Is human interaction with the natural world by definition destructive? Building on social ecology’s insights, Peter Staudenmaier suggests that radical environmental activists can help to create and promote a coherent alternative to this Disney Ecology.

Brian Tokar argues against biofuels as a solution to long-term energy needs on a national or international scale. Not only do the costs of biofuels far outweigh their benefits, he writes, their origins and production exist in fundamental conflict with achieving a sustainable society.

Peter Staudenmaier examines the controversial views of utilitarian philosopher Peter Singer on selective infanticide. Are Singer’s arguments progressive, providing insights for an ethics to guide the left? Or do his views constitute a morally bankrupt position of social prejudice that belong nowhere near us?

The only chance the world has for an ecological future is for most of us to live in cities. We must start sharing our resources and land bases, stop spreading out so much, and focus on transportation and energy resources. But for this to make sense people need to be able to make their cities their own.

By showing how the domination of women and the poisoning of nature intersects in women’s bodies, Chaia Heller argues, the concept of eco-cide takes on a social dimension which brings racism, classism, colonialism and capitalism into one clear focus—health.

Driven by commercial considerations, the biotechnology industry has for decades threatened ecosystems and human health. Despite their inherent limitations, genetic engineering and other biotechnologies are powerful tools of manipulation that serve the irrational agenda of dominating nature.

Written one month after the events, Peter Staudenmaier reflects on the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks and what sense the left could make of the trying situation. It represents a compelling commentary on the need for a continued commitment to the struggle for an emancipatory future.