Total Word Count: 1960

Questions Answered: A1, B1

Question A1: Authors such as Whyte, Malm & Hornborg, and Moore articulate

misgivings about the notion of the Anthropocene. What are their objections?

In the past 30 years, the landscape of climate science has changed drastically. The

world has begun to take notice of the effects of climate change and it has become a central

topic in the scientific community. Because of this change, new terms and ideas are being

created to try and assess the situation. One of these concepts is the Anthropocene, which has

taken a large stage in naming the current environmental crisis. Some environmental experts

are not keen on the concept of the Anthropocene however. Authors such as Whyte, Malm,

Hornborg, and Moore discuss and criticize the notion of the Anthropocene in various

manners.

The Anthropocene is a concept of a geological epoch that humans have caused. The

basis for this idea is that human-driven climate change has modified the planet’s environment

so much that it has reached the point where it is distinct from the past geological epoch.

Because of human activities like pollution and emission of greenhouse gasses, the natural

boundaries for the Holocene (the previous geological epoch) have been exceeded. The effects

of climate change are present in various aspects of the planet’s sustainability and have created

several problems for the environment including but not limited to deforestation, ocean

acidification, rise in global temperature, loss of biodiversity, melting of polar ice caps, etc.

For these reasons, climate scientists have drawn up the idea of the Anthropocene, a

geological epoch characterized by human activity.

out several misgivings in the concept of the Anthropocene. The expert notes that depictions

of the Anthropocene period usually contain apocalyptic and ‘’end of the world’’ scenarios

which are problematic because they disregard different populations’ perspectives.

Specifically, Whyte points out how indigenous people’s perspective gets erased when

discussing these apocalyptic scenarios, since they have already been living through a disaster

crisis. Indigenous people have been suffering from colonial violence and environmental harm

for over 500 years, in which the nature and land they owned were taken from them and the

environment in which they lived was stripped away of its resources. To indigenous people,

the apocalyptic scenario is already a reality. For these reasons, Whyte notes that the

apocalyptic narratives that are painted by the Anthropocene are harmful in disregarding

indigenous people’s perspective of an ongoing crisis rather than one that is yet to take place.

Another problem regarding indigenous people’s perspective is that the Anthropocene concept

can place them as belonging to the Holocene period, as they did not participate in the actions

that caused or brought the planet into the Anthropocene period. This places them as survivors

of the Holocene period, an idea that can often give the notion that there are somehow

Indigenous people who were not harmed by the colonial and industrial actions of the climate

crisis, which is undoubtedly false. This is again a troubling aspect that Whyte notes the

Anthropocene brings regarding Indigenous people’s perspective.

Jason W. Moore is an environmental historian and also has notes on problems of the

Anthropocene concept. Moore has criticisms in regards to the idea that the current climate

crisis is caused by humanity as a collective group. Moore states that rather than humanity as a

whole being the driver of the climate crisis, it is the system of capitalism that drives climate

change. Capitalism seeks to turn nature into resources to be utilized for benefit and creates

the idea of instrumentalism, the view of using the earth with no regard as if it were an
instrument for benefit. This causes humanity to view nature as ‘’cheap nature’’, nature that is

seen as a usable resource and humans as cheap labor to optimize for profit. The expert

emphasizes that this system of utilizing humans and nature as exploitable resources is what

brought forth the climate crisis, rather than pinning the cause on the ‘anthropos’ as a whole.

Moore explains that there is a large difference in human contribution regarding the climate

crisis, for example, the difference between emissions from the global north and global south

and the exclusion of minorities in capitalism. All of this is due to an unequal capitalist system

that excludes poorer social classes and minority groups. Moore believes that the

Anthropocene concept oversimplifies the climate crisis in saying that humanity as a whole is

the cause, when in reality it is caused by a system that excluded a large portion of humanity.

The environmental expert instead suggests the concept of the Capitalocene, the idea that the

current geological epoch is caused and moved by the system of capitalism and its exploitation

of nature as a resource. It is because of this system that seeks optimization of everything that

there has been irresponsible use of the planet’s environment without sustainability in mind.

Andreas Malm and Alf Hornborg are two ecology professors and experts who worked

together to produce a critique of the Anthropocene. Their review of the Anthropocene

contains some similarities to Moore's criticisms, as they also question this unified notion of

humanity as the cause of climate change and divert focus to the capitalist system as the cause.

They note that while the Anthropocene holds a more scientific detail of current events, it fails

to recognize why these things have happened and what their causes are. The authors discuss

capitalism and the division of classes as the main cause of the utilization of fossil fuels which

started climate change. Malm and Hornborg note that there is no sense of unity in the

developments under the capitalist system, as the steam engines were made as a means of

production that pitted the class of workers to work under it. The possession of such

technology was entirely unequal, only owned by the rich capitalist class. The means of
production depends on the exploitation of cheap labor and nature, and therefore can only be

owned unevenly. It is because of this uneven possession of the means of production that the

working class is separated from the steam engine and sells their cheap labor to someday own

the means of production themselves. This works as a counterargument to the idea that

humanity as a whole is the cause of climate change, as the capitalist system divides and

places the capitalist class in positions of power to exploit nature and human labor. The

authors conclude that the division of classes in the capitalist system is an integral part of the

utilization of polluting technology and one of the core reasons for climate change.

Overall, several climate experts articulate their misgivings with the Anthropocene

concept. Their criticisms range from the erasing of indigenous narratives to the notion that

humans are not the sole cause of climate change but rather the system of capitalism and its

social classes. It remains clear that the Anthropocene concept, while being popular and

widely accepted, has several problems in the eyes of numerous climate experts.

B1: How might Heidegger’s distinction between technology and its essence be

understood as a critical refusal of the diagnosis of the Anthropocene? What is the basis of this

refusal?

Martin Heidegger is a renowned 20th-century philosopher who tackles the issues of

the emerging technology in his time. Heidegger claims that there is a fundamental separation

between technology and its essence, even going as far as to say that its essence has nothing to

do with technology in the slightest. Analyzing his philosophy regarding technology, some

disagreements can be seen in connection to new concepts of environmental science such as

the Anthropocene, the new term to explain the current geological time frame.
 Heidegger details that technology’s definition is a means to an end and part of human

activity. This entails the usual meaning that technology is a tool for humans to utilize. The

essence of technology, however, is completely different. They explain that the essence of

technology is the ‘’technological understanding of being’’, an idea of optimizing and utilizing

everything as a resource just for the sake of doing so. It is the idea of perceiving everything,

even humans themselves, as resources that hold value for what they can serve. This concept

entails the idea of ‘’enframing’’, the vision of constantly analyzing what we can gain from

things, figuring out what benefit we can extract from these resources. As for the

Anthropocene concept, it is the idea of a geological epoch that humans have caused. The

basis for this idea is that human-driven climate change has modified the planet’s environment

so much that it has reached the point where it is distinct from the previous geological epoch.

For these reasons, climate scientists have drawn up the idea of the Anthropocene, a

geological epoch characterized by human activity.

From the basis of Heidegger's definition of the essence of technology, the philosopher

explains that the essence of technology is limiting to humanity but also a gift they must

accept. Heidegger is by no means against technology, but notes that this way of viewing

everything as a resource to be optimized is dangerous for humanity, and must be ‘’cleared’’ to

perceive the true value of things, for man to find his true essence in being the receiver, not the

creator. Clearing is not something humans actively decide to do, it is not a conscious

decision. Rather, clearing is something that must come to the human when he grasps the

‘’technological understanding of being’’. They must understand the concept to then distance

themselves from it, and it is only possible to do so by first grasping this way of thinking that

has been embedded in us by the use of technology. By doing so, humanity gains a free

relationship with technology, without the constant need to optimize and transform things into

being more efficient. It is important to note that it is not that humans should not seek to make
things more efficient, but rather be free from the necessity of optimizing everything and

viewing everything as a resource just for the sake of doing so. Heidegger claims that by

freeing themselves they understand that there is value in other things, not just objects of

utility, and can therefore access their true essence.

While the concept of the Anthropocene was not present during the time Heidegger

was alive, some connections can be made with his way of thinking. Heidegger details that

because of the ‘’technological understanding of being’’, individuals might be led to believe

the idea that non-human things have no true value and thus can only hold such by being

viewed under ‘’enframing’’, seen as what they can be utilized for. Heidegger explains that

this gives way to the illusion that whatever humans encounter, they always find themselves.

This is because under the view of enframing things only hold value in regard to human

benefit. This concept can be connected to the Anthropocene, as it holds humanity as a

collective agent for climate change, in which everything is seen as a resource to be optimized.

The Anthropocene diagnoses humanity as the creator and producer upon these resources.

Like the illusion, in the context of the Anthropocene, everything individuals encounter

reflects upon themselves as if they are only resources for humans to utilize, subject to the

constant need for efficiency and optimization. The philosopher’s ideas claim that humanity is

not the creator or manipulator of things, but instead the receiver of these things. In this

manner, there is a refusal of the Anthropocene concept as it entails that human beings are the

makers and manipulators of things, attributing ‘’enframing’’ to human nature. For these

reasons, Heidegger’s philosophy can then be used to refute the concept of the Anthropocene.

Overall, Heidegger’s philosophy in regard to the essence of technology can be seen to

juxtapose the diagnosis of the Anthropocene in positioning the human as the creator. Because

Heidegger places the human being as the receiver instead of the producer under the view of

‘’enframing’’, there is a core refusal of the Anthropocene’s diagnosis of the world.