In this short response we engage with four generous and stimulating commentaries on our Planetary Social Thought (2021). We endorse Cecilia Åsberg’s suggestion that the boundary between the environmental humanities and social sciences is dissolving – but also call for more inventive relations between these disciplines and the natural sciences. We discuss László Cseke’s account of the rise of factory-farmed ‘broiler’ chickens as a reversal of many of the achievements of the Earth over the last half-billion years. We agree with Franklin Ginn’s suggestion that vegetality is a crucial vector of planetary self-exploration and invention – and one that can give us clues as to what life might become on other worlds. We reflect on Simon Dalby’s observations about the lack of reference to planetary governance in the book, suggesting that we need a way of thinking the politics of the earth that goes beyond conflict and agonism – in Åsberg’s words, that we need to learn not just to survive but to thrive.