The understanding and interpretation of the mathematical language is what is important in the learning process, at least it is what we say to our students. The language of mathematics is universal, and in general, the margin of error for interpretation tends to be small. We would hardly draw a triangle after reading the definition of the concept of square, for example. And no one has been astonished to understand the relationship between the diameter of any circumference and the perimeter: the pi number. Mysterious as magical.

However, within this broad field that we call scientific knowledge, there are also concepts that generate diverse interpretations in society. In the economic field, for example, development can be a good example. In the middle of the last century, the development of a territory was associated with Gross Domestic Product. Over time, and taking into account the multiple ecological and social implications derived from an emerging economic system, the concept of development was associated with themes such as life expectancy, schooling, the theory of capabilities proposed by the Nobel Prize winner Amartya Sen, or sustainability. This last concept, at the same time, has given much to talk about in recent years. The United Nations also proposed it as the title of the 2030 roadmap to promote the development of the countries of the world, with seventeen targets and 169 targets. The level of these objectives and targets reflects, in any case, the difficulty of landing on the concept of sustainability. At the age of five, what word will we use as the surname of this concept of development when we have suspended the achievements of these objectives? Bolo-bolo: regenerative development (regenerative development?) Better if I leave it to translators).

Focusing on the words we use to explain what happens in reality, economist Naredo talks about “no concepts” in his book The Exhausted Criticism. According to this author, we have been creating discourses and political rhetoric to describe the ecosocial crises; sometimes, without mentioning the keys that are at the root. The solutions agreed at eleven summits – almost always surface plumbers – have not been credible, nor viable.

In order to explain this issue, I find the head of the COP29 meeting held in mid-November in Azerbaijan really enlightening: in order to avoid the problem of climate change, it has been agreed to make a contribution of USD 300 billion from the so-called richest provinces to the calls of the South, which are the place of the most dramatic consequences. Many have voiced the gauntlet and outrage of the people, who have declared that this amount of money is tip.

We certainly need a greenhouse effect to live on Earth. But science has taught us, pedagogically and clearly, over and over again, that human practices generate excessive CO2 emissions, and that this effect accelerates exponentially. We all know that it is impossible to offset that impact with money, the discharges will not go away. Even though the debate feels distant, it also concerns us. In the speeches we are talking about the fight against climate change, the need to make the world more sustainable, the care of the environment… But what are we talking about? I feel that more than in the roots, the look is in the branches, more than in the sources of the disease, the symptoms soften. If we want to build a social and ecological economy, we will have to overcome the economic vision that we have internalised. It would force us to define the roots of the problems, probably trampling our own.