The Special Issue on ‘After the Anthropocene: Time and Mobility’ is published. It discusses the geological time to follow the human-dominated epoch and ways to move there. In addition to this editorial, a total of five articles are published in the issue. The articles engage with a variety of social science disciplines—ranging from economics and sociology to philosophy and political science—and connect to the natural science insights on the Anthropocene. The issue calls for going beyond anthropocentrism in sustainability theory and practice in order to exit the Anthropocene with applications and insights in the contexts of politics (Ruuska et al., 2020), energy (Mohorčich, 2020), tourism (Rantala et al., 2020), food (Mazac and Tuomisto, 2020) and management (Küpers, 2020). We hope that you will find this Special Issue interesting and helpful in contributing to sustainable change

Heikkurinen, Pasi

Rantala, Outi

Ruuska, Toni

Valtonen, Anu

English

Helsingin yliopiston digitaalinen arkisto

https://helda.helsinki.fiTime and Mobility after the AnthropoceneHeikkurinen, PasiMultidisciplinary Digital Publishing Institute2020-06-24Heikkurinen, P.; Ruuska, T.; Valtonen, A.; Rantala, O. Time and Mobility after theAnthropocene. Sustainability 2020, 12, 5159.http://hdl.handle.net/10138/348750Downloaded from Helda, University of Helsinki institutional repository.This is an electronic reprint of the original article.This reprint may differ from the original in pagination and typographic detail.Please cite the original version.sustainabilityEditorialTime and Mobility after the AnthropocenePasi Heikkurinen 1,* , Toni Ruuska 1 , Anu Valtonen 2 and Outi Rantala 31 Department of Economics and Management, University of Helsinki, 00500 Helsinki, Finland;toni.ruuska@helsinki.fi2 Faculty of Social Sciences, University of Lapland, 96300 Rovaniemi, Finland; anu.valtonen@ulapland.fi3 Multidimensional Tourism Institute, University of Lapland, 96300 Rovaniemi, Finland;outi.rantala@ulapland.fi* Correspondence: pasi.heikkurinen@helsinki.fiReceived: 29 May 2020; Accepted: 4 June 2020; Published: 24 June 2020Abstract: The Special Issue on ‘After the Anthropocene: Time and Mobility’ is published. It discussesthe geological time to follow the human-dominated epoch and ways to move there. In addition tothis editorial, a total of five articles are published in the issue. The articles engage with a varietyof social science disciplines—ranging from economics and sociology to philosophy and politicalscience—and connect to the natural science insights on the Anthropocene. The issue calls for goingbeyond anthropocentrism in sustainability theory and practice in order to exit the Anthropocene withapplications and insights in the contexts of politics (Ruuska et al., 2020), energy (Mohorčich, 2020),tourism (Rantala et al., 2020), food (Mazac and Tuomisto, 2020) and management (Küpers, 2020).We hope that you will find this Special Issue interesting and helpful in contributing to sustainable change.Keywords: Anthropocene; time; mobility; nature; culture; sustainability1. IntroductionThe Anthropocene, characterized by global scale anthropogenic forcing since the latter part ofthe 18th century, is the name of the present geological epoch [1]. The empirical observations in EarthSciences about the Anthropocene signify that a single species, Homo Sapiens, has grown its impacts onthe rest of nature so vast that an exit from the previous epoch, Holocene, is seen as stratigraphicallylegitimate. The manifestations of the undesired global anthropogenic impacts on Earth include climatechange and the loss of biodiversity.Similarly, as the Holocene ended few centuries ago, it is imaginable that also one day theAnthropocene will be history. In fact, it seems quite obvious that sooner or later, the Earth willreach the end of the Anthropocene. The move to this time will be either with humans or withouthumans. The normative standpoint we wish to take here is that the Earth should move to this newpost-Anthropocene time and humans should be active in this mission. Furthermore, it would be verydesirable for humans themselves were they also to inhabit the time to follow the Anthropocene.The scholarly debate to date has paid relatively little attention to this space–time.Instead, the discussion continues to revolve around questions such as: when did the human-dominatedepoch began; what to call it; who or what is to blame for it; and how we might respond to it in theimmediate future [2]. While these questions certainly deserve consideration, effort should also beaimed at questions of how the Anthropocene might come to an end (as a discourse and as an epoch);what post-Anthropocene might look like; and what this might signify for organizing social change,and/or caring for the nonhuman nature [3].As the effects of changing climatic regimes impose greater effects on earthbound habitation and theknown ways of being in the present geological epoch, there is a need to consider how humans and/orSustainability 2020, 12, 5159; doi:10.3390/su12125159 www.mdpi.com/journal/sustainabilitySustainability 2020, 12, 5159 2 of 5socio-nature might and should respond. That is, sustainability scholarship should begin imagining atime after the Anthropocene, when humans would no longer be the dominant species on the planet,and think of how to move there. We also consider the notion of the ‘late Anthropocene’ relevant fordiscussing the present when humanity—albeit in different place-specific ways—is forced to adapt inradical ways to the challenges that it faces.2. Peaceful Coexistence ColloquiaThe Special Issue ‘After the Anthropocene: Time and Mobility’ is titled after the theme of “The 3rdPeaceful Coexistence Colloquium” held in Helsinki 13–14 June 2019. This colloquium was organizedby the University of Helsinki, Department of Economics and Management together with SustainableChange Research Network (SUCH). “The 1st Peaceful Coexistence Colloquium” took place in CostaRica at the University for Peace in 2015 with a theme ‘Genders, Natures, and Technologies in theAnthropocene’. The second colloquium was hosted by University of Lapland in Pyhätunturi in 2017with a theme “Reimagining Ethics and Politics of Space for the Anthropocene”. The colloquiums aretransdisciplinary meeting places for researchers, activists and artists who challenge the mainstreamsolutions for the challenges that face the Earth and its habitants. One of the aims of the PeacefulCoexistence Colloquium is also to call for alternative and more radical ways to address the currentsocio-economic crises.All of these colloquiums have now produced an edited volume. The book “Sustainability andPeaceful Coexistence for the Anthropocene” connected to the first conference was edited by PasiHeikkurinen and published in 2017 by Routledge [4]. To analyze the root problems and consequencesof unsustainable development, as well as to outline rigorous solutions for the contemporary epoch, thisvolume brings together natural and social sciences under the rubric of the Anthropocene. The bookidentifies the central preconditions for social organization and governance to enable the peacefulcoexistence of humans and the non-human world. The contributors investigate the burning questionsof sustainability from a number of different perspectives including geosciences, economics, law,organizational studies, political theory, and philosophy. The book is a state-of-the-art review ofthe Anthropocene debate and provides crucial signposts for how human activities can, and should,be changed.The book “Ethics and Politics of Space for the Anthropocene” linked to the second conferencewas edited by Anu Valtonen, Outi Rantala and Paolo Davide Farah and will be published in 2020by Edward Elgar Publishing [5]. The book outlines new and more radical ways to address thecurrent environmental crisis by envisaging a narrative of change that renders visible the range oftransformations taking place throughout the globe. This enables the authors to capture the complexnature of ongoing transformations and to alter unjust practices and power structures in a sustainableand context-specific manner. Importantly, the new narrative highlights the localized and situated natureof the Anthropocene, allowing the differences of regions and contexts—-and subsequent ethical andpolitical questions—-to be taken seriously. It also highlights the potentiality residing in non-Westernways of relating to and living on the earth, taking more-than-humans into account.This Special Issue “After the Anthropocene: Time and Mobility” is an output from the thirdconference and published in 2020 by the journal “Sustainability”. At the dawn of spring 2019, we werecontacted by the Editorial Board of the journal concerning a Special Issue and we suggested thesame theme and title as the third Peaceful Coexistence. In the opening words of the colloquium theSpecial Issue was introduced to the participants, which were also invited to write an article to it.The colloquium itself had 35 participants from 10 different countries. The presentations and talks underthe theme were diverse ranging from deep ecology, and indigenous food sovereignty to degrowth, andnon-human hauntology. This final edited volume will end the Anthropocene-thematic trilogy in thePeaceful Coexistence collective.“The 4th Peaceful Coexistence Colloquium” is going to be held in 2021 and organized bySustainable Change Research Network (SUCH). We invite all interested persons to contact us.Sustainability 2020, 12, 5159 3 of 53. Articles in the IssueThis Special Issue comprises five articles, which all explore and discuss ways out of theAnthropocene, as well as envisage possibilities for diverse life after the Anthropocene. The focus of theissue is on questions of time and mobility, insofar as these concepts enrich our understandings of whatcomes after the Anthropocene and how could an exit from the Anthropocene materialize. The articlesexplore time and mobility after the Anthropocene in different ways, from a rich diversity theoreticaland empirical point of views.In their article ’Domination, Power, Supremacy: Confronting Anthropolitics with EcologicalRealism,’ Ruuska et al. [6] studied politics as domination. They claimed that domination, especiallyin the Anthropocene, has two vital components, which are power and supremacy. Domination doesnot occur without the power over others. In addition, domination requires reasoning, justification,and legitimation that are often connected to superiority arguments (based on religion, society,civilization, etc.) from the oppressor’s end. The authors argued that past and present politicalideologies and agendas, such as colonial rule, imperialism, neoliberal capitalism, and also the popularGreen New Deal are examples of ‘anthropolitics’, entailing an anthropocentric approach to politics. Incontrast to historical and prevailing anthropolitical programs, the article discusses post-Anthropocenepolitics under a theoretical frame called ecological realism, which is characterized by equality amongbeings, and localization and decentralization, as well as steep reduction of matter-energy throughputin the human realm.In his article ’Energy Intensity and Human Mobility after the Anthropocene,’ Mohorčich [7]claimed that after the Anthropocene, human settlements will likely have less available energy to movepeople and things. His article considered the feasibility of five modes of transportation under twoenergy-constrained scenarios. Mohorčich analyzed the effects that transformation mode choice is likelyto have on the size of post-Anthropocene human settlements, and also what is the role of speed andenergy in them. He argued that cars (including battery-electric vehicles) are not feasible under a highlyenergy-constrained situation, in contrast to buses, metros and walking which are feasible, but limithuman settlement size. Cycling is likely the only mode of transport that would enable suburbs in anenergy-constrained post-Anthropocene scenario, the article concludes.In their article ‘Envisioning Tourism and Proximity after the Anthropocene’, Rantala et al. [8]called for new imaginings, conceptualizations and practices of tourism for the current Earthly crisis.Thus, they conceptualized proximity tourism with feminist new materialist literature, which accordsagency to the ongoing common worlding of all matter—including but not limited to humans—ratherthan to separate individual agents. More specifically, they explore the idea of proximity by drawingcloser to the geo—to the Earth—through geological walks in the Pyhä National Park in Finnish Lapland.These walks are analyzed with the notions of rhythmicity, vitality and care—ideas constructed from thetheoretical heritage guiding the study. By doing this, Rantala, Salmela, Valtonen, and Höckert explorethe potential of proximity tourism in ways that intertwine non-living and living matter, science stories,history, local communities, and tourism. The outcome of this analysis is that they compose one possiblenarrative of tourism after the Anthropocene.In their article ‘The Post-Anthropocene Diet: Navigating Future Diets for Sustainable FoodSystems,’ Mazac and Tuomisto [9] examined how future diets could reduce the environmental impactsof food systems, and thus, enable movement into the post-Anthropocene. The authors claimedthat non-anthropocentric diets could address global food systems challenges in the Anthropocene.In order to change diets, changes in ontology is proposed. In their article, Mazac and Tuomistoemployed indigenous worldviews and object-oriented ecosophy to investigate the possibilities ofnon-anthropocentric worldviews with a focus on temporality. While indigenous ontologies areintroduced as pre-Anthropocene examples that depict humans and non-humans in relational diets,a post-Anthropocene illustration stresses non-dualist object-oriented ecosophy. As a central implication,the article offered ontologically based ideas to developing dietary guidelines for the time afterthe Anthropocene.Sustainability 2020, 12, 5159 4 of 5In his article ‘From the Anthropocene to an “Ecocene”—Eco-Phenomenological Perspectives onEmbodied, Anthrodecentric Transformations towards Enlivening Practices of Organising Sustainably’,Küpers [10] discussed the Anthropocene from an eco-phenomenological point of view. The authordrew, in particular, on the work of Maurice Merleau-Ponty on ‘body’. The article challenges body–minddualism and the hyper-separation between nature and culture inherent in the Anthropocene. It callsfor moving from the Anthropocene to Ecocene by making, what Küpers calls, an anthro-decentrictransformation. The article ends by presenting implications for sustainable organizing where therole of the body and embodiment have a central stage. Moreover, the author notes that moving‘towards a more integral ecocene necessitates an ethico-political restructuring and transformation ofcontemporary organizations [ . . . ]’, which ‘[ . . . ] involves analysing and questioning anthropocentricand interest-centric political practices and how they are used to accomplish and uphold power orcontrol’ (p. 12).4. ConclusionsBased on the articles of this issue, it is evident to us that now is the time to move out fromthe Anthropocene. Just as the Anthropocene marked a global matter-energetic shift, this end ofthe human epoch also marks significant changes in the deep geological time of the Earth’s history.Different temporal perspectives and rhythms will play a role in how the time after the Anthropocenewill unfold. There is a need to begin to conceive time not only in anthropocentric terms, but moredeeply and holistically, for instance, in terms of minerals, plants, and animals [2]. Thus, instead ofmerely seeking to save the world for future human generations, consideration and care of non-humanobjects, like rocks—constituents of the Earth—opens up a different time horizon, as the emerginggeo-social literature cogently demonstrates [11,12].A possibility is that the on-going mass movement of people and other earthbound beings willboth be an outcome and reason for the new epoch. Furthermore, the travel of earthbound beingsbeyond the boundaries of Earth—the exploitation of space—is an issue calling for serious criticalreflection. Finally, the mobility of deep geological formations of the Earth merits consideration aswell; the movement of lithospheric plates has historically changed the course of life on the planetin a remarkable way. The trouble of moving, living, and dying together in the late Anthropocenenecessarily brings about new practical and theoretical questions of power, as the recent formulations of‘geopower’, for instance, highlight [13].Finally, this scenario demands us to begin to develop post-anthropocentric ways of theorizing anddoing research. There is a need to find a better balance in how all habitants of the earth are includedin theory making, and involved in theoretical narration. A recent study of mosquitoes in the contextof tourism provides a case in point [14]. Drawing from feminist new material literature, the authorssuggest a post-anthropocentric approach that casts mosquitoes as fellow travelers, with which we areto live with—no matter whether we like it or not. The inevitable common worlding with multipleothers, including tiny ones, needs to be better acknowledged in future theorizations.The entanglement of humans with various creatures is strikingly visible now that the COVID-19entangles with our bodies, bringing about major social, political, and economic consequences. It hasforced us to consider many commonplace habits anew, including travelling. Ecologically, the pandemicmight trigger a shift, even though the history suggests that ‘business-as-usual’ is plausible after thecrisis [15]. Nevertheless, the pandemic efficiently highlights that the concept of the human masteryand control over other creatures is just an illusion.Author Contributions: The authors’ contribution to the special issue and this editorial corresponds with the orderof the authors listed in this article. All authors contributed substantially to all tasks. All authors have read andagreed to the published version of the manuscript.Funding: This research received no external funding.Conflicts of Interest: The authors declare no conflict of interest.Sustainability 2020, 12, 5159 5 of 5References1. Crutzen, P.J.; Stoermer, E.F. The Anthropocene. Glob. Chang. Newsl. 2000, 41, 17–18.2. Heikkurinen, P.; Rinkinen, J.; Järvensivu, T.; Wilén, K.; Ruuska, T. Organising in the Anthropocene:An ontological outline for ecocentric theorising. J. Clean. Prod. 2016, 113, 705–714. [CrossRef]3. Heikkurinen, P.; Ruuska, T.; Wilén, K.; Ulvila, M. The Anthropocene exit: Reconciling discursive tensions onthe new geological epoch. Ecol. Econ. 2019, 164, 106369. [CrossRef]4. Heikkurinen, P. (Ed.) Sustainability and Peaceful Coexistence for the Anthropocene; Routledge: Abingdon, UK,2017.5. Valtonen, A.; Rantala, O.; Farah, P. (Eds.) Ethics and Politics of Space for the Anthropocene; Edwar ElgarPublishing: Cheltenham, UK, 2020. (in press)6. Ruuska, T.; Heikkurinen, P.; Wilén, K. Domination, Power, Supremacy: Confronting Anthropolitics withEcological Realism. Sustainability 2020, 12, 2617. [CrossRef]7. Mohorčich, J. Energy Intensity and Human Mobility after the Anthropocene. Sustainability 2020, 12, 2376.[CrossRef]8. Rantala, O.; Salmela, T.; Valtonen, A.; Höckert, E. Envisioning Tourism and Proximity after the Anthropocene.Sustainability 2020, 12, 3948. [CrossRef]9. Mazac, R.; Tuomisto, H.L. The Post-Anthropocene Diet: Navigating Future Diets for Sustainable FoodSystems. Sustainability 2020, 12, 2355. [CrossRef]10. Küpers, W. From the Anthropocene to an ‘Ecocene’—Eco-Phenomenological Perspectives on Embodied,Anthro-Dece Ntric Transformations towards Enlivening Practices of Organising Sustainably. Sustainability2020, 12, 3633. [CrossRef]11. Clark, N.; Yusoff, K. Geosocial formations and the Anthropocene. Theory Cult. Soc. 2017, 34, 3–23. [CrossRef]12. Yusoff, K. Anthropogenesis: Origins and endings in the Anthropocene. Theory Cult. Soc. 2016, 33, 3–28.[CrossRef]13. Grosz, E. Geopower. Environ. Plan. D Soc. Space 2012, 30, 973–975.14. Valtonen, A.; Salmela, T.; Rantala, O. Living With Mosquitoes. Ann. Tour. Res. 2020. [CrossRef]15. Ioannides, D.; Szilvia, G. The COVID-19 crisis as an opportunity for escaping the unsustainable globaltourism path. Tour. Geogr. 2020. [CrossRef]© 2020 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open accessarticle distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution(CC BY) license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).

Time and Mobility after the Anthropocene

LaCRIS - University of Lapland Current Research System

Ruuska, Toni Pekka Kalevi

sustainabilityEditorialTime and Mobility after the AnthropocenePasi Heikkurinen 1,* , Toni Ruuska 1 , Anu Valtonen 2 and Outi Rantala 31 Department of Economics and Management, University of Helsinki, 00500 Helsinki, Finland;toni.ruuska@helsinki.fi2 Faculty of Social Sciences, University of Lapland, 96300 Rovaniemi, Finland; anu.valtonen@ulapland.fi3 Multidimensional Tourism Institute, University of Lapland, 96300 Rovaniemi, Finland;outi.rantala@ulapland.fi* Correspondence: pasi.heikkurinen@helsinki.fiReceived: 29 May 2020; Accepted: 4 June 2020; Published: 24 June 2020Abstract: The Special Issue on ‘After the Anthropocene: Time and Mobility’ is published. It discussesthe geological time to follow the human-dominated epoch and ways to move there. In addition tothis editorial, a total of five articles are published in the issue. The articles engage with a varietyof social science disciplines—ranging from economics and sociology to philosophy and politicalscience—and connect to the natural science insights on the Anthropocene. The issue calls for goingbeyond anthropocentrism in sustainability theory and practice in order to exit the Anthropocene withapplications and insights in the contexts of politics (Ruuska et al., 2020), energy (Mohorčich, 2020),tourism (Rantala et al., 2020), food (Mazac and Tuomisto, 2020) and management (Küpers, 2020).We hope that you will find this Special Issue interesting and helpful in contributing to sustainable change.Keywords: Anthropocene; time; mobility; nature; culture; sustainability1. IntroductionThe Anthropocene, characterized by global scale anthropogenic forcing since the latter part ofthe 18th century, is the name of the present geological epoch [1]. The empirical observations in EarthSciences about the Anthropocene signify that a single species, Homo Sapiens, has grown its impacts onthe rest of nature so vast that an exit from the previous epoch, Holocene, is seen as stratigraphicallylegitimate. The manifestations of the undesired global anthropogenic impacts on Earth include climatechange and the loss of biodiversity.Similarly, as the Holocene ended few centuries ago, it is imaginable that also one day theAnthropocene will be history. In fact, it seems quite obvious that sooner or later, the Earth willreach the end of the Anthropocene. The move to this time will be either with humans or withouthumans. The normative standpoint we wish to take here is that the Earth should move to this newpost-Anthropocene time and humans should be active in this mission. Furthermore, it would be verydesirable for humans themselves were they also to inhabit the time to follow the Anthropocene.The scholarly debate to date has paid relatively little attention to this space–time.Instead, the discussion continues to revolve around questions such as: when did the human-dominatedepoch began; what to call it; who or what is to blame for it; and how we might respond to it in theimmediate future [2]. While these questions certainly deserve consideration, effort should also beaimed at questions of how the Anthropocene might come to an end (as a discourse and as an epoch);what post-Anthropocene might look like; and what this might signify for organizing social change,and/or caring for the nonhuman nature [3].As the effects of changing climatic regimes impose greater effects on earthbound habitation and theknown ways of being in the present geological epoch, there is a need to consider how humans and/orSustainability 2020, 12, 5159; doi:10.3390/su12125159 www.mdpi.com/journal/sustainabilitySustainability 2020, 12, 5159 2 of 5socio-nature might and should respond. That is, sustainability scholarship should begin imagining atime after the Anthropocene, when humans would no longer be the dominant species on the planet,and think of how to move there. We also consider the notion of the ‘late Anthropocene’ relevant fordiscussing the present when humanity—albeit in different place-specific ways—is forced to adapt inradical ways to the challenges that it faces.2. Peaceful Coexistence ColloquiaThe Special Issue ‘After the Anthropocene: Time and Mobility’ is titled after the theme of “The 3rdPeaceful Coexistence Colloquium” held in Helsinki 13–14 June 2019. This colloquium was organizedby the University of Helsinki, Department of Economics and Management together with SustainableChange Research Network (SUCH). “The 1st Peaceful Coexistence Colloquium” took place in CostaRica at the University for Peace in 2015 with a theme ‘Genders, Natures, and Technologies in theAnthropocene’. The second colloquium was hosted by University of Lapland in Pyhätunturi in 2017with a theme “Reimagining Ethics and Politics of Space for the Anthropocene”. The colloquiums aretransdisciplinary meeting places for researchers, activists and artists who challenge the mainstreamsolutions for the challenges that face the Earth and its habitants. One of the aims of the PeacefulCoexistence Colloquium is also to call for alternative and more radical ways to address the currentsocio-economic crises.All of these colloquiums have now produced an edited volume. The book “Sustainability andPeaceful Coexistence for the Anthropocene” connected to the first conference was edited by PasiHeikkurinen and published in 2017 by Routledge [4]. To analyze the root problems and consequencesof unsustainable development, as well as to outline rigorous solutions for the contemporary epoch, thisvolume brings together natural and social sciences under the rubric of the Anthropocene. The bookidentifies the central preconditions for social organization and governance to enable the peacefulcoexistence of humans and the non-human world. The contributors investigate the burning questionsof sustainability from a number of different perspectives including geosciences, economics, law,organizational studies, political theory, and philosophy. The book is a state-of-the-art review ofthe Anthropocene debate and provides crucial signposts for how human activities can, and should,be changed.The book “Ethics and Politics of Space for the Anthropocene” linked to the second conferencewas edited by Anu Valtonen, Outi Rantala and Paolo Davide Farah and will be published in 2020by Edward Elgar Publishing [5]. The book outlines new and more radical ways to address thecurrent environmental crisis by envisaging a narrative of change that renders visible the range oftransformations taking place throughout the globe. This enables the authors to capture the complexnature of ongoing transformations and to alter unjust practices and power structures in a sustainableand context-specific manner. Importantly, the new narrative highlights the localized and situated natureof the Anthropocene, allowing the differences of regions and contexts—-and subsequent ethical andpolitical questions—-to be taken seriously. It also highlights the potentiality residing in non-Westernways of relating to and living on the earth, taking more-than-humans into account.This Special Issue “After the Anthropocene: Time and Mobility” is an output from the thirdconference and published in 2020 by the journal “Sustainability”. At the dawn of spring 2019, we werecontacted by the Editorial Board of the journal concerning a Special Issue and we suggested thesame theme and title as the third Peaceful Coexistence. In the opening words of the colloquium theSpecial Issue was introduced to the participants, which were also invited to write an article to it.The colloquium itself had 35 participants from 10 different countries. The presentations and talks underthe theme were diverse ranging from deep ecology, and indigenous food sovereignty to degrowth, andnon-human hauntology. This final edited volume will end the Anthropocene-thematic trilogy in thePeaceful Coexistence collective.“The 4th Peaceful Coexistence Colloquium” is going to be held in 2021 and organized bySustainable Change Research Network (SUCH). We invite all interested persons to contact us.Sustainability 2020, 12, 5159 3 of 53. Articles in the IssueThis Special Issue comprises five articles, which all explore and discuss ways out of theAnthropocene, as well as envisage possibilities for diverse life after the Anthropocene. The focus of theissue is on questions of time and mobility, insofar as these concepts enrich our understandings of whatcomes after the Anthropocene and how could an exit from the Anthropocene materialize. The articlesexplore time and mobility after the Anthropocene in different ways, from a rich diversity theoreticaland empirical point of views.In their article ’Domination, Power, Supremacy: Confronting Anthropolitics with EcologicalRealism,’ Ruuska et al. [6] studied politics as domination. They claimed that domination, especiallyin the Anthropocene, has two vital components, which are power and supremacy. Domination doesnot occur without the power over others. In addition, domination requires reasoning, justification,and legitimation that are often connected to superiority arguments (based on religion, society,civilization, etc.) from the oppressor’s end. The authors argued that past and present politicalideologies and agendas, such as colonial rule, imperialism, neoliberal capitalism, and also the popularGreen New Deal are examples of ‘anthropolitics’, entailing an anthropocentric approach to politics. Incontrast to historical and prevailing anthropolitical programs, the article discusses post-Anthropocenepolitics under a theoretical frame called ecological realism, which is characterized by equality amongbeings, and localization and decentralization, as well as steep reduction of matter-energy throughputin the human realm.In his article ’Energy Intensity and Human Mobility after the Anthropocene,’ Mohorčich [7]claimed that after the Anthropocene, human settlements will likely have less available energy to movepeople and things. His article considered the feasibility of five modes of transportation under twoenergy-constrained scenarios. Mohorčich analyzed the effects that transformation mode choice is likelyto have on the size of post-Anthropocene human settlements, and also what is the role of speed andenergy in them. He argued that cars (including battery-electric vehicles) are not feasible under a highlyenergy-constrained situation, in contrast to buses, metros and walking which are feasible, but limithuman settlement size. Cycling is likely the only mode of transport that would enable suburbs in anenergy-constrained post-Anthropocene scenario, the article concludes.In their article ‘Envisioning Tourism and Proximity after the Anthropocene’, Rantala et al. [8]called for new imaginings, conceptualizations and practices of tourism for the current Earthly crisis.Thus, they conceptualized proximity tourism with feminist new materialist literature, which accordsagency to the ongoing common worlding of all matter—including but not limited to humans—ratherthan to separate individual agents. More specifically, they explore the idea of proximity by drawingcloser to the geo—to the Earth—through geological walks in the Pyhä National Park in Finnish Lapland.These walks are analyzed with the notions of rhythmicity, vitality and care—ideas constructed from thetheoretical heritage guiding the study. By doing this, Rantala, Salmela, Valtonen, and Höckert explorethe potential of proximity tourism in ways that intertwine non-living and living matter, science stories,history, local communities, and tourism. The outcome of this analysis is that they compose one possiblenarrative of tourism after the Anthropocene.In their article ‘The Post-Anthropocene Diet: Navigating Future Diets for Sustainable FoodSystems,’ Mazac and Tuomisto [9] examined how future diets could reduce the environmental impactsof food systems, and thus, enable movement into the post-Anthropocene. The authors claimedthat non-anthropocentric diets could address global food systems challenges in the Anthropocene.In order to change diets, changes in ontology is proposed. In their article, Mazac and Tuomistoemployed indigenous worldviews and object-oriented ecosophy to investigate the possibilities ofnon-anthropocentric worldviews with a focus on temporality. While indigenous ontologies areintroduced as pre-Anthropocene examples that depict humans and non-humans in relational diets,a post-Anthropocene illustration stresses non-dualist object-oriented ecosophy. As a central implication,the article offered ontologically based ideas to developing dietary guidelines for the time afterthe Anthropocene.Sustainability 2020, 12, 5159 4 of 5In his article ‘From the Anthropocene to an “Ecocene”—Eco-Phenomenological Perspectives onEmbodied, Anthrodecentric Transformations towards Enlivening Practices of Organising Sustainably’,Küpers [10] discussed the Anthropocene from an eco-phenomenological point of view. The authordrew, in particular, on the work of Maurice Merleau-Ponty on ‘body’. The article challenges body–minddualism and the hyper-separation between nature and culture inherent in the Anthropocene. It callsfor moving from the Anthropocene to Ecocene by making, what Küpers calls, an anthro-decentrictransformation. The article ends by presenting implications for sustainable organizing where therole of the body and embodiment have a central stage. Moreover, the author notes that moving‘towards a more integral ecocene necessitates an ethico-political restructuring and transformation ofcontemporary organizations [ . . . ]’, which ‘[ . . . ] involves analysing and questioning anthropocentricand interest-centric political practices and how they are used to accomplish and uphold power orcontrol’ (p. 12).4. ConclusionsBased on the articles of this issue, it is evident to us that now is the time to move out fromthe Anthropocene. Just as the Anthropocene marked a global matter-energetic shift, this end ofthe human epoch also marks significant changes in the deep geological time of the Earth’s history.Different temporal perspectives and rhythms will play a role in how the time after the Anthropocenewill unfold. There is a need to begin to conceive time not only in anthropocentric terms, but moredeeply and holistically, for instance, in terms of minerals, plants, and animals [2]. Thus, instead ofmerely seeking to save the world for future human generations, consideration and care of non-humanobjects, like rocks—constituents of the Earth—opens up a different time horizon, as the emerginggeo-social literature cogently demonstrates [11,12].A possibility is that the on-going mass movement of people and other earthbound beings willboth be an outcome and reason for the new epoch. Furthermore, the travel of earthbound beingsbeyond the boundaries of Earth—the exploitation of space—is an issue calling for serious criticalreflection. Finally, the mobility of deep geological formations of the Earth merits consideration aswell; the movement of lithospheric plates has historically changed the course of life on the planetin a remarkable way. The trouble of moving, living, and dying together in the late Anthropocenenecessarily brings about new practical and theoretical questions of power, as the recent formulations of‘geopower’, for instance, highlight [13].Finally, this scenario demands us to begin to develop post-anthropocentric ways of theorizing anddoing research. There is a need to find a better balance in how all habitants of the earth are includedin theory making, and involved in theoretical narration. A recent study of mosquitoes in the contextof tourism provides a case in point [14]. Drawing from feminist new material literature, the authorssuggest a post-anthropocentric approach that casts mosquitoes as fellow travelers, with which we areto live with—no matter whether we like it or not. The inevitable common worlding with multipleothers, including tiny ones, needs to be better acknowledged in future theorizations.The entanglement of humans with various creatures is strikingly visible now that the COVID-19entangles with our bodies, bringing about major social, political, and economic consequences. It hasforced us to consider many commonplace habits anew, including travelling. Ecologically, the pandemicmight trigger a shift, even though the history suggests that ‘business-as-usual’ is plausible after thecrisis [15]. Nevertheless, the pandemic efficiently highlights that the concept of the human masteryand control over other creatures is just an illusion.Author Contributions: The authors’ contribution to the special issue and this editorial corresponds with the orderof the authors listed in this article. All authors contributed substantially to all tasks. All authors have read andagreed to the published version of the manuscript.Funding: This research received no external funding.Conflicts of Interest: The authors declare no conflict of interest.Sustainability 2020, 12, 5159 5 of 5References1. Crutzen, P.J.; Stoermer, E.F. The Anthropocene. Glob. Chang. Newsl. 2000, 41, 17–18.2. Heikkurinen, P.; Rinkinen, J.; Järvensivu, T.; Wilén, K.; Ruuska, T. Organising in the Anthropocene:An ontological outline for ecocentric theorising. J. Clean. Prod. 2016, 113, 705–714. [CrossRef]3. Heikkurinen, P.; Ruuska, T.; Wilén, K.; Ulvila, M. The Anthropocene exit: Reconciling discursive tensions onthe new geological epoch. Ecol. Econ. 2019, 164, 106369. [CrossRef]4. Heikkurinen, P. (Ed.) Sustainability and Peaceful Coexistence for the Anthropocene; Routledge: Abingdon, UK,2017.5. Valtonen, A.; Rantala, O.; Farah, P. (Eds.) Ethics and Politics of Space for the Anthropocene; Edwar ElgarPublishing: Cheltenham, UK, 2020. (in press)6. Ruuska, T.; Heikkurinen, P.; Wilén, K. Domination, Power, Supremacy: Confronting Anthropolitics withEcological Realism. Sustainability 2020, 12, 2617. [CrossRef]7. Mohorčich, J. Energy Intensity and Human Mobility after the Anthropocene. Sustainability 2020, 12, 2376.[CrossRef]8. Rantala, O.; Salmela, T.; Valtonen, A.; Höckert, E. Envisioning Tourism and Proximity after the Anthropocene.Sustainability 2020, 12, 3948. [CrossRef]9. Mazac, R.; Tuomisto, H.L. The Post-Anthropocene Diet: Navigating Future Diets for Sustainable FoodSystems. Sustainability 2020, 12, 2355. [CrossRef]10. Küpers, W. From the Anthropocene to an ‘Ecocene’—Eco-Phenomenological Perspectives on Embodied,Anthro-Dece Ntric Transformations towards Enlivening Practices of Organising Sustainably. Sustainability2020, 12, 3633. [CrossRef]11. Clark, N.; Yusoff, K. Geosocial formations and the Anthropocene. Theory Cult. Soc. 2017, 34, 3–23. [CrossRef]12. Yusoff, K. Anthropogenesis: Origins and endings in the Anthropocene. Theory Cult. Soc. 2016, 33, 3–28.[CrossRef]13. Grosz, E. Geopower. Environ. Plan. D Soc. Space 2012, 30, 973–975.14. Valtonen, A.; Salmela, T.; Rantala, O. Living With Mosquitoes. Ann. Tour. Res. 2020. [CrossRef]15. Ioannides, D.; Szilvia, G. The COVID-19 crisis as an opportunity for escaping the unsustainable globaltourism path. Tour. Geogr. 2020. [CrossRef]© 2020 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open accessarticle distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution(CC BY) license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).

Aika ja liike antroposeenin jälkeen

https://lacris.ulapland.fi/ws/files/6730298/Time_and_Mobility_after_the_Anthropocene.pdf

Time and Mobility after the Anthropocene

Abstract

Similar works

Full text

Available Versions

Helsingin yliopiston digitaalinen arkisto

LaCRIS - University of Lapland Current Research System

Helsingin yliopiston digitaalinen arkisto