Navigating a Darker World: Division, Empathy, and the Hope for Unity

Reading Time: 33 minutes

A Darker World Today

In recent years, societies around the world have witnessed a disturbing trend: a palpable increase in societal division, rising levels of aggression, and a diminished sense of empathy. While conflict and competition have always been part of human history, today’s divide feels uniquely pervasive and personal, affecting relationships, workplaces, and even family ties. At the heart of this shift lies a complex network of social, technological, and economic forces that amplify and deepen these divisions.

Societal Division: A New Normal?

Psychologists and sociologists have observed an uptick in what’s described as “affective polarization,” where individuals not only disagree on issues but also harbor deep-seated negative feelings toward those with opposing views (Iyengar, Sood, & Lelkes, 2012). This polarization, however, is not simply about ideological rifts—it’s personal. Surveys reveal that people increasingly feel comfortable expressing disdain, and even outright hatred, toward political opponents (Pew Research Center, 2020). According to a study by More in Common, a think tank focused on social cohesion, about 80% of Americans in 2019 felt that the country was more divided than ever before (More in Common, 2019). The UK and parts of Europe report similarly rising levels of political antagonism (European Commission, 2020).

Social Media’s Influence: Amplifying Outrage and Narrowing Perspective

A significant factor behind these shifts is the ubiquitous influence of social media platforms like Facebook, Twitter, and TikTok, whose algorithms are designed to prioritize engagement. Research indicates that outrage and sensationalism increase user engagement, encouraging social media platforms to promote content that evokes strong, often negative emotions (Brady et al., 2017). As users interact with this content, they are inadvertently sorted into “echo chambers,” spaces where they are exposed primarily to views that reinforce their own. As a result, users are continually validated in their opinions and feel increasingly justified in their antagonism toward opposing views (Cinelli et al., 2021).

Decline of Empathy in the Age of Self-Interest

This intensifying divide is not only a matter of ideological differences but also reflects a more profound shift in how people perceive and treat each other. Studies indicate that empathy—the capacity to understand and share the feelings of others—has been declining over recent decades. According to research from the University of Michigan, college students’ empathy levels have dropped by nearly 40% since the 1980s, with the sharpest decline occurring in the past decade (Konrath et al., 2011). This decrease in empathy, combined with the rise of individualism, has created an environment where compassion and understanding take a back seat to self-interest and, increasingly, self-righteousness.

A World Set Against Itself

The sense of pervasive division and rising hostility is not an isolated American phenomenon but rather a global trend. In Brazil, India, Hungary, and other nations, political discourse has taken on an aggressive tone, often fueled by leaders who actively polarize their populations (Levitsky & Ziblatt, 2018). This global shift is reinforced by media coverage, which increasingly highlights sensationalized, conflict-laden stories over nuanced, fact-based reporting (McIntyre, 2018).

Social Media and the Rise of a More Divisive Society

The rise of social media has fundamentally transformed how people interact, share information, and form opinions. Platforms like Facebook, Twitter, and TikTok have not only redefined social connections but have also intensified societal divides. While these platforms were originally created to connect people, they have increasingly become arenas for discord and hostility. The algorithms that drive social media are primarily designed to keep users engaged, but recent studies indicate that these algorithms often do so by prioritizing divisive and sensational content. 

Social Media Algorithms and Echo Chambers: A Recipe for Division

Social media algorithms are programmed to promote content that drives user engagement. Engagement is often strongest with content that evokes powerful emotions—especially outrage. A study conducted by Brady et al. (2017) found that morally charged, emotionally intense content spreads more quickly on social networks than other types of content. In practical terms, this means that posts expressing anger or indignation—whether political, social, or personal—are more likely to reach a broad audience than neutral or nuanced content. As users interact with this highly charged material, they are exposed to a narrow slice of views and perspectives, reinforcing their pre-existing beliefs and creating what researchers call “echo chambers.”

Echo chambers, spaces where users primarily encounter opinions that align with their own, are particularly common on social media. Cinelli et al. (2021) describe this phenomenon as an “echo chamber effect,” where individuals are selectively exposed to information that reinforces their views, while opposing perspectives are either filtered out by algorithms or actively ignored by users. This effect is problematic because it limits people’s exposure to diverse perspectives, making it more challenging to understand and empathize with those who hold differing views. Echo chambers contribute significantly to polarization, as users become more entrenched in their beliefs and more hostile toward opposing viewpoints.

Outrage as Social Currency: The Power of Negative Engagement

In the competitive landscape of social media, outrage and controversy have become powerful tools. Social platforms effectively incentivize users to produce and share content that provokes strong reactions, as this increases engagement and boosts the visibility of posts. As a result, individuals often find themselves rewarded, either with more likes or followers, for posts that stir division rather than bridge it. A study by Crockett (2017) in Nature Human Behaviour highlights how outrage-driven interactions on social media can reinforce users’ beliefs while also rewarding them socially for expressing outrage.

This trend has led to what some researchers call “moral grandstanding” (Tosi & Warmke, 2020), where individuals make increasingly extreme statements to signal their moral superiority. These statements may not reflect genuine beliefs but serve instead to gain validation and status within one’s social group. This behavior further entrenches polarization, as users feel pressure to adopt more extreme positions to gain approval within their echo chambers.

Social Media and Mental Health: Reinforcing Negative Emotions

The psychological impacts of this constant exposure to divisive content are far-reaching. Studies suggest that increased use of social media is correlated with heightened stress, anxiety, and feelings of isolation (Twenge & Campbell, 2019). Social media platforms are not only sites for information exchange but also emotional amplifiers, where users’ feelings of anger, frustration, and helplessness can intensify. According to a report by the American Psychological Association (APA, 2017), the near-constant consumption of polarizing information can erode users’ sense of well-being and lead to a more negative outlook on humanity. In a world where people are continually exposed to others’ outrage and anger, it is easy for individuals to start seeing society as inherently divided and antagonistic.

A Vicious Cycle of Division

Social media’s impact on division is not simply incidental; it is systemic. Algorithms prioritize engagement because it benefits platform revenue models, leading to a self-perpetuating cycle where divisive content is promoted and engagement is rewarded, which in turn feeds back into the system. In an interconnected world where billions of people rely on social media for information, the implications are profound. This structure of incentivized division is one of the most significant factors in the growing sense of hostility and polarization that pervades societies today.

Toward Understanding the Impact

The role of social media in deepening social divides is not limited to any single platform or community. It is a global phenomenon, affecting societies across cultures and political landscapes. With engagement-driven algorithms continually pushing users into more radicalized and insulated communities, the world faces a growing crisis of empathy and understanding. As people are increasingly pulled into digital silos, their ability to connect and empathize across divides weakens, laying the groundwork for the hostility and factionalism that now seem so common.

The Post-Truth Era: Definition and Implications

The term “post-truth” entered the mainstream lexicon around 2016, when it was named the Oxford English Dictionary’s Word of the Year. It describes a world where emotional appeal and personal beliefs hold more influence than objective facts, creating a reality where facts are no longer universally accepted but are instead questioned, reframed, or outright dismissed in favour of personal conviction. In a post-truth society, factual information becomes malleable, and the line between truth and fiction blurs. This shift toward a post-truth era has had far-reaching effects on social cohesion, trust, and the very fabric of democratic discourse.

Defining Post-Truth: Facts versus Belief

The concept of post-truth is rooted in the prioritization of personal beliefs and emotional resonance over objective facts. McIntyre (2018) defines post-truth as “a condition in which objective facts are less influential in shaping public opinion than appeals to emotion and personal belief.” The term is not merely about lying or deceit but reflects a broader social phenomenon where facts become secondary to subjective interpretation. In a post-truth world, facts can be selectively chosen, altered, or ignored to support one’s viewpoint, creating a sense of “alternative facts” that allows each group to operate in its own reality.

This rejection of shared truth poses significant challenges for society. In democracies, consensus on basic truths is crucial for informed debate, policy-making, and the functioning of institutions. However, when facts are treated as negotiable, it becomes nearly impossible to address critical issues objectively. A study by Lewandowsky et al. (2017) in Nature Human Behaviour shows that the post-truth mindset is fueled by “motivated reasoning,” where individuals actively seek information that reinforces their beliefs, often disregarding credible evidence to the contrary. This process is intensified by the accessibility of misinformation online and the natural tendency for people to avoid cognitive dissonance, or the discomfort of confronting conflicting information.

The Post-Truth Mindset: Why Debate Gives Way to Combat

In the post-truth era, societal debates have increasingly shifted from a focus on evidence and persuasion to a struggle for ideological dominance. Researchers argue that in a landscape where facts are negotiable, arguments become less about finding common ground and more about “winning” (Runciman, 2018). This shift has led to a communication style where individuals feel more compelled to defend their stance aggressively, viewing dissent as a personal attack rather than an opportunity for constructive dialogue.

The phenomenon of “epistemic closure,” where individuals only seek information from sources that align with their beliefs, further exacerbates this issue (Jamieson & Cappella, 2008). As people retreat into their respective information bubbles, there is less room for compromise, and disagreement becomes synonymous with enmity. This dynamic has been documented in studies examining “motivated skepticism,” a tendency for individuals to be more critical of evidence that challenges their beliefs (Taber & Lodge, 2006). The result is a culture of intellectual isolation where debate feels increasingly adversarial and uncompromising.

The Political Rise of Post-Truth: From Trump to Global Trends

The rise of post-truth thinking has been particularly visible in political spheres. Many scholars argue that the 2016 U.S. presidential election marked a key turning point, not only in American politics but in global trends toward populist, post-truth leadership. Donald Trump’s campaign and subsequent presidency brought attention to the practice of promoting “alternative facts”—a term famously used by then-advisor Kellyanne Conway. Trump’s rhetoric, often described as populist and anti-establishment, resonated with those who felt alienated from traditional institutions and were more likely to question established truths (Hahl et al., 2018).

This trend has not been confined to the United States. In the Philippines, President Rodrigo Duterte adopted similar tactics, using emotionally charged language to rally support and dismissing criticism as “fake news.” Leaders in Brazil, Hungary, and Turkey have similarly leveraged post-truth rhetoric, framing themselves as champions of “the people” against a supposedly corrupt or out-of-touch establishment (Mounk, 2018). In each case, the leaders’ disregard for factual accuracy, combined with their emphasis on emotion and identity, helped them build loyal bases that are often impervious to contradictory evidence.

Why Facts Have Become Secondary

The post-truth mindset thrives on what scholars call “confirmation bias,” a psychological tendency to favor information that affirms one’s pre-existing beliefs. Social media platforms, which prioritize emotionally resonant content, exacerbate this tendency by feeding users content that aligns with their views. Pariser’s (2011) concept of the “filter bubble” aptly describes this phenomenon: as algorithms cater to users’ preferences, individuals become ensnared in ideological bubbles that reinforce their biases.

In a post-truth world, individuals can effectively curate their reality, finding information—regardless of credibility—that supports their viewpoint. This shift is reinforced by an erosion of trust in traditional media and scientific institutions, which were once widely viewed as arbiters of truth. According to a 2020 study by the Edelman Trust Barometer, trust in media and government institutions has been declining globally, with only 53% of respondents expressing trust in media organizations (Edelman, 2020). Without a shared belief in reliable sources, individuals increasingly turn to partisan or alternative outlets that reaffirm their beliefs, further deepening polarization.

The Consequences of Post-Truth: Implications for Society

The post-truth era has profound implications for society. In a world where facts are malleable, it becomes easier for populist leaders to manipulate narratives, gain support, and erode democratic norms. Issues such as climate change, economic inequality, and social justice require broad consensus and cooperation, yet the post-truth mindset fosters a divisive environment where agreement feels increasingly out of reach. In this fragmented landscape, societies struggle to confront complex problems that demand evidence-based solutions.

The effects of this mindset go beyond politics; they permeate everyday interactions, diminishing people’s ability to engage constructively and empathize with others. As Lewandowsky and colleagues (2017) note, the post-truth mindset ultimately damages democratic societies by fostering “tribalism” over cooperation. This erosion of a shared reality sets the stage for escalating conflict, where dialogue and compromise are replaced by dogmatism and social fragmentation.

Political Shifts and the Rise of Nationalist Conservatism

Over the past decade, political landscapes worldwide have shifted toward an increasingly polarized and nationalist form of conservatism. Once characterized by relatively centrist values rooted in traditionalism and religious morals, conservatism in many countries has taken a radical turn, embracing nationalism and authoritarianism. This shift was most visibly marked by the election of Donald Trump in 2016, which set off a series of similar movements around the globe, culminating in his re-election in 2024. 

The Shift from Center-Right to Radical Right: A New Conservative Identity

Historically, conservative ideologies were rooted in values like tradition, religion, family, and national pride, usually expressed in moderation within the framework of democratic norms. However, since Trump’s election, conservatism has increasingly diverged from these moderate foundations. Today’s nationalist conservatism blends populist appeals with authoritarian tactics, emphasizing strict immigration policies, hostility toward political opponents, and a rejection of established institutions, including the press, academia, and scientific organizations (Hawkins et al., 2019).

This transformation has been widely observed. Political scientists Norris and Inglehart (2019) describe the shift as a “cultural backlash,” where conservative supporters, feeling alienated by globalism, immigration, and progressive social changes, gravitate toward candidates who pledge to “restore” a national identity they perceive as under threat. The rhetoric often combines patriotic fervour with fear-mongering, framing minorities, migrants, and the political left as enemies. Leaders who embrace this approach, like Hungary’s Viktor Orbán, Brazil’s Jair Bolsonaro, and India’s Narendra Modi, have leveraged it to consolidate power and appeal to segments of society that feel culturally or economically marginalized.

The Appeal of Extremist Leaders: Why Radical Conservatism Resonates

A common question arises: why would people vote for candidates who employ fear, anger, and sometimes outright deception as part of their platform? Studies show that these tactics resonate because they appeal to basic psychological needs, including the desire for security, stability, and belonging. Hahl, Kim, and Zuckerman Sivan (2018) found that populist leaders who portray themselves as “authentic” truth-tellers—even while spreading misinformation—are often more appealing to voters who feel disillusioned by traditional politics.

The phenomenon can also be understood through the concept of “authoritarian personality” theory, which suggests that individuals with high levels of authoritarianism—marked by conformity, aggression toward outsiders, and obedience to authority—are drawn to strong leaders who promise order and simplicity in a complex world (Adorno et al., 1950; Stenner, 2005). This psychological disposition, combined with economic anxiety and cultural displacement, has led to a resurgence in support for leaders who promise to restore “order” at any cost.

From Trump to the Global Stage: Nationalism as a Political Strategy

Trump’s election in 2016 catalyzed a wave of right-wing, nationalist movements around the world. His campaign strategy, which leveraged populist, anti-establishment messages, emboldened similar movements across Europe, Latin America, and Asia. Leaders like Orbán and Poland’s Jarosław Kaczyński adopted similar tactics, railing against elites, restricting press freedoms, and marginalizing minority groups. This trend reflects what Mudde (2019) terms “nativist populism,” an ideology that combines nationalist pride with a fear of foreign influence, championing a return to an idealized past.

In many cases, these nationalist leaders have succeeded not only in winning elections but also in reshaping democratic institutions to fit their agendas. Orbán, for instance, has systematically reduced judicial independence, limited press freedom, and strengthened state control over education and the arts, creating what some scholars call a “soft autocracy” (Scheppele, 2018). This erosion of checks and balances is not unique to Hungary. In Brazil, Bolsonaro openly praised the country’s former military dictatorship and introduced policies that limit indigenous rights and environmental protections, further centralizing power and eroding democratic principles.

The Allure of Nationalism and Authoritarianism: A Sense of Belonging

One reason nationalist leaders find such fervent support is that they create a powerful sense of identity and belonging. By defining “true” citizens in opposition to foreigners, political elites, and minorities, these leaders appeal to citizens’ need for community, particularly those who feel left behind by globalization and multiculturalism (Mudde & Kaltwasser, 2017). This divisive rhetoric, while dangerous for social cohesion, provides psychological comfort to those who feel that the world is changing too quickly.

This need for a strong identity is reflected in social media behaviour, where users increasingly rally around nationalist causes, promoting symbols, slogans, and content that reinforce their values. Studies on social media and political engagement show that when users feel that their in-group is under threat, they become more likely to share nationalist content and support authoritarian ideas (Klein & Robison, 2020). As a result, social media not only facilitates but amplifies the spread of nationalism and authoritarianism.

Voting for Conviction: Trusting the Strongman

In many cases, people appear willing to vote for leaders with criminal records or histories of deception. Trump’s ability to maintain a loyal voter base despite legal battles and well-documented lies is a striking example. According to research by Oliver Hahl and colleagues, the paradox of the “lying demagogue” suggests that voters may perceive these leaders as “authentic” precisely because they break the norms of political correctness and challenge the establishment. Voters interpret these behaviours as evidence that the candidate is “one of them,” unaffected by the elite values of transparency and diplomacy.

This paradox highlights a troubling truth about today’s political climate: for many voters, an unpolished, even morally dubious leader feels more trustworthy than a candidate who seems too polished or “establishment.” This preference is often magnified by a post-truth media environment, where truth and lies blend seamlessly, and facts become secondary to emotional resonance.

Consequences for Democracy: Toward a More Divisive Society

The shift toward nationalism and radical conservatism has profound implications for democracy. As leaders erode institutional checks and use nationalist rhetoric to create scapegoats, citizens become more entrenched in their ideological divides. With fewer shared beliefs, societies fracture into factions, each convinced of its own moral and factual superiority. This trend, documented by Levitsky and Ziblatt (2018) in How Democracies Die, marks a return to a time when politics was more about tribal allegiance than democratic dialogue.

The global rise of nationalist conservatism thus threatens to undermine not only individual countries but also the international order. As democracies weaken and leaders become more authoritarian, the international community faces the challenge of maintaining global cooperation in a world where isolationism and division are increasingly the norm.

The Role of Capitalism in Social Fragmentation

At the core of today’s social fragmentation lies a global economic model that prioritizes individual success over communal well-being. The modern capitalist system, particularly in its neoliberal form, has not only widened economic inequality but has also fostered a culture of individualism and competition. As societies grow more divided and individuals feel increasingly isolated, the consequences of unchecked capitalism reveal themselves in eroding empathy, weakening community bonds, and heightening the emphasis on self-interest. 

Toxic Individualism and the Decline of Community

Capitalism, as it has evolved in recent decades, places immense value on personal achievement, often equating success with material wealth. While this incentive structure has driven economic growth and innovation, it has also promoted a culture of toxic individualism, where self-interest overshadows collective responsibility. Richard Sennett (2006) describes this phenomenon as the erosion of “social bonds,” noting how an overemphasis on personal success leads individuals to view others not as part of a community, but as competitors or obstacles to their goals. This mentality has led to the disintegration of communal support systems, leaving individuals more isolated and less inclined to support collective initiatives that benefit society as a whole.

The impact of individualism is visible in various social indicators. Studies show that as societies become more individualistic, rates of loneliness, mental health disorders, and suicide increase (Twenge et al., 2019). When economic success becomes the primary measure of worth, people may feel pressured to prioritize their own advancement over relationships and community, leading to a breakdown of empathy and a sense of alienation.

Capitalism and Social Inequality: A Widening Divide

The emphasis on self-interest in capitalist societies has also exacerbated economic inequality, which in turn contributes to social fragmentation. Data from the World Inequality Report 2022 shows that income and wealth inequality have increased significantly in recent decades, with the richest 1% holding more wealth than the bottom 50% combined (Alvaredo et al., 2022). This disparity not only concentrates power within a small segment of society but also breeds resentment and social division as the middle and lower classes feel increasingly marginalized.

Economic inequality impacts social cohesion by creating starkly different experiences and priorities within society. Wealthier individuals, who benefit from the current system, tend to support policies that maintain or enhance their status, often at the expense of broader public services. Meanwhile, those with fewer resources face daily struggles that alienate them from mainstream political narratives. According to Wilkinson and Pickett (2009), societies with higher levels of economic inequality experience more social issues, including lower levels of trust, higher rates of mental illness, and weaker community engagement.

Self-Centeredness and the Decline of Empathy

In a society that prizes individual achievement, empathy can quickly become a secondary value. Capitalism’s emphasis on personal responsibility often leads to a “blame the victim” mentality, where those who struggle economically or socially are perceived as failing due to their own shortcomings, rather than as part of systemic issues. Psychologists call this the “just world hypothesis,” a cognitive bias where people believe the world is inherently fair, and thus individuals get what they deserve (Lerner, 1980). This mindset reduces empathy toward those who face poverty, discrimination, or other systemic barriers, fostering a divisive “us versus them” mentality that further fractures society.

This trend is evident in discussions around social safety nets, where debates over welfare, healthcare, and housing assistance are often framed as issues of personal responsibility. A Pew Research Center survey (2019) found that nearly half of Americans believe that people are poor due to “lack of effort,” while fewer attribute it to external circumstances. This perception fuels policies that cut back on social welfare programs, reinforcing cycles of poverty and social exclusion. As a result, those who are marginalized or vulnerable become further disenfranchised, feeling disconnected from a society that appears indifferent to their needs.

The Rise of “Winner-Takes-All” Capitalism

Another aspect of capitalism that contributes to social fragmentation is the “winner-takes-all” culture, where a few individuals or companies capture the majority of rewards. In recent years, sectors like technology, finance, and entertainment have created hyper-competitive environments where only the most successful gain substantial rewards, while the rest struggle. Frank and Cook (1995) explore this dynamic in The Winner-Take-All Society, where they argue that winner-takes-all markets distort incentives, fostering envy and resentment among those who feel excluded from the rewards.

This culture has profound social implications. In societies dominated by winner-takes-all capitalism, individuals are encouraged to view success as a zero-sum game, where one person’s gain is another’s loss. Such a mindset not only erodes social trust but also increases hostility and reduces the willingness to cooperate. In workplaces, communities, and even families, this competitive mentality can lead to conflicts and strained relationships. When combined with the erosion of social safety nets, the result is a society where individuals feel disconnected, disempowered, and distrustful of each other.

Capitalism and the Erosion of Democracy

One of the most concerning consequences of unchecked capitalism is its impact on democratic institutions. When wealth is concentrated in the hands of a few, these individuals or corporations can exert significant influence over political processes, often shaping policies in their favour. This dynamic creates what political scientists call an “oligarchic” structure, where a small, wealthy elite holds disproportionate power over government decisions. Gilens and Page (2014) found that policy outcomes in the United States often align more closely with the preferences of economic elites than with those of the general public, suggesting that the democratic ideal of equal representation is increasingly compromised.

As citizens feel that their voices are unheard and their needs are unmet, faith in democracy weakens. A 2020 study by the Pew Research Center found that nearly 60% of Americans believe that their government primarily serves the interests of the wealthy. This perception contributes to political disengagement, voter apathy, and even sympathy toward authoritarian leaders who promise to challenge “corrupt elites.” In this sense, capitalism, by empowering the wealthy at the expense of the average citizen, not only undermines social cohesion but also threatens the integrity of democratic governance.

Toward a More Compassionate Economic Model

Critics of capitalism argue that a more sustainable, compassionate economic system is essential for healing the social fragmentation of today. Alternatives like “degrowth” and “solidarity economy” propose models that prioritize environmental sustainability, community well-being, and collective responsibility over individual profit (Kallis, 2018). Degrowth, in particular, challenges the capitalist focus on perpetual economic growth, advocating for a society where well-being is not measured by GDP but by social and environmental health.

The degrowth model envisions an economy that meets people’s needs without exhausting resources or fostering competition. Instead, it emphasizes cooperation, empathy, and sustainability, aiming to create a society where individuals feel valued not for their productivity or wealth, but for their contribution to the community. By reducing economic inequality and prioritizing social welfare, a degrowth-based economy could potentially address some of the root causes of social fragmentation and foster a more inclusive and supportive society.

Impacts on Critical Global Issues

The repercussions of societal division and economic inequality are perhaps most visible in how they affect the world’s most pressing challenges. From climate change and refugee crises to the erosion of democratic institutions, these divides undermine efforts to address global issues that require unity, cooperation, and trust. 

Climate Crisis Denial and the Undermining of Science

As global temperatures rise, so does the urgency to act on the climate crisis. Yet, in a society fragmented by post-truth thinking and polarized by populist leaders, public consensus on the climate crisis has weakened. The climate crisis, despite its scientific foundation, has become a polarized issue, with some political leaders dismissing it as a “hoax” (Dunlap & McCright, 2015). This denialism is not limited to individual politicians; it is often supported by wealthy, vested interests—fossil fuel companies, for example—who wield significant influence over policy-making, particularly in capitalist societies where wealth can translate directly into political power (Oreskes & Conway, 2010).

The Trump administration’s rollback of environmental regulations and defunding of agencies like the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) illustrates how leadership can actively erode climate action. This trend threatens not only U.S. efforts to combat the climate crisis but also global cooperation, as the U.S. has traditionally played a leadership role in international climate agreements like the Paris Accord. When one of the world’s largest economies backslides on climate commitments, it sets a precedent for other nations to follow, undermining collective action and worsening the crisis.

Refugee Crisis: A Climate and Political Catastrophe

The world faces an impending refugee crisis fueled by climate change. As rising sea levels and extreme weather displace populations, millions of people will be forced to migrate in search of safety and resources. Yet, in countries where nationalist rhetoric and xenophobia are on the rise, refugees are increasingly viewed as threats rather than individuals in need. This perception is stoked by political leaders who exploit fear of “outsiders” for political gain, framing refugees as threats to national security, culture, and economic stability (Betts & Collier, 2017).

In Europe and the United States, we have already seen a tightening of borders, an increase in refugee detention centres, and a rise in anti-immigrant sentiment. According to a report from the United Nations Refugee Agency (2021), climate-driven displacement is expected to significantly increase in the coming decades. Without international cooperation and empathy-driven policies, these refugees risk being criminalized, dehumanized, and subjected to inhumane conditions. This radicalization against refugees not only poisons the social and political climate but also poses ethical and humanitarian questions that will define the future of human rights.

Decreasing Trust in Public Institutions and Rise of Authoritarianism

One of the most significant impacts of social and economic fragmentation is the erosion of trust in public institutions. As inequality grows and political leaders capitalize on fear and division, citizens’ faith in state institutions declines. The media, judiciary, and electoral systems—once seen as pillars of democracy—are increasingly viewed as corrupt, biased, or ineffective. This skepticism creates a fertile ground for authoritarian leaders, who present themselves as alternatives to “broken” systems and promise to dismantle perceived inefficiencies.

In countries like Hungary, Turkey, and Brazil, we’ve seen how such leaders use their power to weaken institutional checks and concentrate authority in the executive branch (Levitsky & Ziblatt, 2018). These leaders often gain popular support by attacking traditional democratic institutions as corrupt or out of touch, offering “strongman” rule as a solution. As a result, democratic norms are gradually dismantled, and citizens lose access to fair and transparent governance.

When heads of state openly lie, promote hatred, and persecute political opponents, they set a precedent that degrades civil discourse and weakens the rule of law. According to the International Institute for Democracy and Electoral Assistance (2021), democratic backsliding has accelerated globally, with more governments adopting authoritarian practices, even in traditionally democratic nations. This shift has far-reaching consequences for society, as it erodes the foundational principles of democracy—such as accountability, transparency, and respect for dissent.

Implications for the Climate Crisis and Global Cooperation

The rise of authoritarianism and the decline of trust in institutions also have profound consequences for addressing the climate crisis. Authoritarian leaders, focused on short-term political gain and economic growth, often deprioritize environmental sustainability. For example, Jair Bolsonaro’s policies in Brazil have led to accelerated deforestation in the Amazon, weakening one of the planet’s critical carbon sinks (Branford & Torres, 2021). When political leaders actively oppose climate science and environmental regulation, the consequences extend beyond national borders, accelerating climate change and increasing the risk of extreme weather events worldwide.

Moreover, as authoritarian leaders gain traction, they often reduce or eliminate funding for climate-focused agencies. In the United States, Trump’s proposed budget cuts to the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) and EPA serve as an example of how an administration can weaken a nation’s ability to address climate-related issues. Without adequate funding for research, monitoring, and enforcement, these agencies struggle to fulfil their mandates, leaving society vulnerable to the impacts of climate change.

The Erosion of Empathy and Societal Brutalization

Perhaps one of the most distressing impacts of the rise of authoritarianism and economic individualism is the brutalization of human relationships and society. When leaders promote hate, intolerance, and violence, they create an environment where such behaviours become normalized. This brutalization erodes the foundations of empathy, tolerance, and compassion, leading to a society where people are more likely to see others as adversaries than as fellow human beings.

The normalization of hate speech and divisive rhetoric is evident in the rise of racist, sexist, and xenophobic incidents across the globe (Amnesty International, 2021). The U.N. Office on Genocide Prevention (2021) warns that hateful and divisive rhetoric from leaders increases the risk of social violence and, in extreme cases, can pave the way for human rights abuses and atrocities. In this context, societal brutalization becomes not only a threat to democracy but also to the social fabric that holds communities together.

A Threat to Humanity’s Future

The current trend of division, hostility, and intolerance not only affects individual nations but also threatens global stability. The challenges of climate change, economic inequality, and displacement require unprecedented international cooperation. However, as societies fragment and leaders prioritize nationalist agendas, the capacity for such cooperation diminishes. This division could have catastrophic consequences, especially as the climate crisis escalates and the scarcity of resources heightens tensions between countries and communities.

The stakes are high. Humanity faces the existential question of whether it can overcome these divisions and work collectively toward solutions that benefit all. Leaders who promote division, authoritarianism, and short-term economic gain threaten to undermine efforts to address not only immediate crises but also the very future of human civilization.

Existential Questions for Humanity’s Future

As the impacts of economic individualism, social fragmentation, and authoritarian governance continue to deepen, humanity faces pressing existential questions. The issues of climate change, social brutality, and rising authoritarianism raise concerns not only about the health of our societies but about the future of humanity as a whole. How can societies evolve in a way that fosters unity, empathy, and shared responsibility? 

The Social Cost of Division: Fragmentation and the Loss of Empathy

In a world increasingly divided along political, social, and economic lines, empathy and understanding become casualties of polarization. Social scientists argue that high levels of inequality and social division make it harder for individuals to feel compassion for others, particularly those outside their own “tribe” or socioeconomic class (Wilkinson & Pickett, 2009). As society divides into insular groups, individuals are more likely to dehumanize others, leading to increased hostility, hate speech, and social conflict. This phenomenon, often referred to as “tribalism,” threatens to create permanent fault lines in society that weaken social cohesion.

Social psychology research has shown that empathy is essential for reducing intergroup hostility and fostering cooperation (Batson, 2011). Without it, societies risk devolving into factions that view one another with suspicion or contempt. The brutalization of society, where violence and hostility become normalized, has profound impacts on social stability. Leaders who encourage divisive rhetoric and policies reinforce these negative dynamics, pushing societies further from a collaborative, empathetic future.

Climate Crisis and the Ethics of Inaction

The climate crisis, an issue that requires unprecedented levels of global cooperation, illustrates the perils of an individualistic and divided world. Addressing climate change involves actions that may, in the short term, conflict with economic gain or personal convenience. However, when societies and their leaders prioritize short-term profits over long-term sustainability, they create an ethical dilemma. Economists like Nicholas Stern (2006) argue that the cost of inaction on climate change will far exceed the costs of immediate action, yet political and economic leaders often resist meaningful change.

Inaction on climate change exacerbates existing inequalities and worsens humanitarian crises, creating a world where the vulnerable are disproportionately affected. Rising sea levels, extreme weather, and resource scarcity will likely lead to more displacement and conflict, pushing societies even closer to the brink. Scientists warn that if global temperatures rise beyond 1.5 degrees Celsius, the resulting ecological and social disruptions may be irreversible (IPCC, 2021).

The Erosion of Trust and the Fragility of Democracy

Trust is essential to the functioning of any democratic society, yet it is increasingly undermined in today’s polarized world. Authoritarian leaders who seek to consolidate power often do so by attacking democratic institutions, promoting disinformation, and creating environments of mistrust. As citizens lose faith in government and media institutions, they become more susceptible to radical ideologies and autocratic solutions.

In their study on democratic erosion, Levitsky and Ziblatt (2018) found that authoritarianism often arises when citizens no longer trust democratic processes and institutions to address their needs. When people lose faith in democracy, they may begin to view authoritarianism as a viable alternative, especially if it promises to restore “order” and security. However, history shows that authoritarianism rarely brings stability in the long term. Instead, it leads to repression, decreased personal freedoms, and the erosion of human rights.

Technology, Misinformation, and the Battle for Reality

In a society increasingly driven by digital interactions, technology has become both a tool for connection and a weapon for division. Social media platforms amplify misinformation, creating parallel realities where citizens cannot agree on basic facts. This “battle for reality” has significant consequences, as people become less willing to trust information that contradicts their beliefs. As mentioned in earlier sections, the effects of social media echo chambers and confirmation bias contribute to an environment where people are more likely to dismiss or ignore evidence, even on issues as urgent as climate change.

Philosophers and social scientists warn that this fragmentation of truth endangers democratic discourse (McIntyre, 2018). A society that cannot agree on basic facts is unlikely to address complex issues collaboratively. To move forward, societies must find ways to promote media literacy, encourage critical thinking, and regulate misinformation, particularly on platforms with significant influence.

A Crossroads for Humanity: Cooperation or Collapse

At this critical juncture, humanity must decide whether it will continue on a path of division or forge a new way forward. This choice is not merely philosophical but one with profound, tangible impacts. Economists, sociologists, and environmental scientists argue that without a shift toward global cooperation, humanity risks facing a future of scarcity, conflict, and ecological collapse. However, the concept of degrowth—an economic model that prioritizes well-being and sustainability over perpetual growth—presents an alternative to the extractive, competitive framework of capitalism.

Degrowth proponents argue that by reducing consumption, redistributing resources, and embracing sustainable practices, societies can avoid the pitfalls of environmental degradation and social division. This model also emphasizes collective well-being and community engagement, which could help rebuild social trust and reduce isolation (Kallis, 2018). Degrowth challenges the assumption that economic growth is inherently positive, proposing instead that happiness and social stability are best achieved through equity and sustainable practices.

Reclaiming Empathy, Trust, and Community: A Vision for the Future

The future of humanity depends on our ability to rebuild empathy, trust, and community. To overcome the divisions that currently define society, individuals and institutions must prioritize values that promote social cohesion. Educational reform, community-building initiatives, and policies that prioritize social welfare over corporate profit are all part of this vision. For example, implementing social safety nets, increasing mental health support, and fostering inclusive dialogue can help societies heal and rebuild.

Furthermore, leaders must take responsibility for promoting these values rather than exploiting divisions for political gain. Citizens also have a role to play, demanding accountability, transparency, and action from their leaders. As societies become more educated about issues like climate change, inequality, and democratic integrity, they are better equipped to hold those in power accountable.

The existential questions humanity faces—how to address the climate crisis, protect democracy, and foster empathy—require solutions that transcend borders and ideologies. This moment in history offers an opportunity to reimagine society, prioritizing sustainability, inclusivity, and collective well-being. By adopting these principles, humanity can turn away from the divisive and self-centered path it currently follows and build a future rooted in cooperation, empathy, and resilience.

Toward a Path of Healing and Unity

Amid a world of growing divisions and mounting global challenges, the need for healing and unity has never been more urgent. Reversing the trends of polarization and division will require efforts on multiple fronts, from reforming social institutions and media to reimagining economic priorities. 

Rebuilding Trust in Institutions and Promoting Transparency

The erosion of trust in democratic institutions has fueled cynicism and alienation, weakening societies from within. To rebuild trust, governments and organizations must prioritize transparency and accountability. A 2020 report by the Edelman Trust Barometer found that nearly half of people globally believe that their government does not serve their interests, creating a sense of disillusionment that autocratic leaders often exploit (Edelman, 2020). Strengthening democratic practices, from fair and transparent elections to judicial independence, is essential in restoring confidence in governance.

Moreover, increased transparency in government and corporate practices can help counter the perception that elites hold disproportionate power. Whistleblower protections, public access to information, and independent media outlets are all critical in ensuring that individuals can hold institutions accountable. As trust is gradually rebuilt, citizens may feel a stronger connection to their government and communities, promoting a more inclusive and cooperative society.

Media Literacy and Regulating Misinformation

The proliferation of misinformation has deepened societal divides and fragmented the public’s perception of truth. Promoting media literacy, especially among young people, is essential in empowering individuals to critically evaluate the information they consume. Research suggests that more media-literate people are better equipped to identify misinformation, understand bias, and resist manipulative tactics (Mihailidis & Viotty, 2017).

In addition to education, governments and tech companies can collaborate on responsible policies to reduce the spread of harmful misinformation. Social media platforms have a role to play in identifying and flagging misleading or false information, particularly on issues as critical as climate change, public health, and election integrity. While such measures raise concerns about free speech, clear guidelines and ethical standards can help create a balance between protecting democratic discourse and ensuring public access to reliable information.

Embracing Empathy and Reviving Civic Engagement

One of the most effective antidotes to division is empathy. In a polarized world, fostering understanding and compassion across divides is essential to building bridges. Programs that promote empathy through community engagement, dialogue, and education can help people connect with those from different backgrounds. For example, initiatives like Better Angels in the U.S. bring together people from opposing political perspectives to engage in constructive, empathetic conversations. Research shows that empathy-based interventions can reduce prejudice and increase openness to other viewpoints (Batson et al., 1997).

Civic engagement is also crucial to overcoming isolation and strengthening community bonds. When individuals participate in volunteer activities, local government, or community projects, they are more likely to feel a sense of connection and shared purpose. Governments and educational institutions can play a role in encouraging civic participation through programs that involve youth in community service, public policy discussions, and social causes. By focusing on local issues and fostering a sense of collective responsibility, societies can rekindle a sense of unity and shared goals.

Degrowth and Prioritizing Well-Being over Profit

The current model of perpetual economic growth has contributed to environmental degradation, economic inequality, and a culture of competition. Degrowth—a concept that advocates for reducing consumption and prioritizing well-being over profit—offers an alternative path forward. Proponents of degrowth argue that by shifting societal values from material wealth to well-being, sustainability, and community, societies can address some of the underlying drivers of social division and environmental destruction (Kallis, 2018).

Implementing degrowth principles could involve policies that limit waste, promote sustainable production, and prioritize human welfare. This shift could also mean investing in social safety nets, public health, and education rather than corporate subsidies or resource-intensive industries. By fostering an economy that values people and the planet, degrowth offers a vision of a society where cooperation, compassion, and resilience replace the destructive cycles of competition and overconsumption.

Educational Reform for a More Equitable and Informed Society

Education is one of the most powerful tools for societal change. By reforming education to prioritize critical thinking, empathy, and environmental awareness, societies can equip the next generation to address the world’s most pressing issues thoughtfully and collaboratively. For example, programs that teach students about the interconnectedness of global issues—like climate change, social justice, and economic inequality—can cultivate a sense of global citizenship and shared responsibility.

Additionally, educational systems can benefit from policies that reduce inequality by providing equal resources, opportunities, and support for all students. Equal access to quality education helps level the playing field, reducing the socioeconomic gaps that fuel division. As students develop skills in empathy, media literacy, and critical thinking, they are better prepared to participate in a democratic society and engage in constructive dialogue across divides.

Redefining Success and Rethinking the Role of Capitalism

The notion of success in modern capitalist societies is often defined by wealth, power, and individual achievement. This focus has fostered a culture of self-interest, where personal success is prized above community welfare. Rethinking what it means to be successful could be transformative for society. Rather than focusing on material gain, societies could begin to celebrate contributions to the community, personal growth, and environmental stewardship.

Redefining success could also involve reassessing the role of capitalism. Many economists and social scientists argue that unbridled capitalism, with its emphasis on profit maximization, contributes to environmental degradation, economic inequality, and social fragmentation (Piketty, 2014). By balancing market forces with social welfare policies, countries can create a more equitable society where everyone has access to basic resources and opportunities. Models like social democracy, which combine market economies with strong public safety nets, offer a potential middle path between capitalism and socialism, where the economy serves the collective good rather than individual interests.

A Global Perspective: International Cooperation for a Resilient Future

Global challenges require global solutions. The climate crisis, for example, is a collective problem that no single country can solve alone. Similarly, issues like refugee displacement, economic inequality, and pandemics demand international cooperation. Institutions like the United Nations, World Health Organization, and International Monetary Fund play crucial roles in fostering this cooperation, but they need adequate support and reforms to address contemporary issues effectively.

Promoting international cooperation will require nations to recognize their interdependence. In an increasingly interconnected world, the welfare of one country affects others. By investing in global initiatives like climate adaptation, humanitarian aid, and peacebuilding, countries can work together to build a more resilient and equitable world. For example, treaties on climate action, such as the Paris Agreement, are essential frameworks that guide nations toward shared goals, even when domestic policies differ.

The Way Forward: A Collective Vision for Humanity

Moving toward a path of healing and unity will require collective action, individual accountability, and transformative leadership. Citizens, institutions, and governments must work together to prioritize empathy, sustainability, and social welfare over division and profit. While the challenges are immense, this moment in history offers an opportunity to redefine what society values and reshape the future in a way that benefits all.

The journey toward unity and healing is not solely the responsibility of governments or leaders. Each individual plays a role in fostering understanding, questioning divisive narratives, and advocating for inclusive policies. By embracing a future where cooperation, empathy, and sustainability guide decision-making, humanity can address its most pressing challenges and move toward a world that is not only more unified but also better equipped to face the existential questions of our time.

Conclusion: Can We Find Light in a Darker World?

As societies across the globe grapple with division, authoritarianism, and environmental degradation, the question remains: can humanity find a way back to unity, empathy, and shared purpose? This article has explored the many forces driving social fragmentation and examined how polarization, capitalism, and a lack of accountability are pulling societies apart. Yet, amid these challenges lies an opportunity to redefine what matters—to prioritize sustainability, equity, and compassion over profit and individualism.

The divisions and mistrust that characterize today’s world are not inevitable; they are, to a significant extent, the result of choices made by leaders, institutions, and individuals alike. By acknowledging the forces that contribute to division, humanity can take intentional steps to reverse these trends and create a future that serves everyone, not just the privileged few. This requires a collective commitment to rebuilding trust, redefining success, and investing in social and environmental well-being.

The Role of Individuals: Fostering Empathy and Accountability

Change begins at the individual level. In a world where division and anger are often amplified, choosing empathy, kindness, and open-mindedness is a powerful act. Individuals can counter the polarization that defines today’s political landscape by seeking out diverse perspectives, questioning divisive narratives, and engaging in constructive dialogue. Civic engagement—whether through voting, volunteering, or participating in local government—gives citizens a voice in shaping the future.

Additionally, individuals must hold themselves accountable for the information they consume and share. In an age of misinformation, verifying facts and fostering media literacy can help prevent the spread of falsehoods that deepen societal divides. By modeling empathy, accountability, and critical thinking, individuals can inspire others to do the same, creating a ripple effect of positive change.

Communities: Building Connection and Strengthening Local Resilience

Communities play a crucial role in fostering connection and resilience. Local initiatives—such as community gardens, neighborhood organizations, and civic forums—offer spaces for individuals to connect, cooperate, and work toward common goals. When people feel connected to their communities, they are more likely to feel a sense of responsibility toward others, promoting a culture of mutual support.

By focusing on local issues, communities can also serve as laboratories for larger societal change. For instance, efforts to promote sustainability, reduce waste, or create social safety nets at the community level can provide models for broader policy implementation. Community-led initiatives that prioritize social welfare, environmental conservation, and inclusive dialogue help demonstrate that positive change is possible, even in a polarized world.

Governments and Institutions: Prioritizing Equity and Global Cooperation

Governments and institutions must also play a decisive role in creating a more unified and resilient future. Policy reforms that address inequality, ensure environmental protection, and promote transparent governance are essential in rebuilding public trust. Initiatives like universal healthcare, affordable housing, and education reform help create a more equitable society where everyone has access to resources and opportunities.

On a global level, cooperation is essential in addressing issues like climate change, economic inequality, and public health crises. Nations can strengthen multilateral institutions and international agreements that promote peace, environmental protection, and economic stability. For example, robust support for treaties like the Paris Agreement and the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) can provide a framework for collective action. Such efforts are necessary for tackling global challenges that transcend borders and demand a united response.

A New Vision of Success: Redefining Progress and Embracing Degrowth

One of the most powerful ways to address the underlying causes of division and ecological crisis is to redefine success. Rather than viewing progress solely through the lens of economic growth, societies can begin to measure success in terms of well-being, environmental sustainability, and social harmony. The concept of degrowth—a model that prioritizes ecological health and social welfare over GDP growth—offers a compelling vision for a future where quality of life matters more than quantity of wealth.

By investing in renewable energy, public infrastructure, healthcare, and education, governments can foster a society where people are valued not for their productivity but for their humanity. This shift from profit-driven growth to sustainable well-being would not only help address ecological and social issues but would also provide a path toward greater equality and unity.

Hope for the Future: The Power of Collective Action

Despite the many challenges, there is hope. The changes required to heal society and address global issues are substantial but not insurmountable. Around the world, movements advocating for social justice, climate action, and democratic reforms continue to gain momentum. Individuals, communities, and governments are coming together to envision a future rooted in compassion, cooperation, and resilience.

At this critical juncture, the choice between a divided world and a united future lies with us all. By embracing empathy, accountability, and a commitment to the common good, humanity can overcome the forces that drive division and build a world where everyone has the opportunity to thrive. Finding light in a darker world requires courage, resilience, and collective action—but with these, a brighter, more hopeful future is within reach. ◀

---

References

Adorno, T. W., Frenkel-Brunswik, E., Levinson, D. J., & Sanford, N. R. (1950). The Authoritarian Personality. Harper & Row.

Alvaredo, F., Chancel, L., Piketty, T., Saez, E., & Zucman, G. (2022). World Inequality Report 2022. World Inequality Lab.

American Psychological Association. (2017). Stress in America: Coping with Change.

Amnesty International. (2021). Global Rise in Hate Crimes. Retrieved from amnesty.org.

Batson, C. D. (2011). Altruism in Humans. Oxford University Press.

Batson, C. D., et al. (1997). Empathy and Altruism. In The Handbook of Social Psychology. McGraw-Hill.

Braver Angels. (2020). Red/Blue Workshops. Retrieved from braverangels.org.

Betts, A., & Collier, P. (2017). Refuge: Transforming a Broken Refugee System. Penguin.

Brady, W. J., Wills, J. A., Jost, J. T., Tucker, J. A., & Van Bavel, J. J. (2017). Emotion shapes the diffusion of moralized content in social networks. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 114(28), 7313-7318.

Branford, S., & Torres, M. (2021). The Amazon Under Bolsonaro: Deforestation, Invasions, and Impunity. Mongabay.

Cinelli, M., Morales, G. D. F., Galeazzi, A., Quattrociocchi, W., & Starnini, M. (2021). The echo chamber effect on social media. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 118(9), e2023301118.

Crockett, M. J. (2017). Moral outrage in the digital age. Nature Human Behaviour, 1(11), 769-771.

Dunlap, R. E., & McCright, A. M. (2015). Challenging Climate Change: The Denial Countermovement. In Climate Change and Society: Sociological Perspectives (pp. 300-332). Oxford University Press.

Edelman Trust Barometer. (2020). 2020 Edelman Trust Barometer. Retrieved from edelman.com.

European Commission. (2020). Public Opinion in the European Union. Eurobarometer Survey 92.1. European Commission. Retrieved from ec.europa.eu.

Frank, R. H., & Cook, P. J. (1995). The Winner-Take-All Society. Free Press.

Gilens, M., & Page, B. I. (2014). Testing Theories of American Politics: Elites, Interest Groups, and Average Citizens. Perspectives on Politics, 12(3), 564-581.

Hahl, O., Kim, M., & Zuckerman Sivan, E. W. (2018). The Authentic Appeal of the Lying Demagogue: Proclaiming the Deeper Truth about Political Illegitimacy. American Sociological Review, 83(1), 1-33.

Hawkins, K. A., Carlin, R. E., Littvay, L., & Rovira Kaltwasser, C. (2019). The Ideational Approach to Populism: Concept, Theory, and Analysis. Routledge.

International Institute for Democracy and Electoral Assistance. (2021). The Global State of Democracy Report 2021. Retrieved from idea.int.

International Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). (2021). Climate Change 2021: The Physical Science Basis. Retrieved from ipcc.ch.

Iyengar, S., Sood, G., & Lelkes, Y. (2012). Affect, Not Ideology: A Social Identity Perspective on Polarization. Public Opinion Quarterly, 76(3), 405-431.

Jamieson, K. H., & Cappella, J. N. (2008). Echo Chamber: Rush Limbaugh and the Conservative Media Establishment. Oxford University Press.

Kallis, G. (2018). Degrowth. Agenda Publishing.

Klein, O., & Robison, J. (2020). Like, Comment, Retweet: How social Media Use Affects Trust in Government. Political Communication, 37(1), 46-64.

Konrath, S. H., O’Brien, E. H., & Hsing, C. (2011). Changes in Dispositional Empathy in American College Students Over Time: A Meta-Analysis. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 15(2), 180-198.

Levitsky, S., & Ziblatt, D. (2018). How Democracies Die. New York: Crown.

Lewandowsky, S., Ecker, U. K., & Cook, J. (2017). Beyond Misinformation: Understanding and Coping with the “Post-Truth” Era. Nature Human Behaviour, 1(9), 546-551.

Lerner, M. J. (1980). The Belief in a Just World: A Fundamental Delusion. Springer.

McIntyre, L. (2018). Post-Truth. MIT Press.

Mihailidis, P., & Viotty, S. (2017). Spreadable Spectacle in Digital Culture: Civic Expression, Fake News, and the Role of Media Literacies in “Post-Fact” Society. American Behavioral Scientist, 61(4), 441-454.

More in Common. (2019). The Perception Gap: How False Impressions are Pulling Americans Apart. More in Common. Retrieved from moreincommon.com.

Mounk, Y. (2018). The People vs. Democracy: Why Our Freedom Is in Danger and How to Save It. Harvard University Press.

Mudde, C. (2019). The Far Right Today. Polity Press.

Mudde, C., & Rovira Kaltwasser, C. (2017). Populism: A Very Short Introduction. Oxford University Press.

Norris, P., & Inglehart, R. (2019). Cultural Backlash: Trump, Brexit, and Authoritarian Populism. Cambridge University Press.

OECD. (2020). Trust in Government. Retrieved from oecd.org.

Oreskes, N., & Conway, E. M. (2010). Merchants of Doubt: How a Handful of Scientists Obscured the Truth on Issues from Tobacco Smoke to Global Warming. Bloomsbury Press.

Pariser, E. (2011). The Filter Bubble: What the Internet is Hiding from You. Penguin Press.

Pew Research Center. (2019). What Americans See as the Causes of Poverty. Retrieved from pewresearch.org.

Pew Research Center. (2020). In a Politically Polarized Era, Sharp Divides in Both Partisan Coalitions. Pew Research Center, September 2020. Retrieved from pewresearch.org.

Pew Research Center. (2020). Majority Says Government Serves Interests of a Few, Not All. Retrieved from pewresearch.org.

Piketty, T. (2014). Capital in the Twenty-First Century. Harvard University Press.

Runciman, D. (2018). How Democracy Ends. Profile Books.

Sandel, M. J. (2020). The Tyranny of Merit: What’s Become of the Common Good? Farrar, Straus and Giroux.

Scheppele, K. L. (2018). Autocratic Legalism. The University of Chicago Law Review, 85(2), 545-578.

Sennett, R. (2006). The Culture of the New Capitalism. Yale University Press.

Stern, N. (2006). The Economics of Climate Change: The Stern Review. Cambridge University Press.

Stenner, K. (2005). The Authoritarian Dynamic. Cambridge University Press.

Taber, C. S., & Lodge, M. (2006). Motivated Skepticism in the Evaluation of Political Beliefs. American Journal of Political Science, 50(3), 755-769.

Tosi, J., & Warmke, B. (2020). Moral Grandstanding: The Use and Abuse of Moral Talk. Oxford University Press.

Twenge, J. M., & Campbell, W. K. (2019). The Narcissism Epidemic: Living in the Age of Entitlement. Free Press

United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP). (2021). Emissions Gap Report 2021: The Heat is On. Retrieved from unep.org.

United Nations Refugee Agency (UNHCR). (2021). Climate Change and Disaster Displacement. Retrieved from unhcr.org.

U.N. Office on Genocide Prevention and the Responsibility to Protect. (2021). Hate Speech and Incitement to Violence. Retrieved from un.org.

Wilkinson, R. G., & Pickett, K. (2009). The Spirit Level: Why More Equal Societies Almost Always Do Better. Bloomsbury Press.

Citation: Henry Páll Wulff, ‘Navigating a Darker World: Division, Empathy, and the Hope for Unity‘, henrypall.com, 6 November 2024, https://henrypall.com/2024/11/06/naviagting-a-darker-world/

Published: 6 November 2024