In class we collected what we thought of as the current state of the earth (often in the words of authors we have been reading and not necessarily our own beliefs), and juxtaposed this with a collection of ways in which we categorize realities, such as the current state of the earth. Each of these have many layers, big words, essentialisms, and so much more that can be interrogated, but instead I will combine as many as I can, and touch on what I contributed to the list.
What is the state of the Earth?
- New Geological Era – Humans make real lasting changes on Earth (Showstack 2013)
- There have been significant human impacts on the earth for thousands of years, the terms Anthropocene should be extended further into the past (Albert 2015)
- Keeping the Wild: The earth remains significantly natural despite human impacts – the anthropocene exaggerates human capabilities and power to change earth systems
- Facing and accepting our inevitable demise and collapse; do not learn to die as an individual, learn to die as a society (Scranton)
- Neoliberal agendas are inhibiting us from reaching lasting solutions (Johnson et al. 2014)
- The world is spatialized, divided into a hierarchy of places where those with power pursue individual interests (Dalby)
Counting to 1/2/>2 – Categories of Reality
- humans as anthropocene versus earthbound as anthropocene (Latour 2013)
- Consequences as scandal versus consequences as reality to be dealt with (Latour 2011) (Shellenburger and Nordhaus)
- Good versus Bad (Revkin NYT)
- Bifurcation of Nature – final separation between human and nature (Latour 2013) – Borrowed from Whitehead
- Sustainability versus Resilience in context of anthropocene – categories fro problem solving in that reality
- if nature equals everything, following nature is deterministic because we can’t do otherwise (Hardequin)
- If there is nature and anthropocene, letting nature take its course leads to moral injunction (Hardequin)
- 1. Can’t save biodiversity for biodiversity’s sake (Karieva) 2. Us = epitome? (Lex) 3. epistomologicval pluralism? (Lorimer Multinatural)
The point that I contributed to this conversation was consequence as scandal and as reality, which I found really intriguing for a few reasons. The first of which is that it connects back to my previous post on nature versus culture and how those two concepts are either heaped into one domain or divided into two. What scares people about keeping them in two domains is that it allows for both conflict and harmony (Proctor 2009), and the possibility of conflict outweighs the possibility of harmony.
In a similar context, Latour (in Shellenburger and Nordhaus) remarks that environmentalists see consequences as scandal, whereas “post-environmentalists” see consequences as reality to be dealt with. I find myself thinking more similarly with “post-environmentalists” in that the good will always come with the bad; there is no perfect solution. I used to think more along the lines that consequences were scandal and the world was just crumbling around us, before realizing that we really live in a world where we cannot escape conflict or scandal, and in the end we will find a way to make things work.
Another reason I found Latour’s dichotomy to be so interesting is that it speaks to reality in two different ways. Consequences as scandal is one way in which to view reality. To justify it or to say it is wrong is to bring into question the concept of reality, which is a much larger big word to figure out. In this context it is easy for me to say that this is simply not a good reality. Yet at the same time, when I think of the different narratives and realities of POCs in racist oppression, and of trans-people and cis- women in sexist oppression, I know that these different realities are really important to inclusive anti-racists and anti-sexist efforts.
Consequences as reality to be dealt with is in my mind a reality that makes more sense because it does accept that reality for what it is: full of conflict and harmony, neither of which is possible without the other. In this way, thinking about consequence as scandal seems so silly and immature (when reduced to fit into this context) because it seems to disregard the connection that conflict and harmony have with one another. The place where I struggle is finding that line between realities of oppression or human and moral realities, and then the realities of the environmental world and the people and ideas that are within it. In some ways I think that I have leaned towards a more cynical approach towards the people that are involved in environmental protection efforts because I have shifted so many degrees in my own life that I forget where I used to stand. Using big words like anthropocene, environment, and nature have created this “right and wrong” dichotomy that I have been working to push away, a dichotomy that I don’t use so willingly in realities of oppression, etc.