odbele - Tumblr blog

odbele · 8 years ago

Text

Translation from Swedish to English

“The stratigraphic signals were already there; the isotopes, plastic, techno physics, the cars, the broken bullets from all too many wars. The signals are a contemporary biproduct of a time when human beings placed themselves above the earth and took its stability for granted.” These are the words found on the last page of idea and environmental historian Sverker Sörlin resently published book “Antropocen – en essä om människans tidsålder ” (Antropocene – an essay on the age of human kind)

And today we will be discussing the concept of Anthropocene, usually described as the new geological age, defined by the footprints left on earth by man.

The guests are idea and environmental historian and author Sverker Sörlin, Helena Granstrøm another author with background in physics and mathematics, and Gøran Greider author. Welcome, my name is Peter Sandberg.

Peter Sandberg: So, this concept of Anthropocene – the age of mankind, was introduced already in the early 80ths, though the breakthrough in popularity first occurred at the edge of the 21th century, as a replacement of Holocene – the postglacial age heralded by the end of our last ice age 11000 years ago. Sverker, Anthropocene “the age of mankind”, why has this term reached a public interest, now, in our age/time?

Sverker Sörlin: Well, Anthropocene replaces Holocene and that is still an ongoing discussion if we are really going to take this step and officially establish a new era. It is a relevant question for geologists and in particular stratigraphicologists, a sub-group of geologists, and for up to them to decide, though the discussion today is evolving. And I think it is evolving and reaching out to different fields of professions because the concept sums up the human experiences throughout the last decades, as well as our last century. That humans have, negatively speaking, effected the climate and made footprints. Suddenly it is as if this footprint has been given a word, a concept. While doing so you catch something, and this something has spread wildly. The word brings life to images and thoughts considering this, though it also brings up the controversy and posing questions like “Who is actually responsible for this coherent footprint? Are we all contributors, and if so, have we contributed equally?” How are we supposed to view this? Suddenly you enter a field of incalculable questions that evolves from this concept. Normally, the enclosed debates within the field of geology is not a relevant topic for the public, as artists and other scientists and politicians and such, but here, it is not the case. One could also claim that there is some political touch to “Anthropocene”, which I think is important in this situation.

Gøran: Yes.

Peter Sandberg: Well, Helena, Gøran, what do you think? Anthopocene a new geological era defined by our footprints. Do we need a word, a concept, like this? Helena Granstrøm: Yes, considering the fact that this concept gestalts the irreversible traces we leave on this planet we need it, though I have got several issues with the concept, partly because of what you just pointed out, Sverker. Your book is altered on the premise that you identify with this humanity, even though you may not be amongst those who has contributed to the largest footprints. Still, you feel like you are a part of this humanity, thus you take responsibility for these actions. You personally don’t behold the power of the industrial civilization, but you identify with this power. I am imagining a situation where Latin American natives are evacuating their village to make room for a new dam, and that they might feel differently reading your words. To suggest that this is the age of humanity… (Pauses) Rather than the term being clearly political, it tends to apolitize what we are dealing with here. It is a specific human culture that produces this type of footprints, and so to suggest that it is “humanity” is to imply that it is “simply natural”, in which I strongly disagree.

Gøran: Mm.

Peter Sandberg: Hmm, well Gøran, it seems like you have been waiting for such a term to come along?

Gøran: Well, I have dealt with it by writing MOTSKILLIG years, actually. I think we possess a general need for words and terms to identify timeframes. I think it would be better if the geologists would loosen up on their iron fist regarding this discussion and for it to instead be viewed in a different light. Even if, still, it is important to remember that this is currently a term being used by academics and some artists. There has not been a viral thing or such, though I agree with you Helena; I often think in such terms myself, when we have a look at “Antropocene – the age of the human kind”, of course it “DØLJER” different systems, different mindsets, different values, different – Europe for instance, look at what we have done to the rest of the world, the debate is easily DØJED as a term, but it does not stop me from growing a fond of this concept, because I believe we need some kind of grandiose framing of time that evolves into the discussions we are having now. So, summing up, I believe it causes more good than harm.

Peter Sandberg: Well, I think the term, Anthropocene, that is, the obvious geological impact we have had on earth, but there is also some kind of existential question imbedded in this. That is to speak, our perspective on the world, human being, our culture and politics. It extremely wide and a bit like a duality as well.

Sverker Sörlin: What Helena brings to the table here is a very central part of the discussion surrounding “Antropocene”. And I have written several articles about this subject, in particular this, collectivization by force, so to speak, of all human kind, like canalizing it into this “antropos”, this figure producing footprints. I have found these kind of discussions constructive because they have shown us to spot the differences. But even those who are losing their minds right now because other parts of humanity are taking too much space and are overexploiting, resulting in the consequences we face in Antarctica or other parts of the world, is to some extent already imprinted in the same discussion. After all they are a part of the same human kind. One cannot say that the collective mind of man does not exist. It does indeed exist. And this I tell you: one of the useful aspects the term catalyzes is a forced discussion about what “humanity” really is, how we define it and what is embedded in that term. Who is a part of it and, well, everyone is a part of it given a premise, but like how and where you belong, in which I think there have been great variations in the FURFLUTNA , to which I hope we take a distance. One of the chapters I have chosen here is “Who does what to whom”. There are no innocent actions that has made our planet into this all absorbing all swallowing thing, but that time is over the earth cannot sustain it all, and then the critical question of who is responsible arises.

Peter Sandberg: But it is hard to accuse the whole world or pinpoint a few that could be held accountable in overexploiting the recourses, I mean, we are clearly guilty in several different ways. Anthropocene is really all about “man” then, generally speaking? Gøran: Yes, well, I guess speaking of the term, what has happened is that it is mirroring the states you are referring to, the planetarian. Even those of the 4th world that are driven away now knows that there is a world we should relate to in some way or another. Even the worst climatedeniers has got some clue that we have got a planet though they are refusing to believe scientifical reports etc. But there is something here that is about a planetarian mindset -

8:42 A global mindset? Gøran: Yes, I suppose you could call it that, well, you write so lovely about it in you book, pictures of the earth arising, the Apollo voyages, when we for the first time in history experience a picture of our planet from outer space, like “That’s us, right there, on that tiny spot”. Like, we are all here, even if we are divided into different social classes or colonial submitted, and I think it is an important issue considering the term “Anthropocene”, because the global is brought to conscious.

Helena Granstrøm: Humanity existed a long time before this deep, destructive culture was born, and this is what I think tends and disappears in this term. Also, I think it is partly symptomatically given: if you look at it as some sort of replacement for environmental terms, it’s like destroying. The environment, the way you write about it, is this abstract something “out there”, being polluted by humans. To me, this is probably one of the most interesting aspects about this term, right, the geological perspective is very large, it speaks about billions of years, it is not concerned about destroying but rather transformation. And to me, this comes across as preposterous, like the way we exterminate species, we pollute the oceans, we are drill the mountains to pieces, though we do not call it destroying, we call it transformation. If it was the products of mankind was leveled with the ground, we would all agree that its about terminating. You bring up the term “infra politics”, right, so not the everyday politics found in papers and regular news, but some kind of underlying structure supporting the contemporary political debate, and this is, I guess, is where we find the central “infra political” question regarding the term “Anthropocene”. Like, it’s a highlighting human activity and a systematical disparagement of everything that is not a direct consequence of human actions.

Peter Sandberg: So, infra politics. Infra descends from sound, no, like the sound you are unable to hear though you feel it in your bones, like some underlying vibrations beneath the politics, ideologies, structural systems ect. Like when you feel the urge to act but maybe cannot articulate it properly. Have I got it right?

Yes, one could argue you do, haha, I invented that term myself, actually. It’s purposing a combo of compability and incompatibility, - like politics for instance, demands articulation, on the contrary, infra politics functions on several different levels at the same time. This is dealing with us as sensible creatures in a more sensible way than we can address. And from there on the vibrations tends in various directions. Some might be offended by the violence of nature in this, like Helena mentioned, but others have got a different version of infra politics and therefore addresses this indifferently - more spontaneously inclined a highlight of the products manufactured by human kind and from there on inclining towards transformation rather than termination. And I think it is important to accept/recognize/realize this as a perspective of value. To be able to see that. To try to increase linguistic availability to be able to look at it from counter holds, which I find political.

Helena Granstrøm: There are some central cultural myths concerning Anthropocene, suggesting that the term is referring to the tale of human intrinsic urge for destruction. Like “it’s natural to exploit the surroundings” that is one of the cultural explanations, that I party find implied here. The second is all about “man being created in Gods image”, that there exists a virtue in administrating, which could also maintain the act of destroying, though in a sense, to continue the work on this “creation” and doing so by placing ourselves above it. And this you write on as well. What do you think, Gøran? So infra politics, unspoken politics sort of,

Yeah, well, I must admit I have grown quite a fond of this term. When I am alone I usually occupy myself with politics, like everyday politics. What I find utterly annoying is that the so critical dissidence related questions never are found to be present. Whereas in opposition this term really hits something in people. It moves them. I have even overheard directors of paper industry on vacation chatting “We need to reduce the consumption level in society” and then they go back to work, causing the straight opposite effect. There is something happening inside every human being, we feel something, something global. And this is also some of what is implied in the term (read: Anthropocene), opposed to what is presented in our everyday politics.

Helena: Well, isn’t it all because of narrowmindedness, causing us to continue believing in this “tale of progress”? Because if you don’t believe in it you cannot – then you cannot do shit.

There are several environmental activists, parts of the environmental movement, that has joined the eco-modernistic idea that postulates that they are equally narrow minded as everyone else considering FRaAMSTEGSBERETTELSEN . like “more technology is a necessity, we need new and more and better technology” like that kind of ecomodernism - and then you might be trapped in a specific infra political understanding.

Peter: Though, could someone spot something regarding our position? Sverker, in your book you write… Ok, so, as late as in 1930 Nobel prize winner in physics Robert Millican proclaimed that nothing can affect something as huge as our planet. So, you wright about this kind of longing for trust. It is like a scaling has disappeared.

Svaerker: Yes, precisely, like you mention Helena, this administrational thought has increased in popularity, especially in eco modernistic groups that “we should protect and sustain this planet” can come across as an attractive alternative considering what sort of actions we are capable of going through with today minimizing the impact we have on this planet. “We can protect everything”. And I think this is an important argue, and of course you cannot deny the that there is something latent in this, we have to take responsibility for each other, but to take on the responsibility of everything, like, we are responsible for the growth, we are responsible for the sea level rising, we are responsible for - . Heaven on earth. It has to stop somewhere. There is a limit of what we can take here, I guess. And I also believe that this term, Anthropocene, that we approach this in a very confronting way, like we look in the mirror and what we see is this reflection of what we are or what we are pretending to be. A totalitarian creature that can do everything. Here, my infra political impulse is to stand up and actively say “Hell no, I don’t want to be a part of this, I want to stay small, I don’t want to be framed into these large concepts”

Gøran: I think this is a part of the phase-wise Anthropocene, that wherever we go throughout our lives we only encounter the technosphere. Like, going hiking you are basically moving inside a green industrial hall, you can witness the mechanics, and then you continue into thick forests, constructed on site by man. It is something artificial. You hardly find authenticity any more. We only encounter ourselves. That’s why you feel satisfied by the thought of “the wild nature” is reclaiming its territory. Because it is something moving outside the technosphere.

Helena: Otherwise you move though a genuine forest that is in fact something in its own, something different, though you know that it may disappear by tomorrow. And it is something about the reliability in this big structure. Like "this is the mountain, it has always been here and it's going to stay here until infinity, this tree has been standing here since as long one can remember", though there is no such thing as consistency anymore related to the great outer structures. An interesting aspect you deal with in your book is that the world has shrieked, and that it is not only concerning high speed, efficient communication, it is concerning the reliable sphere, the sphere we hold our trust in. It is no longer trust in these great structures, it is not even the changing seasons, it is almost nowhere to be found, it is merely reduced into what you can grasp with your hand and the few people you hold dearly in life.

Sverker: There is an amazing poem written by Gøran Sommerby where he expresses envy for the romantical poets, like Kristel and so on, because whenever they were upset with the status of contemporary politics, they would have a walk in the wild to clear their minds. An untouched room where time stood still. This room has vanished. There no exits this type of room to rest. But this one could also interpret as a call to reevaluate our position.

Peter: Though it is related to language as well, no? We read about this all the time, the technical and research terminology ect. I don’t know the position of nature poetics today, but it's like this fervent description of our planet and of ourselves and our position in universe. There might be a longing. You claim that there exits eco poetry.

Sverker: Yes, well in some ways you could call it that, or some kind of climate related poetry, recognized by its despair over the lack of space to recover/rest/recharge. Gøran: 18: 50 til Jag tycker meg senvis på forsjukning her? A few decades ago, we witnessed an explosive growth in the eco modernistic movement. It launched the mindset that could combine a broad society development with increased living standards and a cautious relation to the eco systems. The old version of "nature preservation" was considered extremely unpopular, it was conservative and symbolic. With this Anthropocene discussion, the defense of "nature" has reappeared. Like the feeling that there is no rest, that we are savages obsessed with administrating and mending what is in reality a scale we cannot comprehend with. And then there arises a new type of longing back to - or at least – to something that is greater than us.

Helena: Do you think that this upcoming insight at all can be expressed in political actions? I think it is interesting to have a look at how we execute these ideas and mindsets as political actions with our cultural mechanisms kept in mind. And the answer to this question is that we are extremely technooptimistic.

Sverker: Yes, not only that, but a sort of speciesism/ species egocentric as well when you have a look at what our politicians do. Even all the climate party throughout Europe are eco modernists in some way, like, none of them claim we have to go back to a modest lifestyle, though all eco modernists, or not all, and in this sense I guess...When speaking about the "age of the human kind" an image instantly appears in your mind, an image of how selfish we are as a species. It's actually a point to it.

Peter: You also describe various versions of what the "human" is, and you mention the "techosphere" the summation of all human activity, our buildings, roads, cables, construction sites ect. And then there is information that the techofossile diversity is exceeding the diversity of the earth and the summation of all the fossiles from earths development throughout time. It is absolutely overwhelming.

Gøran: Yes exactly, the total amount of impact we have had on earth that currently is manifested on a massive industrial scale. It is flourishing – take a random freighter, whether it is from China or another country, it is cucked to the top of all this tiny stuff, and every day there are millions of new species being born sort of, in these commercial temples. And politically speaking there is an absurd diversity, in the future, one imagines the archeologists 10 000 years from now researching material from our time and our civilization, and that they will see our actions today as an enormous footprint. Like, our footprint as a species compared to the footprint of all of the billions other species that exists, and then one can say, well, in a short manner of time, the human kind surely went overrepresented, hehe.

Peter: Now that is a creepy thought, hehe.

Helena: You also write that the fair amount of these products and inclusive the lifestock and other animals 20:15: Is 100 000 times greater than the human, like total mass of the human kind.

Sverker: Though is there not some sort of paradox to this? “The age of the human kind”, and at the same time biotechnics, robotics and artificial intelligence ect. It is almost like the age of the human kind/ humanity should be recognized as the time when the human is climbing down from its high horse and be replaced by... Like, we can replace almost all our organs, we can imagine that there will be a huge infratechnological leap that will give us automatical, driverless cars. There is a paradox that the age of the human kind culminates into a point of time when the human loses its unique position/role.

Helena: To voluntarily give it up? Or.. Sverker: Yes, I suppose you could say so.

Peter: This is “Filosofiska rummet” were we are trying to address the resent term “Anthropocene – the age of the human kind/humanity”, and together with us today is ideahistorian Sverker Sørlin and auteurs Helena Granstrøm and Gøran Greider. So, it is about time as well, at high speed. Like, our glaciers are melting, deforestation, extinction of species and the geography is torn. Sverker, you write ”the understanding/vision of time that the west has lived under has been altered on the separation between the time of nature and the time of culture”. Time of culture has been fast the time of nature slow. Though now it it’s the strict opposite – the culture in falling behind the time of nature. It is hard to parry.

Gøran: I think this is one of the fundamental shifts. Actually, I would like to say that this book in many ways is concerning a new perspective of the world that is arising. And when new perspectives on the world and versions of reality is arising, terms of movement, like time for intense…like nature is out there, stable and simply existing, and then suddenly stuff happens and it is not predictable anymore, that it is moving too fast. What we are facing now is an acceleration taking place all over the world at the same time, that is even spreading to what we used to call nature. Like, nature is becoming and almost nostalgic term even. And we still haven’t figured out yet how to control this new, high speed, because we have inflicted upon something that is uncontrollable. It is a bit ironic, no, speaking of control? Because we cannot control it, what man has kicked off is simply too fast. This is where we are right now. That is the mindset that is now arising, so new generations are going to perceive time in another way. And this defiantly affects the professional reflectors of time – the ideahistorians – are philosophizing about time, especially the recent decades.

Peter: Yeah, I mean, it is almost as if culture and nature is merging, are we able to separate the two, and will we be in the future?

You are asking too grand questions, hehe, though in some ways the answer would neither be yes or no, but the way one relates to time will change, of course.

Peter: Yes, well, in your book you also discuss “modernism”. The science, the enlightenment, the nature continuingly providing us with recourses, materials ect. This is also some of what is changing, right? And also these processes in a political view. The already made decisions has been based on this logic, though it is no longer valid. Right, so the politics are also falling behind.

Yeah, though we are also… I think you are quoting a Adorno, an old German philosopher, though he formulates it “over the perfect enlightened world are rays of catastrophe”. Modernity and the enlightenment, well it has been a tale of progress, though we spot in the horizon the total destruction of the biosphere. And this does something to the mindset of modernity. Right, so you wright that here lies loads of nostalgia in the term nature, and in terms like “the time of coal” and such, hehe. Though maybe not everyone sees this destruction, like why should we keep this old wall, is it really efficient or…speaking about eco systems I feel like, in the aftermath of the term “Anthropocene” there is a lot of…like the scientists are predicting that 50% or 2/3 of all species will be extinct by a hundred years, caused by the combination of climate change and human validation of territory/ radical disturbance of livelihoods. And the answer to this is to construct some kind of modern “Noahs Ark”. And then the question is “Well, what kind of species should we spare, which do we choose”. In some ways this is resolving our old thinking patterns, but in another sense they are amplified, even taken into extremes. That we with a certain obviousness take on this character as administrator of existence. Conspicuously, I think, in relation to this...

And Noahs Ark occurred after the fall, right so…

Noahs Ark is a non-option, hehe. One can say “Eco systems – we have to interfere to preserve them”. The coral reefs for instance, pale inspires – blekninger 27.12, several of our eco systems are under pressure. Like 60 or 70 present of our eco systems are under pressure. In the age of the human kind we have to act to secure and preserve our eco systems.

Helena: But we have to preserve them, we do, and it is because we are not prepared to stop putting them under pressure, or what?

Yes, I suppose you could stay that, but –

Helena: It is not that complicated to reduce the pollution, for instance, to decrees the carbon dioxide you could stop driving a car there are many – speaking of infra politics – there are many sets of seeing the implied agreements, that we will never intend to actually adjust our lifestyles. (said ironically ->) It is not worth the hassle, after all.

Yes, that is a returning issue. Eco modernists thinks that the solution is to continue believing in stronger technology ect. Though the real question is: To what extent do we have to reduce our construction?

Helena: Though this we perceive as a cost. Then we have to sacrifice something. But to every day deplete, I don’t know how many, species per day…Most people don’t have an active relation to these concepts, because it does not have an impact on their everyday lives.

Sverker: Yes, well, when I mention infra politics I mean, the lemur, the very last lemur existing. I believe that there is something growing inside every human being, or most human beings, that there lies an authority…I suppose it is some kind of moralistic ontology of mine, that there is an authority within the human kind that is established into this lemur.

Helena: Though does this authority manifest - Sverker: No! It does not, no. Helena: - into the cohesive practice? Because then -

Sverker: No, though then you – and I would like to add a thing to this –

Peter and Gøran laughts Sverker: - that makes me into some kind of reformist in this, hehe. And then I would really like to argue that one should think of “modernity” as the era of the hundreds of years we have endured. And almost all our surroundings has been constructed within that period of time, or perhaps not agriculture which is much older. For not to mention: we have laws, principals, rules, a moral perception determining right or wrong. All of these things has been created in a manner of centuries by people quite similar to ourselves. I imagine it as a necessity to come up with a different statutory framework the two or three hundred years to come. We simply have to find new principles and new structures and stuff for example an agreement that preserves the world as we know it today, we call it capitalism, confused with democracy. Though I don’t believe it can go on like this for much longer like this, it has to change, though it will not occur within the twenty or thirty years to come, it demands a long term transformation. And, I am going to be held completely accountable for what I am saying now, because I am dead by the time it will happen, but I think there is already much progress. Like, returning to a “progressive thinking” and a constructive and interesting perspective on having a rested nature. Or to have nature at all (or having one in the first place, I think) is a crucial thought, it is a totally different thought then what existed 130 years ago when the first nature preserving companies were created. It was in reality a complete conservative and symbolic nostalgia, pretty pointless really. Peter: Though what about the modernity that we cherish, it has provided us with so much welfare. We cling to it, right. A bit like peeing in your pants, really. (This is only me thinking: No-no, modernity did not provide welfare – welfare was provided by the brave, thinking, bright, autonomous individuals and collectives in, various manners, questioning and acting upon the established structures of their time.) Sverker: Yes, absolutely! It is going to be a huge sacrifice. Look at the force the nostalgia in Trumps politics brings forward, - though I think it is doomed. Gøran: Yes, well this is no coincidence, and there is a survey suggesting that increased construction and welfare generates happiness to a certain level and then it begins to decrease. Like, the general living conditions in the late 60s is enough, most people realizes this as well. And that is a new feeling. And that is even a seed, an embryo to rethink the concept of never ending growth and increased standards. And this new. Never mind how it (read:Anthropocene?) will be defined in the law books, I think it is something worth believing in.

Helena: Though it is not simply concerned about, like I think you have to have a larger perspective than reforming economical politics. No former political ideology has not mainly perceived nature and outer surroundings as potential resources, as something to exploit. It is necessary for something completely different to come up in that case.

Peter: Though the hope is based on a “technology optimism”. Like, one is supposed to…like, global warming is supposed to be reduced by new fuel, alternative energy resources ect, though this optimism, in its core, is a denial to make those radical decisions and to act on them. Sverker, you write in your book that technology shall be replaced by suffering.

Sverker: Yes, well this is what the modernistic, the eco modernistic…

Peter: Though no one will take on this suffering. Sverker: Yes, and it has been impossible up until now to suggest such a suffering in political terms. And if we have technology and access – and contrary I do not see technology as an enemy, I think there is plenty of good technology. Though the crucial part here is what is implied in this. That there exits a “blueprint” of what is our progress, “ways of how our happiness can spread and so on”, though I believe it provides a fake image even, and it is a project of ridiculous character to try transforming this superficial/fake image into a more representative image of what we are capable of doing while in a volatile state.

Gøran: Though in these implied…I am very fascinated, probably because of the Marxism in my spontaneous perspective on the world, though today under “Anthropocene”, Marxist idea historians are encouraging us to wright a story on our species. To get an objective tale on homo sapiens in our history books. Even if capitalism is to blame for the acceleration under and after the 2. World war, with increased constructing ect, perhaps there is an invasive feature to the human, to the species, homo sapiens. And this is because we possess the quite unique quality of collaboration. This quality is often expressed in positive ways considering the “welfare-state” though it also occurs to high extents in warfare. The attack on Iraq in 2013 was a shining example on a large scale, united collaboration, which has caused tremendous destruction and suffering. I find it interesting that even the Marxists suffering from biology horrors, under the “Anthropocene” considers this in biological terms. That there might be something in us, in our biology, in us as biological beings in the biosphere, that we need to acknowledge and seek to understand. Peter: Yes, exactly, I mean, we are the consumers, it is us that create the political ideologies it is us who have disturbed the balance here. Helena: Excuse me, but to an answer to what Gøran is saying here; it is important to keep in mind the cultures that has not contributed to exploitation of environment. Obviously, there is a potential for such a behavior to occur in the human spectrum, though there also lies a potential for completely other behaviors as well, which I think is important to remember.

Gøran: Yes, so do I think, - Helena: Because this drifts towards a merging of the human kind as a species and human kind as a specific sort of human culture. And I think it is important to separate those two terms.

Gøran: Yes, though we have to face duality in this, well…so nature, nature is such a problematic word these days, I almost feel like it is stuck in my mouth. We have to face the duality in our generic being here, where the goal of cooperation is expressed in that we create stabile societies that does not rely on exploitation of recourses. Though it can also shoot of like under the agricultural revolution or the industrial revolution so that it potentially destroys large amounts of the biosphere. I am fascinated by the Marxist thinkers proclaiming these things to day and articulates a need for putting these thoughts on the agenda. We need to wright the story on the species , it is not enough with the history of society ect., we need to reflect upon ourselves. And I think this is something that has taken place in our time. Peter: Though that is the toughest issue right now, right? “Anthropocene” - the age of the human kind, though what is…

Sverker: A cure that is within reach, that is not as utopian as many of the other things we are discussing here, because to wright the history on the human kind/mankind is only possible by an increased access and distribution of intellectual energy – or know-how-. So, what the “species” has come up with is for example – let’s call them – biologists, scientist, experts or analysts, and they have executed high quality craftsmanship in describing certain characteristics to the being we have named “human”. Though all too few from society-research related fields, the human-ethical fields and the artistic fields, have engaged in this matter, it has partly been taboo. And I think what Dipesh Chakrabarty, Chicago historian that has written a lot on this topic, and others mean is not to make historians into biologists – but this is an urge to address and understand what these incredible tight-woven nexuses looked like. In prehistorical times where almost stripped from contact with the biological, now some sort of new interrogation is occurring to better understand our age and the previous ones. And in this case, I in some ways think that there will be more options in terms of how one perceives and thinks around the future. A positive aspect about the capitalism, is after all its receptiveness it has potential of never ending renewal and if one can upgrade what we used to call nature, or if we can upgrade the global, - it would be a part of the solution to increase the value of nature itself. Like, not only monetary though also the moral instances. Gøran: Though we are still stuck. If capitalism is to upgrade nature, it would still be within the frames of the market. With limited resources the cost will rise and so on, and that’s the infra structural. Helena: Though introspection is one of homo sapiens best qualities. The modern version of it at least. Is it not what is demanded as well? I would argue that as a culture, we do not recognize other subjectivities than the human subjectivity. When we act on it, we create this image of the world where we solely are the feeling and thinking beings, and if other beings should inherit the same qualities it is simply a mechanical behavior. Rather than to examine and review ourselves, we should seek to be more responsive to our living environment.

Sverker: I think this also occurs in the Anthropocene discussion, it is so much going on considering animal studies. Like, an attempt to appreciate? innkännande the closer surroundings, comes across to me as a new and staggering project.

Gøran: Yes, it is new, and science on dogs for instance, or craws or livestock. Like, the line which separates the human being from other primates or animals is thinned out. Helena: Yes, this is interesting when reading about it, though what is consequences? How does it affect our lifestyles? Gøran: Yeah, well, this is in the matter of many thousand years. Helena: Though what does it make us into? It makes us into quite grotesque violators, should I say, if one really… Peter: Though I think… to pin-point what the human being is was an easy task up until a certain time. When it “exploded” sort of, after the enlightenment or the modernity or so, but since then everything has progressed so quickly – commercialism, atom bombs, plastic – in this case, haven’t we lost our prospects somewhere along the way under what we call “Anthropocene”? Gøran: I think that for every new child being born. Then the conscience is restored. Another word for infra politics would be, on an individual level, would be that consciousness. That the conscience is the opportunity to a moral instance that takes more than it can explain. Helena: Speaking of animals, I am thinking, not that you explicitly discuss it, though the image of the technological progress as unstoppable… Now we are discussing humanity and the different options and ways for humans to proceed to. If you go with that thought all the way, maybe we do not have that much of a choice. In some sense, we are relying on the technology system we have been deceived to create. What do you think around this? Do you see the dynamics that have been put into action as something we are able to influence without taking influence over? Sverker: I think that is a superb question, and the answer would be that “Anthropocene” is helpful, at least I have found it helpful in viewing this footprint as a historic product up until now. And that is a pretty strange image, to see this enormous power, though this is a distinct formulation concerning the future. I do not think that it is an irreversible development, “a priori” at least, I think it will be difficult to stop it, but, in principle, it is not unstoppable. It is responsive. And therefore, it is so important to relate it to politics, because it is only by political means one can head in a new direction. It is utterly necessary to do so. And I have, in several books, for instance “Naturkontraktet” from the 90s, expressed optimism regarding the possibilities, even if some literal traces may come across as frightening, and continue to do so, I am convinced that it is possible. And that it is important to keep holding on to that thought. And when I say, “infra politics” it is maybe because I find it important that things proceed inwards, like the organic that is hard to formulate, also considering the politics. Peter: I was thinking about something you mentioned earlier, about the smallness, that you miss former scale, when the earth was still grand. Now, the human being is grand. May the question be if man has grown to grand for its own good?

Yes, well. Peter: Because what are we to do, emission from New York and Europe is causing the Antarctica to melt, it is heating the water which affects the monsoons in India. It is so fragmented and difficult to make sense of, it is difficult to be political in that context… Gøran: We simply must exercise in being “small”. It is not of unimportance. Say you go and buy a flower tree, planting it at a nice spot where it gets the right amount of sun and shadow, and you have an active thought “this is the right spot, the tree will thrive”. Or if you have pets, like cats, dogs or sheep, the interaction with other types of consciousness, other subjectivities than yourself, becomes a practice in making yourself smaller. And I think that is a pretty important thing. People are opening their eyes and realizing this, which is providing hope.

Peter: So, you think the man in the street will pick up on “Anthropocene” in a matter of time? The word is a bit difficult, it is a bit abstract. Sverker: I heard from someone that had read this word and believed it should be pronounced “Antropoken”, it sounds a bit more like, hehe, fighting the human being. Gøran: Well, is it not remarkable, sometimes you meet children that questions the killing of mosquitoes. That is something new I guess, because it is a harassment of other beings. (outro music) Peter: “Filisofiska rummet”, today we have been discussing the new term “Anthropocene – the age of the human being/humanity”. You heard Sverker Sørlin idea and environmental historian and author of the recent book “Antropocene – en essä om människans tidsålder”, Helena Granstrøm, author with background in physics and mathematics, and author Gøran Greider. Techniques were provided by Marie Person and the show was produced and hosted by me, my name is Peter Sandberg, good bye.

1 note · View note