To change the system, we need to understand how it connects at base level

In which context should we position the contemporary spatial practice? Politically, we look at an increasingly wider gap between ideologies. In 'Down to earth', Bruno Latour succeeds in rationalizing this spread position by examining what we can learn from the prevailing climate negationism (Latour, B., 2018). He dissects Trump's withdrawal from the Paris climate accords as a reaction to the feeling that unlimited growth simply does not fit into the available territory. The only answer - if we are not willing to adjust our thoughts on growth - is to then firmly deny that territory. But what can we do to counter this "bottomless" thinking? Latour leads us back towards Earth. This movement is based on the observation that, in our current time frame, everything starts as an ecological issue. It is not about choosing between the social or ecological side of the story, we will only be able to tackle our social challenges if we do so from the source of our existence: our soil, our territory, our Earth. And we don't have to romanticise about this: that soil doesn’t look like it did a few hundred years ago, (the influences of) humans have become inherently part of the system. To use the most obvious and literal example: we can create charts of the composition of the subsoil as it looked about a hundred years ago. But we have no idea of the most current soil conditions. Why? Because it cannot be logically extrapolated according to scientific principles, and has been influenced and mutated by irregular and difficult to trace human interventions. The atlas of the current state of our territory, which we actually need to make informed decisions, doesn't yet (or rather: no longer) exist. Or if we interpret Latour a little more broadly: it is in space, in the tangible reality where everything comes together, where we can work on change. Technological innovations can help us with this, but when it boils down to it, the spatial sum total must always fit.