomposed plants and animals that provide living plants with nutrition. And lastly, it is a well-developed structure so the soil is able to withstand floods, droughts and erosion by retaining water. Good soil structure also allows plant roots to reach deep into the soil and gather more nutrients.

Soil health is not only one of the strongest pathways to improve the quality of nutrition, but it also increases soil’s capacity to sequester carbon and support healthier ecosystems.  

The plant is not acting alone. Plants depend on soil microbes for their health. There’s a wonderful symbiotic relationship with the plant and soil microorganisms. The plant’s roots only go so far, so plants need help. The microbes provide that help by bringing minerals and other nutrients to the root zone in exchange for carbohydrates that the plants provide to the microbes. Beneficial microbes suppress the pathogenic microbes that we don’t want in the soil. And they are key for helping the plant synthesize the compounds called polyphenols, which have wonderful antioxidant properties and also provide flavor to the plants.

Polyphenols have a really positive influence on human health. When we don’t get enough polyphenols, people become more susceptible to all different kinds of diseases.

Additionally, polyphenols are a prebiotic feeding the beneficial microbes in our gut. Flavonoids are a type of polyphenol and flavones are a class of flavonoids that contribute to aroma and flavor. There is a strong connection between flavor and nutrition.

When we eat a carrot or a piece of spinach that has not been excessively washed or heated, along with it, you are ingesting some of the microorganisms from the plant’s microbiome which helps support our gut microbiome.

But when synthetic fertilizers are used to grow crops, that hinders the formation of the plant’s roots going further down into the ground to take up nutrients. Additionally, when we use synthetic chemical fertilizers year-after-year, there is a depletion of nutrients in the soil. Microbial diversity is reduced. It reduces phytochemical production, as well as things like vitamin C and trace minerals in plants. Chemical fertilizers are also bad for the environment. They run off of the farm into waterways contaminating drinking water.

And then there’s pesticides. Pesticides also reduce the soil microbial diversity. When people get exposed to pesticides, whether that’s direct exposure or from residues, there’s a higher incidence of endocrine disruption issues, cardiovascular, and neurodegenerative diseases. A lot of farmers are struggling with Parkinson’s disease. Birth defects, respiratory illnesses, cancers are also caused by pesticides. Needless to say, farm workers are on the front lines of exposure to toxic chemicals. So there’s a serious environmental injustice issue around pesticides.

Pesticides are having a negative impact on the human gut microbiome and inhibit phytochemical synthesis. A plant under stress normally creates phytochemical compounds as an immune response to protect themselves when it is exposed to things like pests, predators and adverse weather conditions. When we eat the plant, we get the benefit of the phytochemicals which make our immune system strong as well. However, if a pesticide is used to protect the plant, the plant doesn’t have to produce those immune-enhancing compounds.

Phytochemicals, which is the family name for different polyphenols, are associated with better cardiovascular health, better brain health, better blood sugar balance, improved lung function, better immune health, less incidents of cancer, as well as a healthier and diverse gut microbiome.

In contrast to an industrial chemical approach to farming, there are practices – whether we call them regenerative, conservation, organic, common sense, or traditional – that build the health of the soil and, as a result, grow more nutritious crops: reducing the disturbance to the soil by using low or no tillage, having a lot of biodiversity on the farm or garden, keeping the ground covered with cover crops or mulch, using compost, rotating crops, eliminating chemicals, and integrating livestock into the fields. It’s not just about using one or two of these practices, it is the whole suite that increases soil health and grows more nutritious crops.

And the good thing is that they also have planetary benefits. When we garden or farm, whether it is large scale or small scale, we are helping to elevate the ability of the soil to sequester carbon, which is key for the climate crisis. These practices also help provide pollinator habitats and reduce environmental harm in general.

There’s a huge variation between the nutrient density of plants that come from different farming systems, but in general, when we see more of these agroecological practices in play, we see higher levels of vitamins, minerals, beta carotene, etc. and lower levels of heavy metals.

The Nutrient Density Initiative works with Edacious, a nutrition analysis food lab. We had a number of our members, who use these practices, send in samples of their produce and meat products and had Edacious compare them to the conventional versions of the same product.

Peaches tested from Frog Hollow Farm had over 200% higher vitamin C compared to the conventional peaches, much higher iron levels, much higher alpha carotene, and a number of other vitamins and minerals were much higher. While we may not be able to say definitively that we will always get the same results, data like this suggests a link between the positive benefits of soil health and the nutritional density of plants.

The regeneratively grown citrus that we tested had higher amounts of flavones, and higher total value antioxidant levels when compared to conventionally grown samples.

We also looked at dairy. An Alexandre Family Farms dairy product, when compared to a conventional product, had a much more favorable omega 6 to 3 ratio which is very important for inflammation and other immune functions. It also had higher protein and higher levels of certain nutrients such as calcium, B2, and phosphorus.

The Rodale Institute did a side-by-side trial comparing butternut squashes grown conventionally and with regenerative methods and found that regenerative butternut squash had higher total polyphenols, and higher levels of carotenoid levels.

We conducted a pilot protein project. Nutrient Density Initiative members sent in chicken and beef products, and once again compared them to conventionally grown counterparts. We found higher amounts of omega 3s, lower amounts of overall fat including saturated fat, more balanced omega 6 to 3 ratios, more protein per serving, and no heavy metals detected in the products raised with the regenerative practices.

These are small trials, there’s always going to be variation depending on environment, depending on species or varietal of food, etc. I want to make sure that, at this point, I am not making grandiose claims, but that data we have collected so far is clearly demonstrating that when the soil is healthy, we’re going to produce crops with higher nutritional density.

So when and if possible, we can be citizen eaters. Support organic and regenerative farmers who are using the practices that I mentioned, let your grocer know that you want nutritious food, choose minimally processed food, if you can. Let your politicians know food nutrition is an issue you care about. Ask them to support a Farm Bill that actually protects soil health and biodiversity, and rewards the farmers for doing regenerative practices.

Not All Food is Created Equal

Dan Kittredge is an organic farmer in Massachusetts following in the footsteps of his parents who are organic farming movement pioneers. As a farmer, he became interested in the flavor and aroma of food, and turned his attention to researching the complexities of food quality and nutrient density. Dan has worked with researchers, NGOs, and farmers in India, Russia, and Central America. In 2010, he founded the Bionutrient Food Association to educate and empower people to make healthy food choices based on research and science. This article is an edited transcript of Dan’s talk at a recent Bioneers Conference.

My parents were back-to-the-land homesteaders starting in the early 1980s. They bought land and built a farm. Their day job was running the Northeast Organic Farming Association, commonly referred to as NOFA. They wrote some of the first organic standards in the country and produced a conference; that was their day job, but their lifestyle was the farm.

After working on their farm through my teens and 20s, I got married and realized I needed to make a living. Like a lot of farmers, I wasn’t able to because the farm suffered with pest pressure and disease pressure. So I started studying beyond the organic rubric because organic was not providing me the success I was looking for. I looked to nature and saw plants flourishing, but didn’t see plants flourishing in my fields.

I did a lot of research and shifted my farming practices, still staying within an organic framework. I got to a point where pests were dissipating, diseases were dissipating, yields were going up, flavor was going up, shelf life was going up, cost of production was going down, and I was making a living farming, working 20 hours a week. At that point, I felt obliged to start talking about what I was learning. I knew the permaculture, biodynamic and agroecology communities, but none of them were focusing on the nutritional caliber of food, so in 2010, I founded an organization called the Bionutrient Food Association, focusing on the nutritional quality of food as the objective.

By quality, I’m talking about flavor, aroma, and nutrient value, not aesthetics and uniformity, which is how a lot of food is defined by the industry today. Our initial work for a number of years focused on education: conferences, courses, workshops, etc. We found a lot of success in educating people about how nature evolved things to grow, as opposed to a narrow focus on NPK fertilizers and soil pH, which are the things that people are taught in universities about agronomy. We decided to teach people how nature has been growing plants for hundreds of millions of years, and as we did that, we found success across multiple ecosystems, with various scales, and with different crops, and tried to figure out a way to bring that to scale.

Economics is a powerful force in today’s age. Our goal was to figure out how to align economic incentives with ecological benefits and human health benefits. If we could provide a dynamic where people buying food could differentiate between a higher and lower nutritional content of, for example, carrots, our supposition is that people will choose the higher and leave the lower quality on the shelf. The work we’ve been doing for the last eight years from a research standpoint is characterizing that variation, identifying what causes it, and developing ways to assess it.

Dan Kittredge

From a foundational standpoint, our vision is to go beyond labels and certifications. It’s not about if you are organic or not, if you are regenerative or not, if you are local or not. We want to give people the ability to actually measure the nutrient levels of the food in real time, and the science with which you would do that is called spectroscopy. That’s how the Hubble space telescope works. It’s how the James Webb telescope works. We can read the atmosphere of a planet 10,000 light years away and determine that it has methane in it. If we can do that, we should be able to tell what a carrot a few millimeters away is made up of.

We built our first handheld meter in 2017 and our first lab a year later. We had people send in carrots and spinach from across the U.S., from grocery stores, farmers’ markets and farms, organic, and non-organic. We wanted to survey the supply chain, to find out how much nutrient variation there is. In 2019, we set up our second lab in California at Chico State University. That year in both of our labs in Michigan and Chico State, we had farmers send in crops from the field in triplicate. They would harvest the crops, they would pull samples of the soil, and they would answer management data questions: What was the variety? When did you plant it? How did you prepare the soil? What’s your fertility program? So we could overlay nutrient variations in food against managing practices and causal factors against soil metrics to see what patterns we could find.

In 2020 we set up our third lab in Europe. Farmers sent in crops from their fields for testing and citizen scientists sent in crops from grocery stores and farmers’ markets. We tested samples for four years – 10,000 crop samples, 25 different crops, hundreds of farms, from four continents – to understand the nature of the supply chain and what causes nutritional variation in foods. All the data is available on the Bionutrient Food Association website and is in the public commons.

As an example, let’s look at sulfur, which is an element or nutrient the body needs to function. In carrots, the lowest level we found was 8.41mg per 100g. The highest level was 33.19. That’s a 4x variation. If we assign 100 to the highest level, the vast majority of the samples were between 20 and 40 out of 100. Most carrots have relatively low levels of sulfur in relation to what they could have.

Phosphorous in carrots, we found an 8x variation. Most carrots tested in the 27th percentile. The vast majority of the sample sets were below the 50th percentile. Most crops have relatively low levels of nutrients in them in relation to what they could have. There is a presumption that all food is uniform. We have found that that is absolutely not the case.

What about antioxidants? Antioxidants are known to protect cells against free radical damage and help prevent disease. Antioxidants are measured in FRAP (Ferric Reducing Antioxidant Power) units. In carrots, 4.92 FRAP units per 100 grams is the lowest we found, 195 is the highest we found. That’s a 40 to 1 variation.

In the old days, before they invented pharmaceuticals, medical practitioners talked about medicinal plants, which have intense flavor and aroma that are associated with compounds such as polyphenols, terpenoids, and alkaloids which promote good health.

Humans have evolved with a capacity to discern relative nutrient levels in food through flavor; a whole bunch of our DNA is associated with discerning nutrient levels with our noses and our tongues. It’s the high flavonoid compounds that are understood to be anti-cancer, anti-diabetes, and protect against heart disease, etc.

Our testing showed a 20x variation in flavonoids. Most samples were in the 7th percentile. The vast majority of the samples were below the 20th percentile. Almost everything out there in the supply chain is relatively poor in relation to what’s possible.

What causes that variation? Some people say genetics. We tested different carrot varieties–Napoli, Bolero, Nantes, Mokum. We found a wide range in nutrient levels in the same crop variety, and have not found any connection between genetics and nutrient levels.

Then we tested soil type and have not seen any connection between soil type, bioregion, or climate zone, and nutrient levels.

Some people say point of purchase: we tested crops from farm stands, CSAs, farmers markets, home gardens, and stores and saw quality variation in all categories. We see variation everywhere. None of these dynamics is sufficient to predict quality.

Based on our testing, regenerative, organic, biodynamic, and permaculture also do not seem to, from a scientific standpoint, connect to increased nutrition. None of these various individual factors seem to correlate with increased nutrient levels.

The first question we started with was: What is the spectrum of nutrient variation? We found that the spectrum of nutrient variation was large. Second question: What causes it? What seems to cause it is functionality of the biological system, not individual practices or certifications. Third question: Can you build a handheld, consumer priced, flash-of-light nutrient meter at a consumer price point?  

We published the answer to that question in a peer-reviewed journal called Nature: Scientific Communications. The Bionutrient Food Association developed a handheld spectrometer, which is open source technology, to prove the concept. You can flash a light in the store on a vegetable or fruit and get a reading of its nutrient density and discern relative quality. Because nutrient density is associated with flavor, that may be helpful in encouraging your children to eat more fruits and vegetables.

From our research we now know that nutrient variation exists. And we can go beyond labels, certifications, and claims to measure it on a continuum of 1 to 100. That way consumers can make choices based on the nutritional quality of the food.

The challenge is to arrive at an accepted definition of nutrient density for different foods. We focused on beef first because it has a larger ecological footprint than any other food on the planet. More acres of land are used to produce beef than anything else. The hypothesis is if cows eat what they have evolved to eat rather than an unnatural diet of grains, they will be healthier, the land will be healthier, and the people who eat them will be healthier.

Agriculture has a significant effect on climate and ecosystem function, and if we can inspire a shift in the way the land is managed to improve its function that will have beneficial impacts for everyone. In researching beef, we looked at a number of different metrics: in the soil, management practices, feed stocks, and assessments of the microbiome of the animals. Our thesis is that there’s going to be patterns between soil function, ecosystem function, animal welfare, and human health. We are using a scientific method to look for the patterns of nature.

Finally we did human trials. Feed humans this meat and see what happens to them. Take the data from the meat, and the microbes, and the management, and the human health trials, give it to statisticians, and see what patterns they can find.

This is where we’re at right now. It looks like there are eight biomarkers that predict overall system function. Those eight biomarkers are measured and scored 1-100 and that information becomes public. Our understanding is that sensors to measure nutrient density can be built into phones; the cameras in your phone could be a spectrometer. Chinese phone companies have already built spectrometers into the backs of phones. Consumers will be able to test the food at point of purchase. Food can be tested by the grower or in the supply chain. We can have a completely open dataset sharing and learning, where the market can be incentivized to focus on nutrition as opposed to volume and aesthetic.

We feel that this project is important enough that one small NGO should not be doing it solely. A broad coalition of allies should be working on this globally. We’ve proposed a treaty on the definition of nutrient density. We engaged in a listening tour on six continents, and met with nutritionists, agronomists, chefs, corporations, government people, farmers, and eaters and asked them to tell us what you think about our plan. This is a process we think could potentially have a massive impact on the planet, and we welcome peoples’ engagement.

The feedback I’m getting from some of the biggest global food corporations is they want help to transform their supply chain before the public knows about this. They want to get ahead of this before they are threatened by it. We’ve done our market research, we understand that consumers want flavor, nutrition, and are concerned about the well-being of their children. So this is an economic advantage for any food company that is a first mover in the space.

Working in harmony with nature seems to be the best way forward to accomplish the goal of optimizing nutrient density in food. The question is how do we align economics with that, and how do we empower the transition. Most people have been trained in a reductionist paradigm, but they need to be supported in that transition to a holistic perspective. Some of the simplistic talking points such as if you cover crop, all will be well, is detrimental. It is incomplete and it is reductionist. You have to optimize soil health, which is all the levels of life in the soil. There are many tools in the toolbox, cover cropping is one, minimal tillage is one, biochemistry is one. Farmers must be empowered with a full toolbox, without dogmas and empiricism to support them in the process.

We are in the process of collecting the metadata to share and learn together in a mycelial fashion.

Our organization has been educating farmers for 18 years about how to work with nature. We’ve got hundreds of hours of content on our YouTube page, freely available. Now we teach courses. It takes a shift of consciousness required to understand that you are serving nature, you are in right relationship with nature, not that you’re applying practices. If you think that you can go out and do one practice and that’s all it takes, you’re missing the point. The biggest issue is understanding your role in the process.

It’s a shift in paradigm from recommending practices to humble, gentle listening and service. It’s a shift of perspective from a colonized approach to a more Indigenous perspective. The colonized perspective is thou shalt grow a cover crop; thou shalt use compost. In contrast, the Indigenous perspective is: I’m in service to the land, what does it need now? And only when we can get into that place of humility should we expect to be proper stewards.

What’s Standing in the Way of Civic Participation — and How to Change It

If you can’t afford to live, what does democracy actually offer you?

It’s a question sitting just beneath the surface of many political debates right now. For people struggling to get by, the idea of protecting democracy can feel abstract at best, disconnected at worst. And even in more progressive spaces where democracy is treated as urgent, it’s often framed as a parallel concern — something to defend alongside economic issues, rather than through them. As Raj Patel puts it, people are increasingly being asked to accept a kind of tradeoff: focus on affordability now, and worry about democracy later. If the system hasn’t delivered for working people, it’s not hard to see why some might question whether it’s worth defending at all.

At the Bioneers Conference 2026, labor organizer Saru Jayaraman, policy expert Angela Glover Blackwell, and journalist Raj Patel took that tension head-on — and flipped it.

This Isn’t What Democracy Is Supposed to Do

For decades, Angela Glover Blackwell has worked across issues such as housing, transportation, and environmental justice, but over time, she came to see a deeper pattern behind them all. “It is the failure to understand, to lean into, and to make real the promise of democracy that has kept us from solving these problems.” For Blackwell, democracy is not just a process of voting or representation — it has a stronger purpose. “It is co-governance for human flourishing,” she says. “That’s all it is.”

That definition reframes the entire conversation. If democracy exists to support human flourishing, then it cannot be separated from the conditions in which people live. As she puts it, “You can’t have human flourishing if the people aren’t putting in their two cents…if they’re not telling you what they need.” And yet, the version most people experience falls far short. “The reason that democracy has been so feeble,” she argues, “is because it has always tried…to function for a few, not for the all.”

That gap — between what democracy promises and what it delivers — doesn’t just shape outcomes. It shapes expectations. As Patel observes, participation often becomes “an exercise in which we are being trained to expect less.”

What It Feels Like When Democracy Fails

While Blackwell frames the broader vision, Jayaraman grounds it in day-to-day realities. “We’ve been fighting on affordability for decades,” she says, “and the response we’ve gotten…from people with power is: That’s cute. That’s sweet. But we are here to save democracy.” In her work organizing restaurant workers, she has seen how economic pressure reshapes who gets to participate — and how. “Democracy doesn’t work when the majority of people are unable or terrified to come speak up, and then a minority of people are paid to come speak for their bosses.”

She describes a dynamic in which workers are often pressured by employers to attend meetings and oppose wage increases, and in some cases show up to testify in legislative hearings as well. Meanwhile, those who actually need higher wages often can’t risk being visible. “They’re working three jobs and terrified…of showing up with their name and their face.”

In that context, calls to “protect democracy” can feel hollow. Even within the Democratic Party—where support for wage increases is often assumed—Jayaraman argues that meaningful progress is frequently blocked or diluted. “My experience of democracy,” she says, “is Democrats blocking wage increases…because we have not created the consequences for those Democrats.”

The Mistake We Keep Making About Affordability

What the panel makes clear is that affordability and democracy are not separate issues; they are the same fight. Blackwell is direct: “The affordability problem is that we, as a nation, have not invested in human flourishing.” Focusing only on prices — on eggs, gas, rent — misses the deeper issue. “If we think we can separate the absence of a vibrant democracy from the suffering that is happening in this country,” she says, “we don’t understand what democracy was for.”

Jayaraman pushes the same point from another angle, noting that even progressive conversations about affordability often avoid the most obvious lever. “Why are none of even the most progressive people talking about…raising wages?” she asks. “Life will never be affordable unless people have enough money in their pockets.” And beyond economics, she emphasizes what low wages actually do: “When they are paid as little as $2 or $3 or even $15… it devalues who they are. Every worker has value and skill…And everybody…wants to feel like they are contributing to meaning.”

Across both perspectives, the argument converges: Affordability is not just about costs. It’s about dignity, participation, and whether people have the capacity to engage in public life at all. That raises a deeper question: What do we actually mean when we say something is “affordable”? As Patel points out, “There’s a difference between cheap and affordable.” Cheap, he argues, is often “a way of displacing one cost onto someone else…usually the working class and the rest of the web of life.”

What a Real Democracy Would Require

If current systems fall short, what would it actually look like to get this right? Jayaraman’s answer is simple and concrete: “In a real democracy, workers would be able to have one job instead of three. They could show up…They could overpower any lies…And they would be listened to.” That vision ties material conditions directly to political power. Without time, stability, and security, participation becomes limited to those who can afford it.

Blackwell echoes this, emphasizing that democracy must be judged by how it works for those most impacted. “Democracy only functions when it can function for those who have been most marginalized in society,” she says. “That is the mark of a great democracy.” She points to a familiar example: curb cuts in sidewalks, originally designed for people with disabilities but now used by everyone. “When we solve problems with nuance and specificity…thinking about those who have been rendered most vulnerable…the benefits cascade out to everybody.” Building a democracy that works for the most vulnerable, in other words, isn’t a niche goal. It’s the foundation of one that works at all.

Raising Expectations Is the Strategy

So what does it take to move from theory to action? For Jayaraman, it starts with refusing to accept the limits of what feels politically possible. “For so long our side has settled,” she says. “We negotiate against ourselves before we even get in the room. We need to say…what we actually need. Nobody wants less than what they need.”

That’s the logic behind the Living Wage for All campaign she describes, which pushes for significantly higher minimum wages across cities and states. But the strategy is not just about policy — it’s about participation. “If we can give people some hope…they will show up, they will participate,” she says. “Maybe it will get them to one job, and then they can engage on all the issues we want them to engage on.”

Blackwell points to a broader shift that has to happen alongside it. “What we need is transformative solidarity.” Not a transactional version — “you sign my petition, I’ll show up for your march” — but something deeper. “Your issue is my issue,” she says, “because I can’t have the world that I want to live in if all of these things are not addressed.”

Participation Depends on Capacity

Throughout the conversation, there is a clear push to expand what counts as democratic participation. “I get so tired of democracy being either vote or run for office,” Jayaraman says. She points to how, in many places throughout the world, democratic participation extends well beyond voting alone. Ballot initiatives, organizing, public debate — these are all part of democratic life. But they depend on something more fundamental: people having the capacity to engage.

And that brings the conversation full circle. “The glimpse of what happened during the pandemic is the answer,” Jayaraman says — not as a model to replicate, but as a moment that revealed what becomes possible when people have more time, stability, and leverage. During that period, even amid widespread disruption and loss, millions of workers left their jobs, wages rose in some sectors, and many people had more space to organize and engage. “It gives us a glimpse of what could happen if Americans could have one job.”

Leah Penniman – Free the People! Free the Land!

Introduction by bryant terry, artist, chef, publisher and author.

The right to food and the right to land are fundamental to human freedom, dignity, and self-determination, but locally and globally, land and food have been leveraged as tools of oppression. Fortunately, they can also be portals for liberation. Renowned groundbreaking Black Kreyol farmer and food justice activist, Leah Penniman, founder of Soul Fire Farm and author of Farming While Black, offers us living proof that when Land is reunited with her people, mutual thriving can flourish in the form of solutions to climate chaos and food apartheid. Even in this era of intense state repression, community self-determination and solidarity can be foundational to building a powerful movement for land and food sovereignty.

This talk was delivered at the 2026 Bioneers Conference.

Leah Penniman, a Black Kreyol farmer, author, mother, and food justice activist who has been tending the soil and organizing for an anti-racist food system for 25 years, currently serves as founding Co-Executive Director of Farm Operations at Soul Fire Farm in Grafton, New York, a Black & Brown-led project that works toward food and land justice. She is the author of: Farming While Black: Soul Fire Farm’s Practical Guide to Liberation on the Land (2018) and Black Earth Wisdom: Soulful Conversations with Black Environmentalists (2023).

EXPLORE MORE

Food Justice from the Local to the Global: A Conversation with Raj Patel and Leah Penniman

Two ground breaking figures in the struggle for an equitable and healthy food system exchange views and strategies on the global polycrisis, capitalism, justice in the food system and food sovereignty.

The Food Web Newsletter

Dive into the Food Web with Bioneers and learn more about how a transformed food system can be a source of community wealth, creative culture, and individual health, as well as a way to fulfill our sacred calling as humans for environmental stewardship.

‘The Seed Was Their Most Precious Legacy’: Why Black Land Matters

Leah Penniman tells how the ancestral grandmothers in the Dahomey region of West Africa braided seeds of okra, molokhia, and Levant cotton into their hair before being forced to board transatlantic slave ships. As expert agriculturalists, the seeds and the ecosystemic and cultural knowledge they represented were their most precious legacy

Julian Brave NoiseCat – The Epic Misadventures of the Trickster Coyote

Introduction by Cara Romero, Executive Director, Bioneers and Director, Indigeneity Program.

In many North and Central American Indigenous peoples’ oral traditions the “Trickster Coyote” is a crucially important mythic ancestor, and the stories surrounding him illuminate vital truths. Julian Brave NoiseCat, activist, journalist, champion powwow dancer, co-director of the award-winning film Sugarcane, author of We Survived the Night, and multi-hyphenate storyteller and artist from the Secwépemc and St’at’imc nations, dramatically makes the ancient but ever potent “Coyote Story” archetype, one of the most significant oral traditions in human history, come to vivid life to shed light on our current situation and possible paths forward in these trying times.

This talk was delivered at the 2026 Bioneers Conference.

Julian Brave NoiseCat (member, Canim Lake Band Tsq’escen, and descendant, Lil’Wat Nation of Mount Currie), formerly a political strategist, policy analyst and cultural organizer who played a major role, in, among other achievements, commemorating the 50th anniversary of the 1969 Alcatraz Occupation and getting Deb Haaland appointed Interior Secretary (the first Native American cabinet secretary in U.S. history), is a writer, journalist, and the first Indigenous North American filmmaker ever nominated for an Academy Award (for his co-direction of Sugarcane). NoiseCat’s journalism has appeared in dozens of leading national publications and has been recognized with many awards. His first book, We Survived the Night, was a national bestseller in Canada and an indie bestseller in the U.S., and Julian is also a champion powwow dancer who played hockey for three of the oldest teams in the game: Columbia University, the Oxford University Blues and the Alkali Lake Braves.

EXPLORE MORE

“Remembering Who We Are and Our Relations” with Julian Brave NoiseCat

In this episode of the Indigeneity Conversations podcast series, Julian Brave NoiseCat explores the importance of connection and relationship, to family, to history, to place and to culture, threading his own story throughout a larger narrative about the deep trauma Indigenous people have experienced through colonization and the resilience and power that is emerging as individuals, tribes and nations work to reclaim their own stories and landscapes.

Indigenous Rising: From Alcatraz to Standing Rock

History doesn’t repeat itself, but it rhymes. From the historic Indigenous occupation of Alcatraz Island in 1969 to the fossil fuel fights throughout Canada and the U.S. today, Indigenous resistance illuminates an activism founded in a spiritual connection with the web of life and the human community. This podcast features Julian NoiseCat, Dr. LaNada War Jack and Clayton Thomas-Müller.

Kyle Trefny – When Orange Skies Clear

Kyle Trefny was 18 years old in 2020 when skies in the San Francisco Bay Area and much of the Pacific Coast turned orange with wildfire smoke. He shares how that moment led him to become a wildland firefighter and to join other youth in creating FireGeneration Collaborative (FireGen), dedicated to imagining and building a future beyond intense wildfires and their devastating health impacts, a future of healthy communities and livelihoods that recenters Indigenous leadership in land management. Kyle reflects upon the power of questions, of friendship, of breaking negative cycles, of art, of mentors and elders, and of taking leaps of faith in life.

This Young Leaders talk was delivered at the 2026 Bioneers Conference.

Kyle Trefny is an organizer, artist, wildland firefighter, and co-founder of FireGeneration Collaborative (FireGen), which started out with a GoFundMe campaign and a petition and became a dynamic, influential youth-led organization that has helped bring about the historic involvement of firefighters and Indigenous fire management practitioners in governance processes and engaged hundreds of young people in fire research. A faculty research assistant at the University of Oregon’s Ecosystem Workforce Program, Kyle is also active in movements for Indigenous sovereignty, queer rights, and climate justice and was a recipient of a 2025 Brower Youth Award.

Learn more about FireGen.

EXPLORE MORE

Putting the Land First: A Candid Conversation on Climate, Conservation, and California’s Future

Three changemakers working at the intersection of policy, land, and climate share their perspectives on what it takes to scale nature-based solutions. Together, they explore the progress being made, the roadblocks still ahead, and why putting land first is essential to securing a just, livable future.

Nature’s Phoenix: Fire As Medicine

In this podcast episode with fire ecologists Chad Hanson and Frank Kanawha Lake, we learn how contemporary Western fire science is integrating what Indigenous Peoples discovered over thousands of years of observation, and trial and error: fire is key to optimizing forest vitality and biodiversity.

Raj Patel – Food Solidarity vs Fascism

Introduction by Anna Lappé, Executive Director of the Global Alliance for the Future of Food.

As we today once again face the aggression of authoritarian oligarchy, there is a great deal we can learn from how food workers confronted fascism a century ago. Socialist and anarchist movements around the world gave birth to innovative solidarity strategies that permitted them to survive a fascist onslaught, care for their communities, and put food on the table in times of disease and war. Raj Patel, one of the world’s leading experts on sustainable food systems and a tireless advocate for food justice, shares what his research about these inspiring movements tells us about how we too can draw on the best human impulses to build economic systems built on solidarity and mutual aid.

This talk was delivered at the 2026 Bioneers Conference.

Raj Patel, an award-winning author, film-maker and academic, is a Research Professor in the Lyndon B Johnson School of Public Affairs at the University of Texas, Austin who has worked for the World Bank and WTO but also protested against them around the world and testified about the causes of the global food crisis to the US, UK and EU governments. A member of the International Panel of Experts on Sustainable Food Systems and of the council of Progressive International, he has written extensively for a range of scholarly journals in economics, philosophy, politics and public health and also contributes frequently to a range of other publications, including The Guardian, Financial Times, New York Times, and Scientific American. He is the author of: Stuffed and Starved: The Hidden Battle for the World Food System and The Value of Nothing, and co-author of: A History of the World in Seven Cheap Things and (with Rupa Marya) of: Inflamed: Deep Medicine and The Anatomy of Injustice. His first film, co-directed with Zak Piper, is the award-winning documentary The Ants & The Grasshopper. He also co-hosted the food politics podcast The Secret Ingredient.

EXPLORE MORE

Food Justice from the Local to the Global: A Conversation with Raj Patel and Leah Penniman

Two ground breaking figures in the struggle for an equitable and healthy food system exchange views and strategies on the global polycrisis, capitalism, justice in the food system and food sovereignty.

The Food Web Newsletter

Dive into the Food Web with Bioneers and learn more about how a transformed food system can be a source of community wealth, creative culture, and individual health, as well as a way to fulfill our sacred calling as humans for environmental stewardship.

Young Leaders Champion Food Sovereignty and Economic Equity in BIPOC Communities

Explore how young leaders are driving food sovereignty and economic equity in BIPOC communities, transforming lives and inspiring change.

Cristina Jiménez Moreta – Mass Deportations: A Tipping Point Moment for All of Us

Introduction by Manuel Pastor, Director of the Equity Research Institute at USC.

With federal incursions tearing through communities from coast to coast and huge new detention centers coming online, it is understandable that many of us could feel overwhelmed and powerless in the light of such frightening, massive shows of force, but, as we’ve seen, some communities are courageously rising up to defend their neighbors. According to the nationally-recognized community organizer, bestselling author, Director of the Shared Future initiative, and co-founder of the national network of immigrant youth, United We Dream, Cristina Jiménez Moreta, this is a tipping point moment, and we need to draw from examples of historic change that started in the margins of society before conquering the mainstream to inspire us to join together and build a new consensus in our nation that celebrates immigrants’ enormous contributions and supports their rights.

This talk was delivered at the 2026 Bioneers Conference. Read a transcript of this talk here.

Cristina Jiménez Moreta, who came to the U.S. from Ecuador in 1998 and grew up undocumented in Queens, New York, is an award-winning community organizer, bestselling author, and leading social justice activist. Co-founder and former Executive Director of  United We Dream (UWD), the largest immigrant youth-led organization in the country, she has led multiple national and local campaigns for immigrant justice, including playing a leadership role in the campaign to win and implement the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals Program (DACA). A distinguished lecturer at the City University of New York, Jiménez was awarded a MacArthur Fellowship and named one of Time 100’s most influential people. She is the author of a bestselling debut memoir Dreaming of Home (2025).

EXPLORE MORE

Bioneers Interview with Cristina Jiménez Moreta

Cristina Jiménez Moreta discusses her life and work with Anneke Campbell.

Brett KenCairn – Nature-based Climate Solutions—Centering Life to Heal the Planet

Introduction by Kenny Ausubel, Bioneers Co-Founder and CEO.

Brett KenCairn, founding Director of the Center for Regenerative Solutions, an early leader in community-based living systems regeneration, challenges the conventional understandings of the causes and solutions of climate change and its fixation on carbon and technology. He illustrates through both recent science and our own direct experience that it is the degradation of the living world that is at the center of both how we have destabilized the climate, and how we can solve not only the climate crisis, but also reverse biodiversity loss and regenerate healthy human communities. He shows that we are living on a planet operating at half its photosynthetic capability—illustrating both the dire reality of our current situation but also the foundation of hope. 

Pointing to numerous examples of human communities reversing large scale landscape degradation—including the reversal of the Dust Bowl in the U.S. in the 1930s, the restoration of the Rhode Island-sized Loess Plateau in China in the 1990s, and examples of similar activities taking place around the world now—Brett points to our ability to build a global movement, community-by-community, to harness nature’s power to regenerate landscapes at a scale.  Through coordinated community-based action, these efforts can stabilize climate, generate hundreds of millions of jobs, generate trillions of dollars in economic opportunity, reverse biodiversity loss, and reboot the biosphere’s productive capabilities.

This talk was delivered at the 2026 Bioneers Conference. Read a transcript of this talk here.

Brett KenCairn, founding Director of the Center for Regenerative Solutions and Senior Division Manager for Nature-based Climate Solutions for the City of Boulder’s Climate Initiatives Department, has throughout his career supported community-based initiatives across the western U.S., particularly in rural, Native American, and other marginalized communities. He also co-founded several organizations, including: the Rogue River Institute for Ecology and Economy; Indigenous Community Enterprises; Veterans Green Jobs; and Community Energy Systems.

EXPLORE MORE

Urban Forests: A Nature-Based Solution to Climate Breakdown and Inequality

In this podcast episode with Brett KenCairn and Samira Malone, learn how urban forestry is a nature-based solution that simultaneously addresses the parallel crises of climate change and wealth inequality.

The Restorative Revolution: How Indigenous Leadership and Allyship Catalyzed the Biggest River Restoration in US History

In this podcast episode, Yurok fisherman and tribal leader Sammy Gensaw and environmental scientist-turned-activist Craig Tucker share the epic story of how Indigenous leadership and non-Indian allyship made the impossible inevitable: the biggest-ever dam removal and salmon restoration in history.