# data[].attributes.headline
Moore's agreement with Lovbrand et al. that it is anthropology's responsibility to 'investigate the new forms of power, authority, and subjectivity formed within everyday practices of its own scholarship' is a valid point. I would argue further that in order for there to be a successful 'Anthropocene anthropology', there need to be local actors - local anthropologists working "at home" in 'anthropocene spaces'.

# data[].attributes.subject
Moore's agreement with Lovbrand et al. that it is anthropology's responsibility to 'investigate the new forms of power, authority, and subjectivity formed within everyday practices of its own scholarship' is a valid point. I would argue further that in order for there to be a successful 'Anthropocene anthropology', there need to be local actors - local anthropologists working "at home" in 'anthropocene spaces'.

# data[].attributes.body
Hannah Abbott

# data[].attributes.headline
Human Kind as Species of Geological forces

# data[].attributes.subject
Human Kind as Species of Geological forces

# data[].attributes.body
When Chakrabarty quotes Croce as saying – “We do not understand ourselves best as part of the natural world” – what does this mean for anthropology? To take Chakrabarty’s argument forward, how can anthropologists contribute to an understand the human kind as a species of geological forces (as Chakravarthy argued) as against a biological or a social species? And how can we continue to account for the particular, the fact that different groups within this species surely unleash different kinds of forces?
-Anuradha-

# data[].attributes.headline
How will Covid-19 affect the idea of the anthropocene?

# data[].attributes.subject
How will Covid-19 affect the idea of the anthropocene?

# data[].attributes.body
Crutzen writes "Unless there is a global catastrophe - a meteorite impact, a world war or a pandemic - mankind will remain a major environmental force for many millennia." At the beginning of the pandemic, with global lockdowns, we saw an initial drop in carbon emissions. Are we just back to business as usual now or are changes beginning to happen? And would it be enough to alter/reverse (some of) the detrimental human impact on the planet?

Hannah Abbott

# data[].attributes.body
A fascinating article looking at the impact/lack of Indigenous voices in climate change discussions, and how climate science, founded in a Euro-Western ontology, disregards the racism and colonialism that permeates academic institutions. A nice point was included about white men and their “citational relational” practice of citing one another generation after generation, leaving little space for alternative discourses/modes of knowledge production.

Eloise

# data[].attributes.headline
 How has the world changed in the last 2 decades?

# data[].attributes.subject
 How has the world changed in the last 2 decades?

# data[].attributes.body
Thought provoking article that offers facts and figures about how humans are damaging the planet and added to negative effects of climate change. This article can be thought provoking for the reader who may reflect on how they would like to change their lifestyle to help reduce the effects of climate change on a micro scale. At the end of the article Curtzen says that unless there is a global catastrophe such as pandemic, mankind will remain a major environmental force for many millennia. Given this was written almost two decades ago and currently we are in the mist of a pandemic I would like hear Crutzens’ current thoughts on how the COVID-19 19 pandemic has challenged or proved his hypothesis correct. It would also be interesting to see compare the figures with more recent data to see if more of the population are contributing to the effects of climate change or if it remains at 25%.
Zoe

# data[].attributes.body
2 Great Quotes:

Relating to climate change as human nature:
“to invoke ultra remote causes of this kind is like explaining the success of a Japanese fighter pilot in terms of prehuman evolution of binocular vision and opposablle thumbs” - 64

“Species thinking on climate change is conducive to mystifcation and political paralysis. It cannot serve as a basis for challenging the vested interests of business-as-usual” - 67

Chris Devas

# data[].attributes.headline
A 'Bahamian anthropological puzzle' indeed...

# data[].attributes.subject
A 'Bahamian anthropological puzzle' indeed...

# data[].attributes.body
Moore terms The Bahamas an 'Anthropocene space', raising important questions about how the anthropocene discourse and 'its rhetorics come to affect the everyday lives of those who reside in the islands' (p31). I can see real value in her argument that anthropologists should critically and holistically look at the 'material and symbolic implications' (p.41) of such a global discourse but I found the article overly theoretical. In particular, her 'conceptual bundle' including 'ecobiopolitics, socioecologics, earthly relations, geostories and design' (p.40) is a confusing array of concepts and I struggled to understand the practical significance/goal.
Brigid 685345

# data[].attributes.body
Moore makes some interesting comments around anthropology and the Anthropocene however what struck me most was her description of the Bahamas. It reminded me of a quote;

“If only it were all so simple! If only there were evil people somewhere insidiously committing evil deeds, and it were necessary only to separate them from the rest of us and destroy them. But the line dividing good and evil cuts through the heart of every human being. And who is willing to destroy a piece of his own heart?”
― Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn, The Gulag Archipelago 1918–1956

The reliance of the people of the Bahamas on the fragile ecosystem they live in seems matched only by their reliance on the oil that plays such a central part in their lives. We all seem to share in this tension both abhorring the polluters and being one of them.

Ali

# data[].attributes.body
I really enjoyed the flow of this paper. Todd presents her argument starting from a personal experience of a lack of presence of Indigenous voices before tackling her main point about the decolonisation of the anthropocene, focusing on climate change, where it is not only about changing the perspective but also about allowing true expression and contribution
-Riwa

# data[].attributes.body
In the history of human activities that have transformed and shaped nature, humans themselves have also been changing. Does the establishment of the concept of anthropocene first require a definition of the human being that is sufficiently broad but with clear boundaries? At the same time, is the anthropocene as a problematic framework too general, too simplistic, or does it run the risk of treating human beings as a species as one, thus erasing hierarchies and conflicts within humanity and more specific actors such as capital and empire? For example, today there are also Marxist scholars who have developed the concept of capitalocene, arguing that humans are losing control of capital and becoming the personification of capital.  Therefore, I think that the conceptual framework of anthropocene still needs to be questioned as to whether it can pinpoint the exact root causes of global ecological problems.
-Zhenyuan Fang

# data[].attributes.headline
What do we do when confronted with anthropocenic thought?

# data[].attributes.subject
What do we do when confronted with anthropocenic thought?

# data[].attributes.body
"...I think that it is easy for us to agree that, in modernism, people are not equipped with the mental and emotional repertoire to deal with such a vast scale of events... How can we simultaneously be part of such a long history, have such an important influence, and yet be so late in realizing what has happened and so utterly impotent in our attempts to fix it?..."

"...While the older problem of science studies was to understand the active role of scientists in the construction of facts, a new problem arises: how to understand the active role of human agency not only in the construction of facts, but also in the very existence of the phenomena those facts are trying to document?..."

"...Especially when we are trying to understand how we could shift from economics to ecology, given the old connection between those two disciplines and the “scientific worldview...”

Latour calls for a revolutionary way of thinking social theory that understands that everything is in the process of becoming and understanding how humankind inhabits the world rather defining  interspecies relationships based on natural history versus human evolution.

Eleni 686974

# data[].attributes.body
Moore raises a really valuable distinction between the anthropology of global change and the anthropology of the Anthropocene, the former examining the experiences and effects of global change in relation to climate change and the latter examining the effects of the elaboration of the idea of the 'Anthropocene'. I think Moore raises some really interesting points about the potential materialities associated with the labelling of this age of human agency. Firstly, I found it interesting to think about the regional political collectivisation that Moore conceives of as growing out of the idea of the Anthropocene, and specifically the notion that the scope of these collectives could be greater than simply the Anthropocene itself. Secondly, Moore posits that the Anthropocene as a term justifies appropriation of and intervention in Anthropocene spaces, and I wonder to what extent we can refer to this as a neo-colonialism?

Claudia

# data[].attributes.body
Todd’s personal tone made this paper a very interesting read in her focus of the silences of indigenous voices in discussions of climate change. What I found particularly thought-provoking was the questions she writes when thinking about the popularity of a term or trend – “what other story could be told here?...whose space is this, and who is not here?” (244) –these questions will definitely remain in my mind when reading future articles, both in and out this course. Todd reveals the need to place indigenous epistemologies within all academic spaces and specifically in the discourse of the global environmental crisis. In an alternative paper, Todd (2016), asks her non-indigenous peers to consider the “ongoing colonial oppression of Indigenous peoples” (16) and after attending a lecture given by Bruno Latour, she calls for him to reference his indigenous interlocutors. Todd illustrates how the Anthropocene has colonised our thoughts and shows how inequalities of the colonial world have come to play an important role in the way we think about resources.
-Rebecca Luff

# data[].attributes.body
I found this article as an example of how a scientific narrative on the Anthropocene is created: the human is the centre of action, and stands in contrast with the “nature” they are destroying. In contrast, social-science and philosophical narratives on the Anthropocene (as in Moore, Ives or Tsing) are more focused on decentralizing the human and seeing them as entangled in interspecies (or earthly) relations. This makes me wonder how changing narrative could frame the problem differently and suggest solutions?

I do not agree that Anthropocene is a “geology of mankind” since framing it that way would make us blind of issues of bodily relationality (with all the issues of gaze and perspectives that “bodily” implies).
- Sarah M. (686607)

# data[].attributes.headline
From the paper It seems that verndansky is correct when he states that evolutionary proceedings point to the fact that as forms evolve they have greater influence on their surroundings and human kind are hitting a peak of this. What really struck a chord in me was the final paragraph and the insistence that something so dramatic/catastrophic would have to happen for change to occur e.g. the pandemic we are living through now??we have seen massive reductions in the atmosphere post covid 19  especially in China for instance. this seems to point further towards to the real effect human and development has had on the world and brings to question whether for some reason this could have been planned  

# data[].attributes.subject
From the paper It seems that verndansky is correct when he states that evolutionary proceedings point to the fact that as forms evolve they have greater influence on their surroundings and human kind are hitting a peak of this. What really struck a chord in me was the final paragraph and the insistence that something so dramatic/catastrophic would have to happen for change to occur e.g. the pandemic we are living through now??we have seen massive reductions in the atmosphere post covid 19  especially in China for instance. this seems to point further towards to the real effect human and development has had on the world and brings to question whether for some reason this could have been planned  

# data[].attributes.body
Leanne

# data[].attributes.body
I found this article to a good introduction and outline of the climate change challenges and the Anthropocene. A quote that stood out for me was " More than luck by than wisdom, this catastrophic situation did not develop" in reference to the Antarctic ozone hole and Chlorine.  This got me thinking as to what other catastrophes have been avoided by sheer luck.
Sarah Kazira

# data[].attributes.headline
The Anthropocene as a homogenising concept

# data[].attributes.subject
The Anthropocene as a homogenising concept

# data[].attributes.body
I really liked Todd's article, I found her writing style accessible and her argument that the Anthropocene is too Eurocentric highly convincing.

It was interesting to be encouraged to consider what was missing, what had been left out of the narrative. I drew from Spivak's seminal work 'Can the Subaltern Speak' to think in terms of Todd's work about how there is still so much to be done in academia, especially work on the environment, to not just 'give voice' to underrepresented scholars, in doing so reifying the hegemonic power dynamics, but to instead create space - through decolonisation.

Todd made it clear how important it is to question the homogenisation of humans that happens within the Anthropocene and in doing so hides the power dynamics inherent within both the discourse and the driving of climate change.

Todd's article inspired me to read a bit more into alternative narratives/concepts of the Anthropocene including the Anthropo-not-seen (De La Cadena 2015) and the White (M)Anthropocene (Di Chiro, 2017) which provided alternatives and discussed which voices were privileged in climate debates.

Georgia Watson

# data[].attributes.body
‘For the past three centuries, the effects of humans on the global environment have escalated’, have humans caused environmental destruction since this period or has this been going on for a much longer period of time only to be exacerbated by the industrial revolution and the modern-day way of life. ‘Unless there is a global catastrophe like the Pandemic’ mankind will remain a major environmental force. This statement remains hopeful under the assumption that a collective catastrophe will drive society towards a sustainable way of life. Yes, we have seen a reduction in emissions in China as pointed out by Leanne but is this because human behaviour is being positively guided or because the ‘business as usual’ trajectory is facing hinderances in order to curtail the spread of the virus and flatten the death rate curve. I also wonder if the ‘global catastrophe’ just deepens inequalities, forcing vulnerable and marginalized communities to drastically alter their lifestyles with the aim of preserving life (and the ecosystem) and this just allows the richer to further commit to their pre pandemic lifestyles. This highlights issues of environmental justice and how environmentalism of the poor differs from that of the rich.

Mah 644393

# data[].attributes.body
There's so many interesting comments on this article, which I think just shows that a piece of writing needn't be long to be thought-provoking!
(Sara)

# data[].attributes.headline
Reflecting inequalities within the Anthropocene

# data[].attributes.subject
Reflecting inequalities within the Anthropocene

# data[].attributes.body
This article links climate change and the Anthropocene to capitalism, wealth accumulation and means of production in very Marxist fashion. Marx himself presciently wrote in the Communist Manifesto about exploitation, production and consumption, raw materials drawn from remotest zones and new desires for goods from distant lands. Through the concept of uncontrolled growth and economic expansion, the writers rightly criticise the homogenisation of the Anthropocene as the age of planetary ecological damage caused by all human beings, when in fact the forces driving climate change were caused by a small proportion of people for extremely narrow interests. This highlights the importance of not essentialising climate discourses and solutions, but situating these within the frame of global and local inequalities and injustices.
- Sheu Jeen

# data[].attributes.headline
"As soon as this is recognised, however, the main paradox of the narrative, if not of the concept as such, becomes visible: climate change is denaturalised in one moment – relocated from the sphere of natural causes to that of human activities – only to be renaturalised in the next, when derived from an innate human trait, such as the ability to control fire."

# data[].attributes.subject
"As soon as this is recognised, however, the main paradox of the narrative, if not of the concept as such, becomes visible: climate change is denaturalised in one moment – relocated from the sphere of natural causes to that of human activities – only to be renaturalised in the next, when derived from an innate human trait, such as the ability to control fire."

# data[].attributes.body
Reading this, I thought it would be interesting to note that through learning how to use fire, our brains grew larger based on the changed nutrition. Subsequently  our consciousness became more complex which means that we could engage with our environment in new ways consistently. Therefore, to me, the looping process between nature and human always existed, but changed in velocity which sets us apart from other species. We are intelligent enough to use agency, but not evolved enough to overcome instincts intrinsic to who we are. (675638)

# data[].attributes.headline
CLIMATE WARS: WHAT PEOPLE WILL BE KILLED FOR IN THE 21ST CENTURY - A LECTURE BY HARALD WELZER

# data[].attributes.subject
CLIMATE WARS: WHAT PEOPLE WILL BE KILLED FOR IN THE 21ST CENTURY - A LECTURE BY HARALD WELZER

# data[].attributes.body
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WZyrGdNvAvw&t=1304s&ab_channel=BostonUniversity

interesting lecture (675638)

# data[].attributes.body
"Not all humans are equally implicated in the forces that created the disasters driving contemporary human environmental crises" - My worry is that history has shown us that the West have deflected their responsibility by blaming 'others'.

Todds paper offers an interesting and very important alternative view on the Anthropocene, of its creation within 'white public spaces'. I wonder what the consequences will be in regards to knowledge production within this field without challenging the Eurocentric perspective that dominates academia. In particular of avoiding the usual racist and colonial tropes that pathologize the 'other'.

Natasha (675589)

# data[].attributes.body
Todd's writing was very interesting as it looked at the indigenous voice connected to the climate change discourse, and how in the climate science and institutions, Euro-Western, racism is so present. What made it so fascinating was how she started with an experience, her own experience of the lack in representation of the indigenous opinions.

This quote of her father; "maybe someday this type of work will be seen as an "authentically indigenous" response to the Anthropocene, too" (252).  This represents this ethical divide in the academy, where all the understandings of the Anthropocene are formulated within these "white public spaces"

Tessa

# data[].attributes.body
The whiteness of scholarship around the Anthropocene, as discussed by Todd, made me wonder about its implications in environmental activism and policy. Some suggest that indigenous peoples are like the ‘guardians’ of nature and of ecological knowledge, and that indigenous ontologies should form the basis of our approach to environmental degradation. While the idea sounds attractive, I wonder whether it would lead to indigenous ontologies being distorted and appropriated. Todd references Hunt, who notes that there is inherent epistemic violence in the way euro-western academia treats indigenous ontologies, and how they are “reified and distorted in the ongoing colonial structures of the european and North American academy” (245). Furthermore, Todd points out the way in which the concept of the Anthropocene tends to imply that all humans are “equally culpable” (252) for the environmental crisis. I therefore wonder whether it is possible to draw on indigenous ontologies as a ‘resource’ for environmental action without it being exploitative, and to also recognize the unequal distribution of responsibility for environmental degradation.

Edda (667994)

# data[].attributes.body
I think the readings questioning of the anthropocene as a concept is very important for the social sciences, and later for the 'real world' once the social sciences manage to break the glass and get diffused as a popular idea (like the anthropocene did as an idea).

However, I think that most tend to engage only with the position that climate change is real (which, of course it is), thus omitting a part of the population that does not think so, as well as the quite powerful forces, which exploit the climate-change « sceptics » for their own goals (ie: Bush removing the US from the Kyoto Treaty, then Trump with the Paris Agreement, but there are daily examples of this trend).

I wonder what the impact of climate change deniers and those who think the anthropocene is conspiracy theory has on the formulation of the theories around development and climate change.

Marie

# data[].attributes.body
I found Todd’s article extremely captivating. The writing style was clear (as opposed to Moore, whose article I found difficult to engage with) and the points she made about reindigenising and decolonising the Anthropocene are difficult to disagree with. However, it got me thinking about the term ‘Euro-Western’, as I think such a broad term has the potential to erase the indigenous people of Europe, such as the Sami, who are facing similar challenges to other indigenous peoples of the world. What alternatives could we use in place of ‘Euro-Western’?

Hanna

# data[].attributes.body
Although perhaps only a passing point in the article, I will draw on Todd's discussion on the locus of knowledge. In addition to critiquing the academy as being a eurocentric white space, she also states that it is a space that prioritises a specific kind of knowledge, i.e. that of written 'reason'. Unsurprisingly, she states that indigenous scholars are inherently excluded from participating here in their own terms. She then proceeds to illustrate other springs of knowledge such as through walking, dance, and "place‐thought." In her opinion these are all ways to decolonize thought. My learning experiences with Zapatistas and indigenous peoples in Oaxaca and Chiapas included these forms of knowledge among many others and I found them to be some of the most educational teachings of my life. I am wondering if these other knowledges should be incorporated into the academy, or whether the academy as we know it should undergo radical transformation or even be eradicated. What is the best way to decolonize thought? Marten (686321)

# data[].attributes.body
Moore’s discussion of indigenous place thought, ‘ontologies of dwelling’, and decolonizing through ‘walking worlds into being’ to manifest a ‘pluriverse’ ala the Zapatistas is very interesting to me and was used to bridge multiple ontologies into ideas of displacement and replacement masterfully. “For Sundberg, walking and movement are necessary to bring a decolonizing methodology to fruition because, ‘As we humans move, work, play, and narrate with a multiplicity of beings in place, we enact historically contingent and radically distinct worlds/ontologies.’” Maybe in a context the author would prefer I not compare her to, but one still compelling is Debord’s idea of the ‘dérive’, another form of social and ontological change based on movement through a built capitalist world, one that is meant to be ‘revolutionary’, attacking the repetition of one standardized way of thinking and not simply being an ‘actant’ but conceptualizing your world differently. The way the interaction with a space creates it and creates you is difficult to wrap one’s head around, but calling for that specific ‘ecology’ in the piece in many ways reveals the different ways we interpret our relationality to the world already, ‘white space’ being so dominant, yet atomizing and corralling what may in other societies be multilayered and ecological, the dérive being a method of resistance against homogeneity. Walking worlds into being then is a way of relating to oneself and ones world they desire to have sway over, to counter displacement or at the very least have strong presence In the spaces you deserve a place in yet are denied. Art being the bridge between human and nonhuman, presence and voice and representation in a space is the bridge between humans.

# data[].attributes.body
My main takeaway here was on the importance of introducing a flexible framework to avoid calcification  of ideas in this space. I agree that a lot of jargon was thrown out here but I wonder if that is an important part of the process in order to make sure that no stone is left uncovered in this space.

Rob

# data[].attributes.body
Reading the Crutzen article, initially I was like, “Oh, thanks Ed, what a boring reading”. I got on with it anyway, considering it’s only a page. However, this actually turned out to be my favourite reading – it is like a time capsule to be read critically. Crutzen states:

‘A daunting task lies ahead for scientists and engineers to guide society towards environmentally sustainable management during the era of the Anthropocene. This will require appropriate human behaviour at all scales, and may well involve internationally accepted, large-scale geo-engineering projects…’.

Its obvious Crutzen (along with many others) believes, with such certainty, that salvation from climate change will come from the scientists/engineers. Yet these are the same actors whose forms of knowledge and interventions in human life are not innocent when it comes to industrialisation and capitalism and so, therefore, not entirely innocent when it comes to climate change. Not to mention the fact that Crutzen’s statement is also incredibly arrogant – he is a scientist himself, or perhaps one of the scientists he refers to.

I have made a related post on the Zoe Todd article.

Jacob Heath 685615

# data[].attributes.body
I’m using this space to think about the Anna Tsing video and Zoe Todd’s article; mainly Anna Tsing’s video. These two anthropologists demand greater recognition of, and a ‘safer world’ (can’t think of a better term) for, multispecies alongside indigenous people and their knowledge.

Tsing, at some point after 6:05 minutes into the video, highlights how there has been a popular revival of the idea(s) of colonising other planets. Tsing doesn’t say Elon Musk by name, but you can imagine he is implied; that’s who came to my mind anyway. I see Elon Musk linking to the Crutzen reading – Musk is a sort of weird, ‘clean energy’ yet rocket loving entrepreneur-scientist/engineer – and the whole ‘alternative futures’ aspect of this module.

My point in bringing these people – Todd, Tsing, Crutzen, Musk – together, is to highlight a striking, fascinating and terrifying disparity in ways of thinking about the present and future, through the following juxtaposition. Recall Tsing’s multi-species argument. Well, Elon Musk wants humans (us) to become a “multi-planet species” (3:35 mins; I use this video in the tutorial). Whilst Anna Tsing points out the absurdity of this, Elon Musk is making this future, right now.

Multispecies future Vs. Multi-planet species future

Jacob Heath 685615

# data[].attributes.body
When reading Chakrabarty, my mind kept going back to ancient Rome and the description of it that some Latins make - a place so polluted, crowded, stinking and ridden by disease and greed to cause stomach troubles just reading about it.  Needless to say, the Roman empire died by its own hand when attempting to extend beyond territories it could not control [a bit like Elon Musk and SpaceX who seems very roman to me in his thinking].  This is brought home when I hit the final point of Chakrabarty's argument around the Anthropocene being the resulting of something bigger than just capitalism (and socialism which form the two sides of the coin of the same hegelian world) and of a change of those boundary conditions that allowed mankind to develop on earth - and in this sense, Chakrabarty takes the discussion away from (current or past) human formations and back to geological and evolutional dynamics in which we seem to be an 'extra'.  Now, this in my opinion leaves in the middle, in the 'undecidable' space where we need to make some choic

es based on ?what objectives? and this brings the obvious conclusion that we do not currently have parameters to make decisions (in whatever measure of scope of human action) to influence the evolution of anthropocene.  I am still grappling with the implications of all this, but just throwing the thoughts in for discussion. / Emanuela

# data[].attributes.body
I would like to argue that a system similar to the welfare state should be set up among countries for climate responsibility. More money would be allocated by wealthier countries and the developing would not have to pay. This organization would do grand-scale projects in order to save environmentally harmed areas. We should not have to be stuck on who is responsible, because cannot victimize anyone. We should contribute all on the basis of who is the most able to. I will elaborate on this more as part of the next assignment.

Andrew

# data[].attributes.body
Moore registers the ironies that the term ‘Anthropocene’ explicits. Naming an era after ourselves suggests a certain awe at our own magnificence - an ‘anthropocentric’ worldview which got us into this situation in the first place. He describes how the scientification of the anthropocene perpetuates misperceptions about humans and nature, and the ways in which the term is weaponized by the interests of colonists and capitalists. The anthropocene discourse catalyses vulnerability through a process of responsibilization (Foucault). People of the Bahamas are rendered individually responsible for preserving their own biodiversity by the institutions that are culpable for the loss of biodiversity in the first place. “The promotion of sustainable fisheries is increasingly central to international commodity chains linking large-scale commercial fishing and the mass consumption of marine products.”
Tanita 685926

# data[].attributes.body
I think the mentioned phenomenon of anthropologists of indigenous background "often [being] dismissed as biased, overly emotional, or unable to maintain objectivity" is due to the fact that them gaining too much focus as natives among the scientists who were initially built to study just them. This contradiction in the context of the colonized nature of the discipline (which many people fall victim to) in fact skews native anthropologists' messages, because they are already being met with immense bias from the beginning. Colonialist anthropologists will indeed dismiss their native peers' opinion about native-sensitive subjects because in their mind those anthropologists are too emotional anyways about the catastrophes having been done to their ancestors, and no matter what they say, this bias will not fade, making anything of their publications seem too emotional. In Anthropology and the oppressed,  Jones (1995) also talks about this issue. Everyone should instead think about the possibility of native anthropologists being able to view colonialism-related topics in an objective light too. Just as whites seldom feel remorse for what their ancestors have done to black people, indigenous anthropologists may also able to abstract from the fact that their ancestors were exploited.

Andrew

# data[].attributes.headline
Acknowledging our own shortcomings without playing down the climate crisis

# data[].attributes.subject
Acknowledging our own shortcomings without playing down the climate crisis

# data[].attributes.body
I liked the way Chakrabarty prefaced his article by acknowledging that, as a non-scientist, he is basing his argument on 'a fundamental assumption
about the science of climate change'. It's something you rarely see in accounts of climate change.

Having said that, while I think scepticism is a good thing - and crucial to anthropology - being sceptical of something with such overwhelming evidence becomes denial.

Will 676615

# data[].attributes.body
Moore centres her exploration around the idea of the Anthropocene as a ‘contemporary problem space’, and sets a bounded scene and challenge for anthropologists to help tackle the issues brought on by planetary change. It is a piece written for anthropologists, a call to action, which is reflected in the tone and detail. This era, epoch, time, requires a new way of thinking, and I found it urgently inspiring. “Anthropocene spaces like small islands are but one position from which anthropologists can begin to think the Anthropocene.” Clare W 677349

# data[].attributes.body
In this article, Todd, puts forth the idea of 'ethics of theoretical consciousness' (2015: 250). Putting forth the idea that "we live in the world together with others and must constantly think and act with reference to these relationships." This ties in what Professor Ed speaks of in his lecture as well where the he comments that the 'Anthropocene has turned humanity into one species' despite which we are unable to experience the impacts of climate-change from a global perspective. As it is so overwhelming in the local-sense. And so continues the inequality of production and consumption in the ironic sense where the producer/manufacturing parts of the world suffer greater impact while the consumer part of the world has what Professor Ed points out as thinking about 'preservation as an environmental privilege'. I found the existence of these two discourses quite fascinating to explore at both international and domestic levels.

By Priyanka

# data[].attributes.body
This is a very complex paper and so far I only read it once so my plan is to go through it over again - the main idea that stands out so far is the difference between anticipatory thinking and the acknowledgement of 'fait accompli' which is not an ontology per se but an interpretation of the way scientific (rational?) thought has developed and has positioned itself, historically.  so the split between objectivity and subjectivity now acts as a yoke when thinking about the anthropocene. LAtour proposes a vast range of things we need to do to be able to get over this dual, starting for example from the distinction between 'matter' and 'materiality' which subsumes a linear directionality of thought.  This is what needs to be changed according to Latour.    I also read a critique to the idea of reconciliation or combination as an ontology. / Emanuela

# data[].attributes.body
I really enjoyed this article as it clearly demonstrated two key ways that anthropology can be useful in the conversation around the Anthropocene. Firstly, it can provide us with the tools critically to assess the concept of the Anthropocene and the potential implications of this universalising narrative. Secondly, anthropologists are particularly well placed to move the Anthropocene from the realm of theory and into the practical world through ethnographies exploring the impact of the Anthropocene on people’s everyday lives. - Maria (687047)

# data[].attributes.body
As I read the description of the Bahamas, I kept thinking about articles I've been reading about reopening the Caribbean Islands post Covid 19. There is such a push because of the reliance on tourism, yet I question if people are thinking through the implications for the local population. The same feels true of climate change - the push of tourism, even if labelled as ecotourism, is driven by the economic need, but not thinking long term about the full ecosystem implications. -Karen

# data[].attributes.body
This idea about Anthropocene is amazing for us to understanding the relationships between human and the earth. But it has ignored something, like the uneven industrialisation history of different groups of population, between countries and within countries. So the politics and particular history of each human group should be took into accounts. The second on is about multispecies relationship, how Anthropocene push us to think about human with animals and plants?

Bo Yang

# data[].attributes.body
At the end of their article, Crutzen states that unless there is a major catastrophe, human beings would remain a major environmental force for thousands of years. He lists a pandemic as being one of the potential threats to mankind which stood out to me considering the current situation our world finds itself in. I couldn't help but think how even with certain countries or regions declaring a climate emergency, very little practical and direct action has been taken, at leats on the scale required to combat an "emergency". The comparison is striking when we see the strong actions taken by some countries around the world in their attempt to control the spread of the pandemic (closing borders, curfews, mobilisation of retired medical staff, creation of task forces etc). Then again, the lack of fast and decisive action of some states has also been noted and the consequences of these are clear when looking at the death rates around the world. Unfortunately the more negative consequences of climate change are not limited by borders or social distancing. Will the Covid-19 Pandemic push governments to be more pro-active in their approach to the climate emergency'?

Claire Bate-Roullin

# data[].attributes.body
Crutzen writes that the environmental 'catastrophe' "will require appropriate human behaviour at all scales, and may well involve internationally accepted, large-scale geo-engineering projects, for instance to ‘optimize’ climate". The article refers to general 'human behvaiour' ignoring where and how industrial revolution took place, and how global North-South relations come into play (for example, resource exploitation in the South). I find articles, such as this one, that obscure the causes of environmental challenges disturbing.
Moustafa

# data[].attributes.body
Cutzen portrays the outset of an era that has brought about harmful changes in the environment due to us human beings; bringing forth the Anthropocene epoch. He brings forward examples of how the humans have taken over Mother Earth in a destructive manner, leading to increase in carbon- dioxide and methane. Vernadsky interpretation leads to the novel hot topic of sustainability in today’s world, as it has taken us humans 3 centuries to just get aware and take actions to protect our environment from global warming, which is shocking and disappointing. All the statistical data provided in this article have clearly emphasised on the world slowly sinking, due to a multitude of things such as extreme usage of fossil fuels causing carbon and methane emissions, heavy construction and development, usage of nitrogen fertilisers etc. This should be a sign for all of us to work towards ameliorating the environment that we live in by taking small steps, that all add up to create a bigger difference.
Enakshi
(685915)

# data[].attributes.body
The paradox presented by Chakrabarty was the stand-out point this week in the readings for me. The history of the anthropocene is a conjoined twin to industrialization, creating a chicken vs egg complex. For the remainder of the module I will analyse discussions of the environment as also being discussions of industrialization and ensure that I am careful in understanding responsibility and repercussions accordingly.

In response to Eloise

I agree that it was interesting to read about the citational relational practice of white men citing each other. This point convinced me that the anthropocene has colonized our thought and is thus a colonial process.

jakob lewis

# data[].attributes.body
Todd examines how Crutzen's 'Anthropocene' has been picked up and ran with as a term, evolving from a scientific category, highlighting the implicit problems with climate talk. Emergent from the Euro-centric ontology of science, there is a 'citational politics' of climate change, white men citing from generation to generation, removing space for alternate voices and knowledge. Todd calls for an excavation of the hegemonic knowledge that reproduces the structurally violent white heteropatriarchy, science a tendon of coloniality, officiating white power. Todd emphasizes how contingencies in culture, value and meanings are homogenized by a narrow understanding of human-environment relations, the 'Anthropocene' placing man at the forefront, the discourse shoehorning the diversity of the human life on earth into a 'species', negating focus on who is to blame, and who is bearing the brunt of these consequences. Neoliberal capitalism is responsible for the unbounded growth, as Crutzen identifies with the 'great acceleration' of the Industrial Revolution - the same people who were colonized in search of resources, mainly in the Global South, are also those who are suffering under climate changes. There is an inherent inequality that the Global North, the culprits for destruction of the planet, continue to suppress the knowledge beyond the scientific realm, hence Todd's call for a plurality of narratives and a cease to the extraction, appropriation and domination continued in colonial climate talk.

Kitty