The Limits of Anthropocene Narratives

The rapidly growing transdisciplinary enthusiasm about developing new kinds of Anthropocene stories is based on the shared assumption that the Anthropocene predicament is best made sense of by narrative means. Against this assumption, this article argues that the challenge we are facing today does not merely lie in telling either scientific, socio-political, or entangled Anthropocene narratives to come to terms with our current condition. Instead, the challenge lies in coming to grips with how the stories we can tell in the Anthropocene relate to the radical novelty of the Anthropocene condition about which no stories can be told. What we need to find are meaningful ways to reconcile an inherited commitment to narrativization and the collapse of storytelling as a vehicle of understanding the Anthropocene as our current predicament

What is Natural about Natural Capital during the Anthropocene?

The concept of natural capital denotes a rich variety of natural processes, such as ecosystems, that produce economically valuable goods and services. The Anthropocene signals a diminished state of nature, however, with some scholars claiming that no part of the Earth’s surface remains untouched. What are ecological economists to make of natural capital during the Anthropocene? Is natural capital still a coherent concept? What is the conceptual relationship between nature and natural capital? This article wrestles with John Stuart Mill’s two concepts of nature and argues that during the Anthropocene, natural capital should be understood as denoting economically valuable processes that are not absolutely—but relatively—detached from intentional human agency

Anthropocene Feminism by Richard Grusin

Review of Richard Grusin\u27s Anthropocene Feminism

Das Anthropozän - Die Erde in unserer Hand

The Anthropocene concept is a comprehensive conceptual "toolbox" for systemic analysis, interdisciplinary monitoring and a new understanding of the gigantic current impact of human activities on the Earth system. At the same time, it neither implies a fatalistic acceptance of an apocalypse, nor does it promote a simplistic "everything will be fine" positivism, but rather allows differentiated observations from different perspectives. Precisely because of its systemic and interdisciplinary approach, the concept does not narrow possible pathways for the development, propagation and application of future options. On the contrary, the Earth system sciences, social sciences, cultural studies and the humanities together and very clearly express that in order to achieve global development goals such as justice, food security, health, peace and other goals for sustainable development (SDGs) (UNSDGs 2015), we keep on needing "assessable" and predictable conditions of an Anthropocene Earth system (Steffen et al. 2016). In order not to completely switch from the relative stability of the Holocene to incalculable risks, but rather to transform the Anthropocene Earth System into a different, but permanently habitable Anthropocene, it is necessary not to exceed planetary boundaries (sensu Rockström et al. 2009, Steffen et al. 2015b) and to see the SDGs as a compass. For this purpose, continuous monitoring of the state of the Anthropocene Earth system is indispensable. Only then both safe shelter spaces and a creative leeway for shaping the Anthropocene remain guaranteed. Within this framework, and depending on the region, the culture, the social requirements and the sociopolitical goals, it should be possible to negotiate very freely where the future journey should go. Necessary for that is a generally more holistic, systemic view of the integration of humankind into planetary processes, which means an integration of all societal groups, i.e. politics, science, business, administration, civil society groups and individuals. Another prerequisite is the improvement of future literacy via education in schools, universities, companies etc., with the goal to develop skills for better imagining alternate futures, depicting desirable futures, and designing solution portfolios for them. (excerpt from the conclusions of the paper

Ecological Finitude as Ontological Finitude: Radical Hope in the Anthropocene

The proposal that the earth has entered a new epoch called “the Anthropocene” has touched a nerve . One unsettling part of having our ecological finitude thrust upon us with the term “Anthropocene” is that, as Nietzsche said of the death of God, we ourselves are supposed to be the collective doer responsible here, yet this is a deed which no one individual meant to do and whose implications no one fully comprehends. For the pessimists about humanity, the implications seem rather straightforward: humanity will die. Yet, as we will explore in this paper, the death that we may be facing cannot be assumed to be simply biological death or extinction. Indeed, even if we are not running headlong into a mass extinction and biological demise, we do seem to be facing an ontological death. Our ecological finitude is the harbinger of our ontological finitude. The vulnerability we confront in the Anthropocene is what Jonathan Lear, in a different context, called ontological vulnerability. Worlds die too; the ways of life they sustain can become impossible, ceasing to make sense and matter. The constitutive susceptibility of all human worlds to their eventual collapse is what we mean by ontological finitude. This is what we face as presumed denizens in a dawning Anthropocene

Science or fiction? What the anthropocene means for EPT

How should environmental political theorists deal with environmental science? The question has acquired a new urgency with the rise of the Anthropocene, a geological-cum-ecological concept received with skepticism by many political theorists. In part, this is due to the notion that there is an “oficial” version of the Anthropocene that comes out already linked to a set of normative and policy prescriptions for dealing with climate change and the other manifestations of the new epoch, i.e. a managerial approach that is capitalist-friendly and technologically trigger-happy. However, this in turn reflects deep-seated suspicions about scientific findings and the way in which they are “produced”. This paper will reflect on this topic in the framework provided by the Anthropocene, arguing that a clear demarcation is needed between the scientific and the sociopolitical inquiry, whereupon the former provides the latter with findings to be discussed and processed in a sociopolitical fashion -whereas scientists should refrain from making normative or policy prescriptions or, if any, should make them explicitly. After all, environmental political theory would not exist without environmental sciences. The debate on the beginning of the Anthropocene will help to make this point.Universidad de Málaga. Campus de Excelencia Internacional Andalucía Tec

Welcome to the Anthropocene by Alice Major

Review of Alice Major\u27s Welcome to the Anthropocene

The Anthropocene Lyric: An Affective Geography of Poetry, Person, Place by Tom Bristow

Review of Tom Bristow\u27s The Anthropocene Lyric: An Affective Geography of Poetry, Person, Place

The sense of an ending? Nature in the Anthropocene

Among the normative questions posed by the supposed advent of the Anthropocene is the following: Does the Anthropocene spell the end of nature? The philosophical answer to that question may determine the political answer to the phenomenon that is described by this geological-cum-historical notion. In this paper, I will argue that, although the signs are mixed, the Anthropocene does indeed confirm that nature has ended in a particular yet important way - but that such ending does not preclude further reflection about the human relation with the environment. In fact, such recognition makes possible another understanding of the task that lie ahead: a reflective re-organization of socionatural relations and a reconceptualization of sustainability.Universidad de Málaga. Campus de Excelencia Internacional Andalucía Tec