Anthropocene/Anthroposcene

Integrating Temporal and Spatial Aspects of Human-Planetary Interaction toward Ethical Adaptation

Datos Bibliográficos

ID2228047
AutoresBina Gogineni, Kyle Nichols
Año2021
Volumen47
Número2
Páginas349-369
Fecha de publicación2021-01-02
Peer ReviewedSí
Open AccessNo
TipoARTICLE
RevistaCritical Inquiry (JOURNAL)
Identificadores de la revistaISSN: 0093-1896 • E-ISSN: 1539-7858
EditorialUniversity of Chicago Press (PUBLISHER • US)
DOI10.1086/712128
OpenAlexW3114649005
IdiomaEN
Citas recibidas4
Referencias citadas9

The Anthropocene debates are rooted in epistemological differences. Geologists seek temporal markers of spatially even anthropogenic impact. Thus, they favor geologic data that fit this category. Humanists and social scientists, on the other hand, tend to focus on the negative effects of spatial unevenness. Without linking the Anthropocene’s temporal and spatial components, the official designation, ultimately determined by geologists, will be a futile exercise that will not make good on the Anthropocene Working Group’s intention for it to be useful for wider segments of society. However, if the Anthropocene is divided into an Early, Middle, and Late Anthropocene, each defined by geologic evidence, the uneven spatial distributions of anthropogenic damage can be traced to specific events in human history, thus actualizing the predictive value of geology. Further, this diachronic scheme, unlike the synchronic ones thus far proposed, makes more legible two fundamental dynamics between human and natural trajectories: the intensification of global inequity coterminous with the intensification of natural damage; and humanity’s ever more audacious attempts to control the environment. This ethos, wielded as the prime justification for taking over that which belonged to cultures not espousing it, has resulted in anthropogenic damage disproportionately affecting the most economically and historically vulnerable peoples. However, their alternative modes of coping with the damages—an ineluctable responsiveness to, rather than control over, environment—enables them to survive. As such, they could lead the way through the Anthropocene, modeling adaptation and mitigation strategies, and obviating the global North’s unsound hope for a technological solution. Three metropolitan architects, Rem Koolhaas, David Adjaye, and V. Mitch McEwen, look to global Southern urbanisms––improvisational, creative, minimalist praxes grounded in indigenous lifeways––for alternate modes of inhabiting anthropocenic modernity. Likewise, New Zealand’s government has materially and ethically mitigated its legacy of settler colonialism by combining Western scientific data with indigenous knowledge to formulate more adaptive, responsive, integrative approaches to environment. By expanding the data beyond the stratigraphic, coordinated interdisciplinary research can measure variegated effects of––and responses to––the Anthropocene, thus better equipping humanity to adapt to and/or mitigate climate change and to eschew unsustainable practices

Adaptation (eye · Anthropocene · Archaeology · Biology · Environmental ethics · Geography · Humanity · Natural (archaeology · Planetary boundaries · Political science · Sustainability · Ecocriticism and Environmental Literature · Ecology · Environmental, Ecological, and Cultural Studies · Geographies of human-animal interactions · History · Law · Philosophy · Psychology