Abstract:The term Anthropocene first appeared in 2000 when scientists Paul Crutzen and Eugene Stoermer attempted to define the environmental effects of anthropic activities. Since then, it has become a widespread, but also controversial, term in the academic community. As environmental discourses increasingly permeate our lives, it has trespassed the borders of scholarly traditions, becoming acknowledged in popular culture. Bearing in mind the pivotal role the press has in the popularization, dissemination and conseque… Show more
“…The fact that the concept itself is present in social circulation does not mean that it is understood and that appropriate actions are taken. The analysis of the simplified and unclear image of the Anthropocene disseminated by the media leads to the following conclusion:In fact, it is rather evident that the lack of a consistent discussion of the Anthropocene does not solely stem from a poor scientific understanding of its ecological drives, but also by the lack of political awareness and a general unpreparedness to face the socio‐environmental implications of the Age of Humankind (Zottola & de Majo, 2022). …”
Section: The Anthropocene Has Many Faces: Between Academic Debate And...mentioning
confidence: 99%
“…In fact, it is rather evident that the lack of a consistent discussion of the Anthropocene does not solely stem from a poor scientific understanding of its ecological drives, but also by the lack of political awareness and a general unpreparedness to face the socio-environmental implications of the Age of Humankind (Zottola & de Majo, 2022).…”
The commentary encourages supplementing the geological and natural concept of the Anthropocene with a cultural and political aspect. These two perspectives are not mutually exclusive but are complementary. This approach can facilitate its transition from the language of academic debate to practical and necessary actions at the societal level. According to the authors, the slightly abstract and impersonal Anthropocene should be shown in the context of cultural, economic and political dependencies and choices that created it and continue to reproduce its logic. This turn also opens up a new area for analyzing the Anthropocene from the perspective of a critique of political economy (an analysis of the costs of economic policies that reproduce and accelerate successive stages of the ecological catastrophe) as well as of civic culture (research “anthropocentric awareness” or “anthropocentric citizenship” in entire societies). Thus, the authors suggest rejecting the fatalistic determinism of the Anthropocene as a process that, although originally caused by abstract (devoid of historical, economic and political contexts) humans, is now often treated as a phenomenon beyond the reach of social action.
“…The fact that the concept itself is present in social circulation does not mean that it is understood and that appropriate actions are taken. The analysis of the simplified and unclear image of the Anthropocene disseminated by the media leads to the following conclusion:In fact, it is rather evident that the lack of a consistent discussion of the Anthropocene does not solely stem from a poor scientific understanding of its ecological drives, but also by the lack of political awareness and a general unpreparedness to face the socio‐environmental implications of the Age of Humankind (Zottola & de Majo, 2022). …”
Section: The Anthropocene Has Many Faces: Between Academic Debate And...mentioning
confidence: 99%
“…In fact, it is rather evident that the lack of a consistent discussion of the Anthropocene does not solely stem from a poor scientific understanding of its ecological drives, but also by the lack of political awareness and a general unpreparedness to face the socio-environmental implications of the Age of Humankind (Zottola & de Majo, 2022).…”
The commentary encourages supplementing the geological and natural concept of the Anthropocene with a cultural and political aspect. These two perspectives are not mutually exclusive but are complementary. This approach can facilitate its transition from the language of academic debate to practical and necessary actions at the societal level. According to the authors, the slightly abstract and impersonal Anthropocene should be shown in the context of cultural, economic and political dependencies and choices that created it and continue to reproduce its logic. This turn also opens up a new area for analyzing the Anthropocene from the perspective of a critique of political economy (an analysis of the costs of economic policies that reproduce and accelerate successive stages of the ecological catastrophe) as well as of civic culture (research “anthropocentric awareness” or “anthropocentric citizenship” in entire societies). Thus, the authors suggest rejecting the fatalistic determinism of the Anthropocene as a process that, although originally caused by abstract (devoid of historical, economic and political contexts) humans, is now often treated as a phenomenon beyond the reach of social action.
“…Vaihtoehtoisten käsitekehittelyjen lisäksi itse antroposeenin käsitteestä on erityisesti viimeisen vuosikymmenen aikana kirjoitettu niin paljon ja yhteismitattomasti, että sen populaarin levinneisyyden kartoittamisesta (Zottola & De Majo 2022), erilaisten merkitysten analysoinnista (esim. Autin 2016;Toivanen ym.…”
Section: Käsitteistä: Antroposeeni Vs Kapitaloseeni Ja Fossiilikapita...unclassified
Antroposeenin käsitteen on kritisoitu syyllistävän universaalia ”ihmiskuntaa” ekokatastrofista ja samalla häivyttävän ympäristötuhojen yhteiskunnallista taustaa. Ihmiskunnan sijaan syylliseksi on esitetty kapitalismia, ja keskustelua käydään siksi useimmiten antroposeenin ja kapitaloseenin käsitteiden välillä. Artikkelissa esitetään, että kapitaloseenin näkökulmasta esitetty kritiikki antroposeenia kohtaan ohittaa liiaksi aikamme ekokatastrofin kannalta ratkaisevan tekijän, fossiilienergian ja siihen kytkeytyneen kapitalismin eli fossiilikapitalismin. Artikkelin pääväite on, ettei fossiilikapitalismia kannata analysoida pelkästään kapitalismina yleensä, vaan sitä tulee tutkia myös suhteessa itse fossiilisiin polttoaineisiin. Artikkelissa esitetään fossiilisten polttoaineiden ja kapitalismin erityisestä suhteesta alustava analyysi, joka perustelee väitteen fossiilikapitalismin erityisluonteesta. Ellei erityisluonnetta huomioida, jää tutkimus helposti joko yhteiskunnalliseksi tai tekniseksi eikä yhdistä näitä kahta puolta. Antroposeeni vs. kapitaloseeni -debatin tulisi siksi keskittyä tarkemmin juuri fossiilikapitalismiin.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
