Post your alternate quiz questions, discussion questions, comments, links...1. Some worry that recognizing the Anthropocene might serve as the political equivalent of what statement and dismissal?
2. Failing to recognize the Anthropocene, according to Erik Swyngedouw and others, is to deny what?
3. What Titanic analogy is offered by James Scourse?
4. How has human agency with regard to the environment changed, according to Chakrabarty?
5. The human way of living on earth is shaped far more by what?
6. What are the comparative emissions rates of average Chinese and Americans, and of the wealthy/urban and rural/poor ?
7. According to Jason Moore and others, what caused Earth's transformation by producing massive social inequalities?
8. What is the Chthulucene?
9. What's the benefit of recognizing the Anthropocene, according to the editors of Nature?
10. What is the noosphere?
11. Why might Icarus be a better metaphor for the Anthropocene than Prometheus?
12. What are some things that "raise the prospect of a better planetary future"?
13. What does the Anthropocene call on us to do, and how is that symbolized by the Long Now clock project?
Discussion Questions
- Like native/indigenous traditions, the eco-pragmatist approach urges our adoption of long-term thinking about our relation to Earth and other species. Do you think the Long Now clock project holds promise for implanting such an ethos in this and future generations? How can we most effectively engender an active sense of "the long now"?
- "Who are we to name a new interval of geologic time after ourselves?"
- Which is worse, anthropocentric hubris or denialism?
- Would scientific recognition of the Anthropocene change public perceptions and actions?
- What's wrong with "enlightened species" narratives? 132
- Homo sapiens as a whole is not causing rapid global climate change, wealthy individuals and nations are. Does that make non-wealthy Americans equally complicit?
- Is this the Capitalocene, the Anthropocene, both, or neither?
- Do you agree with the authors of The Shock of the Anthropocene that anti-environmental elites have always been engaged in a cover-up of their activities? 136
- Is it better to solve fossil fuel emissions by removing carbon, invest in alternative energy sources like solar or nuclear, or both? 138
- Is global governance the key...? [& see the other questions posed on 139]
- Is individuality just an illusion? 140
- COMMENT: "Make kin, not babies."
- Do humans have any right to change Earth? 141
- COMMENT: "Humanity forms nature." 142
- COMMENT: "The Anthropocene demands action." 143
- [Note the brief list of Anthropocene books on 142... they're not works of fiction, but if
- anyone would care to use one of them for your report(s) consider it an option.]
- What do you think it means to need "many different Anthropocene narratives"? 145
- On balance, do you think it's a good thing that humans have become "a force of nature"?
- Post your DQs
Organizers hope a 2,000-foot-long unmanned boom will collect 150,000 pounds of plastic from the Great Pacific Garbage Patch in a year. Read More...
More Methane...
In a victory for energy companies, the administration plans to roll back rules covering methane leaks and the “flaring,” or burning, of the potent greenhouse gas. • It was the third major step this year to reverse the United States’ previous efforts to rein in global warming. Read More...
More Methane...
In a victory for energy companies, the administration plans to roll back rules covering methane leaks and the “flaring,” or burning, of the potent greenhouse gas. • It was the third major step this year to reverse the United States’ previous efforts to rein in global warming. Read More...
The Earth is 4.5 billion years old and it has gone through multiple of ice ages, several mass extinction, hit by shattering meteors, and with the constant rate of changing, shifting, and recreating itself to better/ creating perfect balance for itself. Well that changed. For several millions of years: humans, Homo sapiens, the stone age, early man (cave man), and even modern man are alike, because of the toll we have inflicted on the earth itself is very greatly. As humans though we are not like any other species. We are the ultimate ecosystem engineers. "No other single species has gained the capacity to engage in such a diverse array of potent environment altering behaviors, from land clearing using fire, to domesticating other species, to till the soil" and we started off like any other species but have thrive and evolve to greater lengths. we have cause so much infliction to what surrounds us (nature, animals, basically anything in our proximity in reach) because of our selfish needs and the fact we need more. Would say the only type of humans who would ratify the way of nature would be the Native Americans. They lived in peace, killed when they needed to, and used every part of the animal as well. They did it for survival, humans then and now do it because we want it. We are bettering what we have inflicted by nurturing and upholding what we did but we are at a constant tug a war with ourselves. We can do good but something bad has to come out of somewhere. Its a balance that is constantly going back and forth on. So ultimately the Earth owns. It has survived this long, reinventing/creating itself once again, and been through a lot worst form what we put through. The Earth is over 4.5 billion years old and we are just a small dividen in the time line.
ReplyDeleteWhich native Americans? Incas, Mayans, Aztecs, Cherokee, Navaho....ect. There was a lot of diversity in both the customs and practices of "native Americans." Even those who lived in what we now call the United States were very diverse. And they also were almost completely wiped out by disease before Europeans began to truly colonize this continent. They "we" killed most of the rest of them. So I challenge the idealistic image that we have of what their societies were like. How much do any of us (including those of us with native ancestors like me) know about them?
DeleteAT
I agree with you AT - the Mayans and Incas were revered as the most technologically advanced people of their time and even rival some of our technologies today and using what we would consider primitive tools - but still yet, they built magnificent settlements and communities disrupting the soil and also practiced some "slash and burn" farming/clearing practices. So even though they respected their environment and habitats that provided for them and they were revered to many as gods of their time, but they still did not live in "harmony" with nature. (Teya James)
DeleteMy question to your statement, of "So even though they respected their environment and habitats that provided for them and they were revered to many as gods of their time, but they still did not live in "harmony" with nature." I I wonder if they would have seen it as not living in harmony with their environment or as something different? I think that they would have see it as just using their environment to their advantage and not so much as taking advantage of nature.
Delete“Overwhelming Scientific Evidence”
ReplyDeleteWe are changing things. I agree. But….. a long list of all the changes that have occurred over the past 50 or so years is not, alone, sufficient to establish that we are going to kill everything on the planet. I dislike statistics. This is because the end conclusions rarely include sufficient information to explain how the conclusion was reached. That’s how I feel about climate change also. In statistics, the measure of “confidence” in a conclusion comes from examining the likelihood of a specific event occurring if your “null hypothesis” is true. In the case of climate change, I feel we have not even clearly defined what the null hypothesis is. Without that, I’m not sure the numbers can ever do anything other than create worry. Perhaps that’s enough. But I don’t trust opinions without basis and have had too many people try to pass them off as “truth”. So if any of you can identify what our “null hypothesis” is so that we can start applying a single measure to all of all this data, please help me out.
AT
CO2 emissions per capita
ReplyDelete1. I agree that Americans are some of the most selfish, short-sited creatures on the planet. The book’s description is less critical, but the average emissions numbers seem to say this.
2. Are the other numbers accurate? (Urban vs. Rural within the same country). I want to lash out at rednecks with big trucks, yards full of animals, ridiculous commutes, and confederate flags (technically treason to fly one of those). But I’m not finding the data to support either side of this.
So that’s my recommended discussion question: What type of living has a lower CO2 footprint in the US? Urban or Rural?
AT
Which is worse anthropocentric hubris or denialism?
ReplyDeleteI should begin by stating that I believe both anthropocentric hubris and denialism are both harmful to society in retrospect to the person holding the view and in regards to the planet we inhabit. While denialism suggest that highly evolved, rational, complex intelligent beings such as ourselves are ignorant to the fact that our actions have lasting effect on this world. As innovative as we can be sometimes the human race is blind to some of the effects we have on the planet. Capitalism is one device that plunders Earth for its resources and returns little [minimally when necessary] back to the environment. If we are genuine in said belief that our own effect is so minimal who would be the savior of humanity in the event of the Sixth Major Extinction that engineers a new dominant species (Whales, dolphin, or Octopi). However, this also brings to concern the hubris of Man and the story of Icarus. In being aware of our Anthropogenic state we must be mindful that "we" (as humans) created this state so "we" must maintain it. It is in fact our responsibility as caretakers and if I may toy with the concepts of noosphere, Eastern Philosophies, mystics, (both ancient and contemporary) and possibly the Gaia theory of suggesting a higher consciousness of the planet itself and the life it provides for: Do we not owe this 'pale blue dot' protection from a cancer? The same way the cells of our bodies attempt to protect us? Sorry didn't mean to make this such a winded post I don't talk a lot in class...
-Brandon Alston
I really like the point you brought about on how sense we created the issue that we should solve it. That way of thought is lacking today that people should be held responsible to fix the problems that they had a hand in causing.
DeleteWhat Is the Anthropocene and Are We in It?
ReplyDeletehttps://www.smithsonianmag.com/science-nature/what-is-the-anthropocene-and-are-we-in-it-164801414/
About the how the efforts to label the human epoch have ignited a scientific debate between geologists and environmentalists.
Suggested Discussion Question
ReplyDeleteHow to best understand the concept of the noosphere, and what it two perceived layers means?
Found a cool site about the noosphere, called The Theory and History of the Noosphere.
ReplyDeletehttp://www.lawoftime.org/noosphere/theoryandhistory.html
ALTERNATE QUIZ QUESTIONS:
ReplyDelete1. What does the act of designating a human epoch say more about than science
according to some philosophers, conservationists, and geologists? (128)
2. What do advocates for the Capitalocene criticize Anthropocene narratives from the
natural sciences as? Why? (136)
3. What is the significance of calling the social-environmental challenges of the
Anthropocene “wicked”? (137)
4. What is needed to tackle global environmental problems? Has this worked so far?
(138)
5. What is the systems-thinking of Earth system science? (140)
6. What is one of the Antrhopocene’s most challenging ethical questions? (141)
7. By stimulating awareness that the world we inhabit is increasingly of our own
creation, the Anthropocene is also emerging as what? What does this mean? (141)
8. From a scientific point of view, the Anthropocene is what? (156)
Which is worse, anthropocentric hubris or denialism?
ReplyDeleteHubris has a reoccurring theme in humanity. This same theme often has lead seemingly indestructible characters to their death. Extreme anthropocentric pride will led us into the wrong direction if we are unable to snap out of it.
Alternate Quiz Questions
ReplyDelete1. What material alone now far exceeds human biomass?
2. Off what basis do geologists such as Ben van der Pluijm and others suggest discarding the holocene?
3. What are some strategies for climate geoengineering?
4. From a scientific point of view, the anthropocene is neither good nor bad; it is
Discussion Question: Is it better to solve fossil fuel emissions by removing carbon, invest in alternative energy sources like solar or nuclear, or both?
ReplyDeleteWe need to use other sources of energy, but because of consumption demands – alternative resources cannot meet those demands, so we need to depend on other technologies that will limit the amount of carbon emissions from vehicles. Energy independence is a favored gesture, which is a rarely defined and the goal hurried out for energy crises but has not been achieved. A more practical definition could be a condition in which foreign powers can neither interrupt our energy supplies nor affect prices. The other element is supply. Many politicians want to substitute other domestically produced liquid fuels for oil and assure the public that they are around the corner, however, they are not around the corner. There is now no liquid fuel that can largely replace oil for transportation. We are stuck because of the scale of the industry, and despite criticism, oil's efficiency. The U.S. government has painlessly and thoughtlessly encouraged consumption and discouraged production. Efficiency technologies are being ignored and higher mileage standards deemed a nuisance. New roads stretched across the country while railroads and mass transit moldered. (Rail and mass transit - which in my industry, is a necessity). Energy research is critical but must be depoliticized and prioritized by experts. Let science and the markets choose the winning technologies. Only then will we reduce our oil dependence. I feel that we need both sides of this coin to reduce our carbon emissions. We need to use other sources of energy, but because of consumption demands – alternative resources cannot meet those demands, so we need to depend on other technologies that will limit the amount of carbon emissions from vehicles. (Teya James)
I would agree that denial is worse. "Hubris",Greek for "pride" would make me believe people have an alligence to their land and maybe through their pride gain wisdom and knowlege of how to survive. An example of this might be nations of Indians that find a way to coexist with the climate by architecture and agriculture. When someone is in denial this might come from a lack of knowledge and the stubbornness to acknowledge the problems before its past the point of no return.
ReplyDelete