8 Pág., Using a metaphor based on a historical debate between socialist and free-market economists, Salliou and Stritih (Environ. Res. Lett. 18 151001) advocate for decentralizing environmental management to harness emergent complexity and promote ecosystem health. Concerningly, however, their account seems to leave little room for top-down processes like government-led sustainability programs or centrally-planned conservation initiatives, the cornerstone of the post-2020 biodiversity framework. While we appreciate their call for humbleness, we offer a few words in defense of planning. Drawing on evidence from ecology, economics, and systems theory, we argue that (1) more complexity is not always better; (2) even if it were, mimicking minimally-regulated markets is probably not the best way to get it; and (3) sophisticated decision support tools can support humble planning under uncertainty. We sketch a re-interpretation of the socialist calculation debate that highlights the role of synthesis and theoretical pluralism. Rather than abandoning big-picture thinking, scientists must continue the difficult work of strengthening connections between and across multiple social, ecological, and policy scales., We thank Nicolas Salliou and Ana Stritih for their collegiality and insightful feedback. We also thank Paul J Ferraro, Félix Bastit, Elsa Hinrichs, and an anonymous reviewer for their thoughtful comments on an earlier version. L R B, B K, and F S are supported by the EU's Horizon 2020 research and innovation programme under the Marie Skłodowska-Curie Grant Agreement No. 956355., Peer reviewed