Storytelling: From the early Anthropocene to the good or the bad Anthropocene

Abstract

This paper examines whether the Anthropocene can be a helpful metaphor for holistic understandings of human impacts on the Earth. I argue that for this, splitting the Anthropocene into several consecutive stages would be helpful, and suggest a multistage Anthropocene: the early Anthropocene, the first acceleration phase, the post-1950 Great Acceleration, and finally the good or the bad anthropocene depending on whether humans take decisive action in time that ensures us staying within planetary boundaries. This reframing uses the power of storytelling by presenting a multifaceted picture of human agency in the Anthropocene, provides a deep framing that is positive and supports action, and provides clear signals on the direction in which we are moving. It puts humans back in their rightful place on Earth – as one of many species, although with large power for the good or the bad, and the responsibilities this brings.

Future cities: renarrating human agency

“…The resulting fatalism, underpinned by a sensibility of increasing global complexity (Healey, 1997;Rosenau, 2000), is only amplified by the use of apocalyptic imagery in the popular media (Crist, 2013). This singular, 'bad' Anthropocene leaves us unable to imagine or understand what 'good' future pathways might look like (Berkhout, 2014;Kunnas, 2017). But if this framing is not an inevitable one, then neither is an outcome whereby, in the face of problems on the scale of Hurricane Harvey, agents of urban change are embracing governance rationalities characterised primarily by caution, and a limited sense of human agency.…”

Deep time and compressed time in the Anthropocene: The new timescape and the value of cosmic storytelling

“…In the following sections, I propose that narrativity, the human ability to arrange action and time in the form of a story (Abbott, 2008; Pellauer and Dauenhauer, 2016; Ricoeur and McLaughlin, 2009), is the key mode of navigation for predicaments that have a prominent temporal character. The importance of narrativity for envisioning non-calamitous scenarios for the Anthropocene has already been proposed (Kunnas, 2017). Here, I argue that narrativity is crucial also for grappling with the changing temporality informing conceptions of the Anthropocene.…”

The Anthropocene exit: Reconciling discursive tensions on the new geological epoch

“…The start date of the anthropogenic geological epoch was the subject of debate even before the Anthropocene discourses commenced. The birth of the epoch divides the Anthropocene discourse broadly into two other and separate ontological and epistemological camps: the so-called good Anthropocene and the bad Anthropocene (Dalby, 2016;Hamilton, 2016;Kunnas, 2017). According to the advocates of the good Anthropocene discourse, the epoch began as early as 8,000 years ago, when humans started clearing forests and farming (e.g., Ruddiman, 2003).…”