In this post I will try to describe the ethical paradox emerging within the framework of the so-called Anthropocene: the ‘new aspirant geological epoch’, theorized by the chemist and Nobel prize Paul Crutzen in 2000. According to Crutzen “the term Anthropocene (“anthropos” = “human being” + “kainos” = “new, recent”)…suggests that the Earth has now left its natural geological epoch, the present interglacial state called the Holocene (“holon” = “whole” + “kainos” = “new, recent”) . Human activities have become so pervasive and profound that they rival the great forces of Nature and are pushing the Earth into planetary terra incognita. The Earth is rapidly moving into a less biologically diverse, less forested, much warmer, and probably wetter and stormier state”.
1.
The first stage of my argument is a critical dissection of the “discourse of the Anthropocene”, namely the acknowledgment that the Anthropocene is an ambiguous idea, since it presents some ideological (i.e. normative) features that are hidden under neutral (i.e. descriptive) or “scientific” statements. In its essence the Anthropocene is “less a scientific concept than the ideational underpinning for a particular worldview”, even as an ideology or “a paradigm dressed as epoch”. This anthropocenical worldview consists of the acritical acceptance of an epochal evidence, that is the definitive osmosis between techné and physis (the definitive (con)fusion between technology and nature), the final outcome of which is a post-natural, “de-naturated image of nature”, i.e. a “Technature”. In the Anthropocene discourse, nature is conceived of in entirely technological terms. As a result, with the advent of this new epoch “nature and technology are unified, but under the rule of technology”. In other words, “it’s no longer us against nature”, but only because we are nature.
The main consequence of this changed framework is that humans leave the role of the lord of nature (conceived as an object, that is “standing-reserve”) (I refer here to Heidegger’s idea of Bestand in The Question Concerning Technology) and takes on that of the “Steward of the Earth System”, i.e. the “Planetary Manager” of a nature conceived as a living being (see the Gaia hypothesis by James Lovelock, for instance). More precisely, nature becomes some kind of pet, that is something living, but entirely dependent on us (that is, on our capability to take care of it) and therefore something for which we (must) feel totally responsible. As a result, the relation between man and nature is no longer one of power/domination, but rather respect/responsibility.
The ethical ambiguity of such a situation arises from the fact that the stewardship of the Earth – i.e. our caretaking of the planetary “pet” – is an “active planetary management.” It translates into an extensive program of geoengineering (see, for example, the so-called “artificially adding aerosols”). Expressed in a formula, this means that those who feel the burden of total responsibility also feel the obligation (the moral imperative) to fully exercise it.
2.
The combination between the Pet-ification of Nature and the Absolutization of the Caretaking of the Steward of the Earth System generates the Ethical Paradox of Omni-Responsibility. On the basis of the ecological duty of total caretaking of their own environment (that is, a situation within which technical capability to make something becomes ipso facto moral obligation to do it), human beings give birth to a Neo-Prometheanism, which is not less problematic than the traditional one. As a result, we have now two Prometheanisms.
1) Traditional Prometheanism. It is the outcome of a Faustian man that sees himself as the lord of a nature conceived as standing-reserve. In this case, the Promethean hybris is the result of dis-interest in and ir-responsibility towards the otherness of nature.
2) Anthropocenical or neo- Prometheanism. It is the outcome of an ‘Aidosean’ man (after Aidos, the Greek goddess of modesty), who feels himself ‘only’ as the steward/manager of a nature conceived as a living being. However, this living being is thought in need of a total care. In this second case, Promethean hybris is the paradoxical result of hyper-interest in and omni-responsibility towards the otherness of nature.
3.
Given these assumptions, the main consequence of the Anthropocene has to be found in the Pet-ification of Nature, namely the metamorphosis of the idea of nature, which turns from an object/standing-reserve (i.e. something to be exploited) into a pet (i.e. ‘someone’ needing total care). This consideration suggests that Anthropocene as worldview undermines the ethical paradigm, which has functioned as reference system for the ecological thought in the last decades: Hans Jonas’ imperative (principle) responsibility. As the age of our total responsibility, the Anthropocene represents the limit case where such an imperative – just because it can be totally realized – unknowingly becomes the instrument of a new form of anthropocentrism, i.e. an Aidosean (neo-)Prometheanism.
From an ethical point of view the most urgent request of our age is that we acknowledge the Limits of Responsibility, namely the possible dangerous consequences of our best intentions, when they become completely makeable. At the same time, it demands that we become aware of a brand new ethical problem: the potential aporia between the responsibility for the other and the respect for its otherness, namely that the maximum responsibility towards someone/something does not correspond to the maximum respect for its otherness. I refer here to the fact that no authentic “Verantwortlichkeit” (responsibility) is possible without “Gelassenheit” (releasement).
Otherwise the acknowledgment of such an aporia could also indicate the first stage for its overcoming, that is the first philosophical step towards the building of an ethical/moral paradigm good enough for this new epoch. The foundation of such a paradigm corresponds to a renewed dialogue between Jonas and Heidegger, i.e. a new agreement/alliance between responsibility and releasement.
Agostino Cera
Agostino Cera Adjunct Professor of Theoretical Philosophy at the University of Basilicata (Italy). His area of interest is Continental Philosophy between XIX and XX Century (especially German philosophy: Löwith, Heidegger, Anders, Nietzsche), Philosophy of Technology; Philosophical Anthropology; Philosophy of Film. Further information can be found at https://unibas-it.academia.edu/agostinocera.
This is all very well and good; we understand the Anthropocene and it’s antitheses (a mere 3 points). However, how does one apply this new found understanding of the Anthropocene era to modern society? How do you think the people of today should be acting on these new found revelations? Do you think that the society of the future will live in harmony with the planet or will we struggle to survive in the wake of a global environmental crisis?
Instead of seeing Nature as our “planetary pet”–which is perhaps some improvement over seeing it as our “standing-reserve,” since it may be indicative of actually beginning to have a glimmer that there might be something else of some kind of value other than US–we might want to consider seeing ourselves as a species of primate that evolved out of Nature, is still and will always be a part of Nature (but only, alas, a part), and that will cease to exist if we don’t rein in our power fantasies and stop overpopulating, overconsuming, overconcreting, filling the atmosphere with carbon and the oceans with plastic, and all the other disgusting things that we’re doing. Oh yes, and stop hiding behind jargon that enables us to stay in denial about it all.
The essence of the human species is to engineer the niche in which it is living. Consecutively, the distinction of nature and culture reduces with the capability to engineering and the cummulated impact of the engineering works. Hybris is a very relevant risk, particular because of our limited capability for governance of (social) processes in the underlying complex-adaptive social-ecological systems. Hence, modesty is called for. However, the responsibility for the well being of billions of fellow humans shapes the imperative to take care of the common planetary niche. Any point of return is well behind us. Our collective innocence got lost.
[…] Agostino Cera, PhD. is an adjunct professor of theoretical philosophy at the Department of Humanities (DiSU) in University of Basilicata (Italy). She also serves as an adjunct professor of phenomenology of image (since 2018) at the Academy of Fine Arts of Naples (Italy).Her areas of interest include continental philosophy between XIX and XX century (especially German philosophy: Löwith, Heidegger, Anders, Nietzsche), philosophy of technology, philosophical anthropology, and philosophy of film. Here the link of the other post published by Cera for the APA blog. it is titled ‘The Limit of Responsibility: The Ethical Paradox of the Anthropocene’: https://blog.apaonline.org/2019/06/13/the-limit-of-responsibility-the-ethical-paradox-of-the-anthrop… […]
[…] My work on philosophy of technology took me to “meet” the topic Anthropocene. So currently I am working on a moral paradox emerging in the Anthropocene, which Icalled “theParadox of the Omni-responsibility”. My idea is that Anthropocene – understood as worldview, rather than geological epoch – undermines the ethical paradigm, which has functioned as reference system for the ecological thought in the last decades: Hans Jonas’ imperative (principle) responsibility. I presented a first version of this argument at the last APA Eastern Division Meeting (you can read a summary of my presentation on the APA Blog. […]