After reading the previous book on Anthropocene it seemed a bit one-sided, I’ve been following this idea of being critical within my practice, something Milo is drilling into my brain. I’ve decided to read this book and take some notes, Against the Anthropocene. I want to know what is wrong with the ideas presented in the other book. What is wrong with the ideas behind Anthropocene? Some quotes here that interested my views from the last book.
The Anthropocene has also become part of an expanding discourse in the arts, humanities, and social sciences
The idea that it’s become more prominent in discourse currently is of interest to me, I wonder why we suddenly have decided to include it in our discourse. One answer would be the effects of climate change is now more obvious than the previous and it’s taking more than science now to discuss the issues and how we can face the modern challenges of environmental damage.
The trend is present in cultural practices, art exhibitions, and catalogue publications,
The idea that art can somehow be as useful as science in bringing awareness is of interest to me, I read in another book that science has failed to really demonstrate the urgency of these issues. That the arts have a distinct difference in being more personal and an ability to emotionally convince people than science.
It remains urgent to bring these critical humanities- and arts-based resources to bear on scientific discourse in order to disrupt specialist divisions
Another point that reflects on the previous quote, the arts surprisingly do have a place in the discourse of climate change. Specialist divisions are left alone to discuss issues, and I do agree with this statement.
The activities that are discussed are hardly human at least in that generalising, species-being sense, but are in fact mostly the “activities” of corporate industry
Generalizing the activities that create climate change towards humans, but in fact, corporate actions although caused by humans are not human activities. It’s all about capitalism and creating a profit.
It is worth asking to what degree the Anthropocene itself— as a discursive formation with legal, political, cultural, and geological strands—is a function of that system, despite its scientific terminological origins (a question to which I will return later). My argument, in brief, is that Anthropocene rhetoric—joining images and texts—frequently acts as a mechanism of universalization, albeit complexly mediated and distributed among various agents, which enables the military-state-corporate apparatus to disavow responsibility for the differentiated impacts of climate change, effectively obscuring the accountability behind the mounting eco-catastrophe and inadvertently making us all complicit in it destructive project.
This did strike me deeply, how have we been convinced as a population that we are the main cause of this? Hasn’t societies’ need for more money and power, mainly the small percentage that controls 99% of the world’s financial wealth, power, and political control, be the main reason for the destruction of the earth and its biodiversity and ecological landscape? How can the people be at fault, we do not decide on what happens, only know what is the outcome.
It avoids the politicization of ecology that could otherwise lead to the practice of climate justice, which demands that the politics of equality, human rights, and historical responsibility be taken into account when addressing environmental change.
It discusses the idea that the Anthropocene discourse avoids the politics of ecology, and how can we discuss ecology and climate justice without understanding the politics of existing and living. The dominance of wealth and power and who causes the most damage, others destroying the planet while we share this existence.
Anthropocene visuality tends to reinforce the techno-utopian position that “We” have indeed mastered nature, just as we have mastered its imaging—and in fact the two, the dual colonisation of nature and representation.
I think perhaps humans have this idea of being above nature, due to our self-awareness. But also I think this is a downfall, to act like gods and think we are above nature, or that we are not part of the ecology that exists to me is stupid. And will be our downfall.
The Anthropocene places technocrats and scientists in the role of bringing about a great awakening regarding climate change and then conveniently puts those same figures in the position of being the only ones that can fix the problem—via geoengineering. Yet geoengineering projects are invented and proposed generally by large corporations, heavy industry, and well-resourced nations, and supported, not surprisingly, by the likes of Microsoft mogul and philanthropist Bill Gates.
The combination of the ones who bring us revelations and the ones that have the answers seems a bit fishy. The only way of fixing the planet is through geoengineering? To make money once again through fixing the planet and conveniently being the ones who have destroyed it as well.
While the 2014 panel “The Anthropocene: An engineered age?” Also addressed the Anthropocene’s democratic deficit, supporting the need for more inclusive debate when it comes to geoengineering—with which one can agree—it was telling that the panel was composed solely of white European and north american men of science,
Interestingly a white European and north American panel discussing inclusivity is a joke, it seems like a stunt, almost self-aware of their power and the need to keep the population dumb.
Capitalism that has created the environmental problems in the first place.
Nail on the head right here, capitalism is the cause of destruction to this level in our current societal existence.
Reflection:
I really did enjoy the book, it challenged heavily the Anthropocene discourse I have been reading for a while. It did make me consider who is writing this book? Where is the information from? It did seem a bit preachy at times but I think it did argue positively about who is to blame and the unified blame on climate change as a huge issue. Neo-liberals are causing massive issues toward the destruction of our planet. I did find I sit within the middle of both these texts. The previous one on Anthropocene does find many things that also click with me, I don’t think it’s not accurate but I find this critique to be correct. I find a middle ground to be of great importance. I’m curious how I can impact this into my work, perhaps not as a huge focus but inclusion of this discourse within it. Perhaps think about sustainability within my practice and what I’m using? What sounds am I creating, what is the point?