Author Description

homage to myopic knowledge systems, rigid state education directives, and academic-professional communities intent on reproducing the same practices, knowledges, and relationships that have endangered our shared world and shared presents/presence is not where educators should be investing their energy. For example, the forces and flows of science education render the Anthropocene an epistemological object to be learnt about rather than with or through such that it might implicate the learner (Gilbert, 2016). Science education does not (and cannot not in its current forms) meet the needs of the post/human moment(s) in which we find ourselves. This work continues the transdisciplinary project of transforming the ways communities inherit science education. Specifically, authors were invited not to fit questions of the Anthropocene into science (or) education but rather attend to their cross product(ion). In other words, authors attended to the proliferation of possibilities and (re)orientations made possible through reading these dialogically rather than dialectically. Not unlike de Freitas et al. (2017), "we hope this cross product... amplifies the philosophical insights from each, stretching scholarship in new directions and across disciplines" (p. 551). Throughout the book, authors nurture productive relationships between science education and fields such as science studies, environmental studies, philosophy, political science, the natural sciences, Indigenous studies, feminist studies, critical race studies, and critical theory in order to provoke a science education that actively seeks to remake our shared ecological and social spaces in the coming decades and centuries. After Stengers (2018), we exclaim that "another science [education] is possible!"-but also necessary in rethinking and regenera