In this article I will continue with my previous topic regarding the key arguments from a variety of academic perspectives on the Anthropocene origins and how such key events were crucial for defining humanities collective role in our emerging epoch.
In light of the scientific work and discussions by Masami Yuki and Nancy Langston, how do we extrapolate from the fact that humanity has gone from being a locally integrated and natural entity to becoming an independent un-natural globalized force that threatens to disrupt earths equilibrium? (Robin & Steffen, 2007) uses the phrasing active “manager” of global environments to emphasize our human imprint. So where does this take place and are we equally to blame for the consequences we face?
Thomas Lekan writes ” Yet Anthropos was hardly a unitary agent over the past two hundred years, since the increase in CO2 levels stemmed almost entirely from the fossil fuel burning of wealthy OECD countries in Europe, North America, and East Asia.” This argument proposes both place and scale of the anthropogenic forces to which the developed countries are to blame. Lekan also quotes a statement from Indira Ghandi who argues that the history of colonization brought forth the prosperous western countries we see today by dominating the foreign man, extracting their resources without regard of equality or justice to build empires of wealth. (as cited in Lekan, 2014). (Gowdy & Krall, 2013) brings further emphasis to this argument while comparing humanity to the world of social insects that harnesses the “goods” of others to serve their collective needs, which causes them to thrive. Even though similarities to other species exists like the fact that we multiple and spread when we´re in a suitable environment, humanity is a unique force that in numerous ways has shaped the ecosystems around them by using tools and creating technologies that are beyond any other living organisms (Ellis & Rammankutty, 2008).
This is just one perspective, suggesting that westernized countries are the villain and the cause of environmental change. However, this view differs depending on when you choose to acknowledge the start of the Anthropocene era.
So even though you can trace the source of our “waste” to specific regions of the world, the consequences are still faced by the entire globe and affects us all in different ways, making the mission to assert “blame” still important, but less meaningful in the way that we all have to withstand the forces of environmental change. If we are affecting natural systems that already act on a global scale, then the outcome is pretty obvious. (McNeill, 2014) discusses the consequences of increased global mean temperature caused by human activity in relation to natural weather patterns like El Niño, that already has natural variations.
In the debate with Nancy Langston, the implications of the widespread substances which have reached the farthest corners of the world, affecting us are in some ways integrated into our DNA. This in turn makes the question about place and scale within the Anthropocene hard to determine, but in light of the global consequences that we see, it is also obvious. So how do we deal with these complex integrated systems that are being challenged by anthropogenic force?
(Rockström et al, 2009) emphasizes the view of planetary boundaries which will allow us to develop within a safe operating space. This view offers a framework that also has to be politically and socially integrated. Who can and should decide what is important - it all comes down to values. A social and cultural connection to land is an issue that has to address local “place attachment”, as shown by (Yuki, 2012) This is not just about environmental justice ” our home, our rules” but the local perspective offers historical knowledge that can not be overlooked if we are to address environmental change.
(Powell et al 2014) summarizes “In this process, both governance and scientific narratives have the opportunity to empower and learn from the perspectives and local practices of state-holders, who will often express narratives more coherent with the wicked situation at hand” From my perspective, the Holocene epoch enabled humanity to prosper and flourish, with much less concern to place and scale, but the Anthropocene reflects an era of change where place and scale are significantly connected to global climate change.
References:
Ellis, E. C., & Ramankutty, N. (2008). Putting people in the map: anthropogenic biomes of the world. Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment, 6(8), 439–447. https://doi.org/10.1890/070062
Gowdy, J., & Krall, L. (2013). The ultrasocial origin of the Anthropocene. Ecological Economics, 95, 137–147. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2013.08.006
Lekan, T. (2014). Fractal Eaarth: Visualizing the Global Environment in the Anthropocene. Environmental Humanities, (5), 171–201. Retrieved from http://environmentalhumanities.org/arch/vol5/5.10.pdf
McNeill, J. (2014, December 2). Changing Climates of History.
Powell, N. S., Larsen, R. K., & van Bommel, S. (2014). Meeting the “Anthropocene” in the context of intractability and complexity: infusing resilience narratives with intersubjectivity. Resilience, 2(3), 135–150. https://doi.org/10.1080/21693293.2014.948324
Robin, L., & Steffen, W. (2007). History for the Anthropocene. History Compass, 5(5), 1694–1719. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1478-0542.2007.00459.x
Rockström, J., Steffen, W., Noone, K., Persson, Å., Chapin, F. S., Lambin, E. F., … Foley, J. A. (2009). A safe operating space for humanity. Nature, 461(7263), 472–475. https://doi.org/10.1038/461472a
Yuki, M. (2012). Why Eat Toxic Food? Mercury Poisoning, Minamata, and Literary Resistance to Risks of Food. Interdisciplinary Studies in Literature and Environment, 19(4), 732–750. https://doi.org/10.1093/isle/iss107