In his review of my book Invisible Nature: Healing the Destructive Divide Between People and the Environment, Edward Humes suggests that I should have expanded my psychology argument and given less attention to “long-dead philosophers” and historical contributions (Nature 500, 26–27; 2013). I disagree.

An interdisciplinary approach to environmental issues stands a better chance of explaining our apparently intractable modern destructiveness. And many of modernity's destructive disconnections stem from philosophical assumptions made by the founders of modern science, which can be remedied by alternative theories from dissenting scientists such as the late David Bohm, a theoretical physicist.

Humes also recommends interviewing more people about their harmful choices. But it scarcely makes sense to ask people with no experience of the destructive outcomes of their choices how that lack of experience is not influencing their choices. Furthermore, sampling interviewees would challenge the generality of the study, and would be undermined by the unreliability of self-reported attributions of behaviour.

Instead of attempting to discern good players from bad ones, I believe that it is more fruitful to study the conditions that perpetuate destructive choices by us all.