An ecologist in California claimed that the iron laws of nature locked humanity into destroying our environment. This meant that we must take drastic measures to rein in unfettered capitalism and the American habit of overconsumption, lest we deplete our common resources. That argument made Garrett Hardin one of the most influential and celebrated environmentalists to ever live. Yet, he had a tragic view of the world that turned his green dream into a green nightmare.

A former journalist and environmental campaigner named Pan Yue rose through the ranks of the Chinese Communist Party, championing the concept of “ecological civilization.” This green dream combines elements of traditional Chinese culture with eco-Marxism, suggesting a radical reorientation of humanity’s relationship to the natural world. Is the idea a serious alternative to sustainable development, as the CCP claims? Or is it just a cynical cover for eco-authoritarianism?

We're playing FOREST / GARDEN, the first episode of their fourth season. In the late 1970s, there was a radical environmental movement that rejected the idea that agriculture and biodiversity needed to be at odds. They called their movement permaculture. Permaculture dissolved the dichotomy between the natural and the artificial, or between the forest and the garden. However, its advocates didn’t always honour the roots they were pulling from.

We're beginning a mid-season break. If you're new to Cited, this is a good time to explore our large archive. On this episode, we re-post part one of our award-winning series, the (ir)Rational Alaskans.

A cowboy hat-wearing Goldwater conservative named Dave Foreman got religion and then founded the most radical environmental group of recent memory, Earth First! They dreamed of a ‘deep ecology’ that recognized the inherent value of nature, and they committed to protecting that nature at almost any cost. Yet, in putting the earth first, did Dave Foreman relegate humanity to a distant second place?

An Albertan oil man and a socialist policy wonk from Saskatchewan banded together to think up “eco-development,” a precursor to today’s sustainable development. This unlikely duo forged a global consensus at the United Nations, effectively codifying the reigning orthodoxy of liberal environmental governance. They told us that capitalism and sustainability are indeed compatible. Might that be the most utopian of all green dreams?

In the 1970s, Gerard O’Neill drew up detailed plans for large space colonies. The Princeton physicist claimed that these colonies could beam limitless energy back down to Earth, solving all our environmental problems. As climate change accelerates, O’Neill’s once-forgotten green dream has become influential again; many of today’s corporate space evangelists refer to themselves as “Jerry’s Kids.” For solutions to Earth’s problems, should we look to the stars?

Plus, in the back half, we talk to Mary-Jane Rubenstein about the religious and colonial language of the early space evangelists, and why that language persists into the present day.

This is the first episode of our new season, Green Dreams. In Green Dreams, we tell stories of radical environmental thinkers and their dreams for our green future. Should we make those dreams reality, or are they actually nightmares? For a full list of credits, and for the rest of the episodes, visit the series page. Check out that page to see a preview of episode two, The Green Wonks.

Introducing our new season, Green Dreams.

Accepting the reality of climate change is just the beginning. What comes next? In Green Dreams, we tell stories of radical environmental thinkers and their dreams for our green future. Should we make those dreams reality, or are they actually nightmares?

Starting September 9, 2026, with weekly episodes through October.

Trump scores big wins by taking cheap shots at experts. Now, some worry he could try to oust Fed Chairman Jerome Powell. The typical centrist position is to defend the supposedly impartial, apolitical expertise of such figures. Yet, we know that is not right. Is there a better way to imagine a better bank?

For much of the 20th century, few economists studied inequality. Today, it's one of the most popular topics there is. Why is inequality back? Just as importantly, how could it have possibly disappeared? We survey the intellectual history of inequality studies in economics.

We're on break this week as everyone gears up for, and puzzles through, the results of this week's US election. However, we have an old Darts & Letters episode that is especially relevant to our ongoing season, the Use & Use of Economic Expertise.

Clinton's Third Way Democrats moved the party away from the unionized industrial labour that typically made up its base. Today, Clintonism is out, and Bidenomics in. Bidenomics was marketed as a political and theoretical break. Yet, beyond November 5th, Bidenomics might too be out. We look at shifting landscape of economic thinking within the Democratic Party.

We tell the story of the invention of the modern economy, or at least the idea of the economy. It starts with one measure: the GDP, or gross domestic product. Today, its a measure that dominates our politics. We have Simon Kuznets to thank for that. Yet, for Kuznets, the GDP was not what he hoped it would be.

In our finale, while the fisherman and fisherwoman of Prince William Sound hope for legal damages stemming from the Exxon Valdez disaster, Exxon fights back. In that fight, they marshal the most-respected psychologist of a generation.

A jury of ordinary Alaskans picks up the Exxon Valdez story. They muddle through the most devastating, and most complicated, environmental disaster in US history. How would they decide the case?

After the unprecedented Exxon Valdez oil spill, a jury of ordinary Alaskans decided that Exxon had to be punished. However, Exxon fought back against their punishment. They did so, in-part, by supporting research that suggested jurors are irrational. This first part, an Alaskan Nightmare, covers the spill and its immediate effects.

Early pollsters thought they had the psychological tools to quantify American mind, thereby enabling a truly democratic polity that would be governed by a rational public opinion. Today, we malign the misinformed public and dismiss the deluge of frivolous polls. How did the rational public become the phantom public?

This week, we're taking a little break before continuing our latest season, the Rationality Wars. This week, we're playing one of the our best documentary episodes from the large archive of our previous show, Darts and Letters. The episode called the Hippie High-Rise.

For seven years, from 1968 to 1975, one eighteen story high-rise was the heart of Canada's counterculture. Rochdale College in Toronto, ON, was jammed full with leftist organizers, hippies, draft dodgers, students, artists, and others just looking for a good time.

Although, Rochdale wasn't really a "college." It was something much bigger: a political, educational, communal, artistic, and psychedelic experiment. During its time, it was endlessly lambasted by conservatives and leftists alike--until it reached its inglorious end. Today, like much of the counterculture, it's often remembered for its problems: its ideological contradictions, drug-addled hedonism, bourgeois individualism, sexism, suicide, and more. However, is that the whole story? Were the kids in the hippie highrise onto something, ...or was it indeed just one giant waste of time? Marc Apollonio investigates.

A group of landholding elites waged psychological warfare on the El Salvadoran people, and oppressed them for generations. When a psychologist and Jesuit priest defended the rationality of the people against their oppressors, he paid the ultimate price. 

The psychological establishment has long pathologized diverse forms of sexual identity and gender expression. In the mid-century, a brave movement of gays and lesbians fought back and claimed: no, actually, we’re healthy. But in the process, did they define other identities unhealthy?