#environmentalPhilosophy | Explore Tumblr Posts and Blogs

poordogseeksgod · 7 years

Text

‘Responding to the Anthropocene’ (Part II)

G’day & Chao (hello in Vietnamese),

Summer is in the air over here in Melbourne. Guess what? The temperature will drop throughout the week (typical Melbourne). Thank you Summer for visiting us a bit early to give us a taster of what you will be like in the next month and a half!

Okay so I’m going straight into the second part of the talk about Clive Hamilton’s book, Defiant Earth.

A couple of months ago I noted down all his words that resonated with me and ones I thought will inspire, drive or move me or you.

I also found his writing was a bit hard to understand so I listened to his perspectives on the radio. I got the heavy and dense arguments from the book and I also got his emotions and thoughts and life, the environment and humans from his radio interview...

1. THE BOOK

“Does not the arrival of the ‘anthropocene’ justify new grounds for an emerging narrative of humanity as a whole?”

Have you picked up anything interesting in Hamilton’s statement?

- I picked up: ‘narrative’ & ‘whole’

...

Here’s his views & arguments:

1. New epoch (or even ‘era’...)

In the beginning chapter, he adopts a ‘factual’ tone - stating research from the ICS (International Commission on Stratigraphy) and including findings from ‘earth scientists.’

“Earth scientists belief lies in the rapid increase in concentration of CO2 in atmosphere... shifting out of the previous epoch, the Holocene.” (p.1) The “last 60 years... have seen most profound transformation of human relationship with nature.”

He points out that before, the ‘Holocene’ was a 10,000 year period of mild & constant climate that permitted civilisation to flourish (p.4).

In figures, he states this new epoch begun around 1945 - “CO2 became steep after World War II.” (p.2)

Hamilton combines a factual/research tone with a sense of ‘exaggeration.’

He exaggerates with scientists:

-that the ‘anthropocene’ is an ‘epoch’ - longer than ‘age’ but shorter than a ‘period.’ (p.7)

He seems to also take the more ‘serious’ position with the ‘experts’ - that we have not entered a new ‘epoch’ but a new ‘era...’ He thinks if society does not respond to climate disruption, the anthropocene will upgrade to this ‘anthropocentric’ ‘era...’ (p.7)

2. Human Power over Nature

In 1945 he claims, marks the 'turning point’ for ‘nature’ and ‘humans’ (p.4).

“The geological evolution diverged from one driven by blind forces or nature to one influenced by the conscious, willing being... a new HUMAN - GEOLOGICAL POWER (p.4).

He then goes a bit deeper to our actions in the industrial times & now:

“Industrialism aims to bring the natural world under human supervision...” (p.8)

and “impacts such as increases in CO2 do not happen... but are the consequences, intended or decisions taken by human minds (p.6).

Hmm (sorry for thinking out loud...), Hamilton seems to open up... as a vulnerable and honest human being and admitting that ‘we’ are all part of the ‘cause’ and ‘consequence.’

He is reinstating and emphasising humans’(us) ability to make decisions...

Hmm ‘decisions’ that affect our life, other people and most importantly according to Hamilton - nature, the environment and the WHOLE Earth....

Hamilton exaggerates and emphasises the notion of our ‘power’ over nature - use of ‘power’ not ‘force’ that can be ‘withheld’ and ‘exercised.’ (p.6)

I feel really responsible for my doings after reading this first few pages. I think this was Hamilton’s aim to make us feel some kind of ‘human burden’ as ‘intelligent’ creatures with morals...

“The world is in the history of MANKIND.” (p.2)

3. Hamilton’s definition of the Anthropocene:

He clears up the early assumptions of what we think of the Anthopocene by arguing what it isn’t is:

“not a term coined to describe continued spread of human impacts or modification of ecosystems... but instead describes a rupture in functioning of earth system as a whole...” (p.34).

1. rupture - Humans have destroyed, punctured, marked, left a hole/scar

I admit that I followed the common crowd of thinking that many of the big issues in the world are due to ‘human impact.’ Hamilton takes a big step beyond the limits of ‘human impact’ and goes to say that what’s more important is the ‘state’ of the whole Earth now - its shifts, its reactions,.. reality of nature (natural disasters, climate change...)

“If anthropocene is a rupture in history of Earth as a whole, then its also a rupture in history of humans as a whole” (p.34).

^ What does he mean in the last part of the sentence? He leaves me thinking - What does it mean for humans now? Who are we? Have we changed?’

2. earth system as a whole - Hamilton repeatedly writes of this idea of earth as “no longer a collection of local ecosystems, landscapes... but as a SINGLE, FUNCTIONING SYSTEM (p.34).

He continues this description of ‘new’ era with emotive words that evoke fear describing the Anthropocene as being ‘unstable,’ ‘unpredictable,’ and will endure for thousands of years...

Nature (he portrays our natural environment like a pronoun) refuses to be tamed as our freedom & technological powers have led us to a brink of ruin.(p.37).

How daunting does this sound? He really hits us in the core of the phrase ‘look what we’ve done.’

4. Understanding of Earth & Nature in this Age

"Our modern ideas of earth as an environment which humans make their home is being replaced by images of an awakened giant, ornery beast, fighting back and seeking revenge... a world of angry summers.” (p.48)

^ Goodness, this has an element of truth. What do you think? I’m scared and I’m thinking - WHAT DO WE DO? I know how to feel and react because Hamilton already paints this scary picture!

"Our understanding of Earth... is undergoing a RADICAL change.”

This is interesting - he is suggesting our ‘thinking’ is changing ‘radically’ of our understanding of nature or Gaia:

Nature no longer exists apart from humanity.

Nature is our victim or servant.

Nature is no longer passive, fragile or suffering in silence.

Nature(climate system) is becoming more energetic.

Nature is both a sublime earth that is beautiful when becalmed & terrifying when enraged - an ‘intimate’ and an ‘alien’ planet.

^ p.45-50

“Nature is no longer a magnificent book in which God speaks to us and grants us a glimpse of his infinite beauty & goodness but a grim report which scientists speak to us & grants us a glimpse of the disrupted natural patterns and a chaotic climate.” (p.49)

5. What should we not do?

Hamilton thinks because we have ‘radically’ modified the many processes and ecosystems within Earth (p.51), it is too late to pull back... (p.54)

He states our actions are ‘irreversible’ and the effects will persist for millennia (p.52).

This sounds not right though? Does that mean we just continue doing what we have already been doing in this technological & industrial age?

Though, he just calls us to think about:

What can be done to SLOW the changes...

what can be done to ADAPT to those changes that is unavoidable in the long term?

What can be done to remediate damage to the earth’s system?

Note - In the event talk, the main panelist points out Hamilton provides a lack of ‘solutions’ to his arguments.

^ Above, I think Hamilton ‘stirs’ us some emotions and provides a catalyst to make us want to act or do - in this case - makes us think, question.

Is that enough?

He continues...

“We must go beyond earth system science to philosophy... the new anthropocentric age is an embedded subject - humans are inseparable from forces of nature” (p.53).

“Embeddedness is the new view neither local nor universal.” (p.53) - What does this mean?

Note - He has been making us think more about our role as humans, maybe he wants us to first think individually of our ‘self,’ our relation to nature, to others and the Earth?

6. The need for a new narrative

In the last few chapters, he talks about our new role as humans...

“We emerge as a kind of a tragic figure - a central agent, unable to fulfil the dream of modernity so we extricate ourselves from nature & rise above it” (p.53)

It is true. But again, reinstating our ‘ties’ being knitted with nature. We are left to think - What will our new relationship be like with Earth?

“The fate of humans... our own welfare, our virtues & our duties to one another... our inescapable responsibility for Earth defines us as moral beings” (p.53).

He calls this narrative: ‘TELEOLOGICAL ANTHROPOCENTRISM’

He claims what makes us different in this age is this new form of ‘human specialness...’

“Humans have actual power to change course of earth” (p.70). It’s similar to the view of secular ‘ecomoderns’ of the philosophy that man guides human destiny rather than God... (p.77)

Note - I think this narrative will call for people to be more open & engage with. Hamilton thinks when we are called to act on our natural environment, it is not judged on the scale of good & evil(religious) but on the scale of care & neglect (p.155).

Again, I’m getting Hamilton’s tone of the burden of human responsibility...

“This new form - humans are not free to do whatever we want but must retrain ourselves & restrict what we do” (p.70).

^ I’ve realised that Hamilton indeed impacts us psychologically. It’s not so much about our doings but about a sense of control...

Most importantly, I think Hamilton wants us to use this ‘mindset’ or frame of mind when going about our daily lives or applying it in an economic, political and social sense. He says:

“This new narrative exposes our powerful failures... there is no promise of a happy ending in the anthropocene narrative... but it is one we are compelled to ACCEPT.” (p.82&83).

Lastly,

He wants us to think not only locally but beyond and globally - “In post modern age, our entire world has fallen under spell of GLOBALIZATION. We have become self-focused global consumers... new narrative is we go towards global citizenship” (p.129).

How radical of a thought is that?

Takeaways:

- think WHOLE, big picture, broadly, interconnectedly(humans + nature relationship)

- change in thinking & our heart (doubt our past, old beliefs about what we knew)

- the anthropocene - emerging narrative of us as humans, new religion?

That’s all folks. What do you think?

The next post might be: ‘Part 3: My thoughts on Hamilton’s thoughts of his book discussed on radio (sorry for this long read!)

Until then, Chao (also goodbye in Vietnamese).

j-nguyen

I am intrigued to hear your thoughts/opinions on this subject matter. Let’s create a growing dialogue from different peoples’ experiences and disciplines!

email me at: [email protected]

or use the ask box above!

Having a ‘dialogue’ is crucial in the 21st century. We need to have every citizen share their experiences and thoughts on ‘sustainability’ in general. We can then carry everyone’s voices of different disciplines, in the designs of the built environment to produce ‘good’ buildings and foster general harmony & cooperation with everyone. To our future descendants, see you soon...

Hamilton C 2017, Defiant Earth, Allen & Unwin, Australia.

^ first draft 18/10/17

#anthropocene #earthscience #defiantearth #clivehamilton #newnarrative #criticalreview #environmentalphilosophy #architecturegraduate

0 notes