Metaphors for the anthropocene
Type of Session
Full Presentation Panel
Additional abstracts
Connecting the fields of ecology and narratology, this paper introduces the concept of “eco-narratology”—a proposed approach to storytelling that is more representative of its nonhuman characters. Contiguous with ecocritical projects that analyze stories for their depictions of nonhumanity, the theoretical research herein extends ecological analysis of narrative into the level of structure. In particular, it problematizes the dominant plot model of conflict/ climax/ resolution, exploring how each of these narrative phases, when applied to ecological processes, can result in dangerous mis-storyings of the environment. A central contention is that storytelling models that reach “resolution” only after moving through “climax” encourage, psychologically, the expectation that lasting environmental change must necessarily follow crisis conditions. This expectation is observable in the ever-increasing popularity of eco-pocalyptic films, and it manifests, more problematically, in a widespread cultural inability to acknowledge crises that are not cataclysmic/ climactic in scale. Against this dominant plot model, then, the paper proposes an “eco-narratology” founded on insights from play theory, particularly as developed by Johan Huizinga and James P. Carse. Because the goal of play, in its purest sense, is to keep play going (Carse 1986), play theory can be adapted into a storytelling method that does not privilege resolution but finds direction through the playful interactions of its characters. The broader argument behind the eco-narratology, then, is that it is psychologically and environmentally important to re-vision the human relationship to Earth as a story that lacks a predetermined trajectory—neither dismissing the reality of environmental crises nor allowing crisis to become the central component of the human/ Earth narrative.
Geoengineering: Beyond Green Thinking?
Hee-Yoon Kim, MA, MSc
Despite the uncertainty and risks associated with large-scale technological interventions into the Earth's climate system - collectively known as 'geoengineering' or 'climate engineering', they are justified by their proponents in light of the existential threats that climate change poses at present and for the future. Bearing the already-advanced accumulation of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere and still limited progress on global efforts to tackle climate change in mind, should humanity focus more on such deliberate technological attempts to stay within planetary boundaries? Mainstream environmentalism, informed by norms of restraint and non-domination, has taken a rather negative view on the issue for decades. In the present study, Q methodology is applied to elicit the perspectives of graduates in environmental studies in an effort to broaden the understanding of environmentally concerned individuals' attitudes toward geoengineering, which was subsequently supplemented by post hoc interviews. Three perspectives are identified: (1) 'Traditional environmentalists', closely tied with deep ecology; (2) 'Hopeful rationalists', related to ecological modernization; and (3) 'Floaters with doubts', characterized by criticism over expert-driven governance. Though the dominant view is that large-scale technological interventions into the Earth system are likely to be environmentally detrimental, support for more research on geoengineering exists, albeit with slightly differing attitudes. The lack of preferences for different geoengineering proposals - which are highly divergent in terms of their mechanisms, impacts, cost effectiveness, and timeframes - suggest that more research as well as effective communications are necessary for engagement and sophisticated societal discussions, should any of geoengineering proposals be implemented or not. With further discussions on the respective strengths and weaknesses of such perspectives, it is argued that more instrumental view on science and technology may be necessary for modern environmentalism in the face of accelerating climate change.
Technological Hubris and the Earth System: Limits beyond Boundaries?
Bertrand G. Guillaume, Prof.
This paper offers an historical and philosophical synthesis of the relationship between political and ethical ‘milieu’ (μ?σον) on the one hand, and economical and ecological milieu (ο?κος) on the other hand, or symmetrically it engages with the link Hubris /Anthropocene.
The word ‘milieu’ means in French both the center and the environment. Its origin is twofold: the méson (μ?σον) and the oïkos(ο?κος). We would like to echo this double etymology with regards to the contemporary ecological crisis.
The ‘milieu’ (μ?σον) is also a political space of measure (ο? μ?τσοι). It is the space of the common measure, as well as the space of ethics, the one of Aristotelian mésotes (μεσóτης), or the one of sôphrosunè, which opposes to excess. Following this etymology, the ecological crisis is also a crisis of ‘proper balance’, namely it engages with Nemesis punishing Hubris.
We discuss this interpretation, and clarify the very sense of proper balance as a way to help us caring about our ‘milieu’ (or not).
We show that, if the essence of modern man is to be no longer ‘good measure’, but ‘good reason’, then contemporary man emerges when the two figures of measure and excess conflate. For example, the Anthropocene can be thought of as the time when we measure our excess. From this point of view, our geological age is more the systematic measure of the climate than its modification, and less the excess of one machine than the excess of the world itself (‘the world in a machine’).
With humility, we eventually try to make a history of technological Hubris, and a philosophy of our technological Anthropocene.
Rethinking Conservation in the Anthropocene: Castor Canadensis as Leitmotif
Philip D Brick, Ph.D
The scale and pace of anthropogenic climate change is forcing the conservation movement to re-consider not just its priorities, but also the meaning of conservation itself. What should be conserved, how, and for whom? This essay suggests that we can learn from the natural history and ecology of keystone species to help us address the paradoxes of conservation in an era of climate change. As one of nature’s most industrious, adaptive, resilient, and controversial keystone species, castor canadensis (North American beaver) show us that persistent, humble, and ecologically synergistic labor at the capillaries of our life systems can guide conservation past its addiction to narratives of loss and decline, toward new approaches and priorities.
Three metaphors for global sustainability
Dr Rasmus Karlsson
his paper presents three different metaphors for global sustainability and evaluates their respective policy implications. The first metaphor is the widely used notion of an “ecological footprint” by which the planet’s regenerative capacity is compared to the global demand for natural capital using present technologies. As such, ecological footprint essentially offers a snapshot in time. Interpreted in normative terms, the fundamental implication of ecological footprint analysis is that the aggregate consumption rate must come down in order to bring an end to the current episode of “ecological overshoot” and thereby enable a transition to “sustainability”. The second metaphor, suggested by Nick Bostrom, is one of a rocket taking off. Unlike the static ecological footprint metaphor, this metaphor captures the dynamic element of an emerging planetary civilization and the possibility that achieving a long-term sustainable trajectory might require a temporary state of even higher levels of unsustainability. Finally, a third metaphor in which human civilization is likened to an airplane and modernity to a runway is suggested. This metaphor combines the dynamic long-term implications of the rocket metaphor with the possibility that long-term sustainability can be achieved either by (1) an acceleration into a post-scarcity space-faring civilization or (2) a deceleration into a decentralized small-scale economy based on norms of frugality and simplicity. The third metaphor highlights the possibility that insufficient political commitment to either trajectory might lead to (3) catastrophic ecological overshoot which would permanently deplete the natural resource base and cause irreversible environmental damage. Finally, the paper discusses how these metaphors may be used in real-world policy making but also in education for sustainability.
Primary Contact
Dr Rasmus Karlsson, Department of Political Science, Umeå University
Hee-Yoon Kim, MA, MSc, Hankuk University of Foreign Studies
Philip D Brick, Ph.D, Whitman College
Bertrand G. Guillaume, Prof., Max Planck Institute for the History of Science (Germany)
Corinne M Donly, MA, California Institute of Integral Studies
Presenters
Dr Rasmus Karlsson, PhD, Umeå University
E-mail address (preferred) or phone number
Title of paper
Three metaphors for global sustainability
Hee-Yoon Kim, MA, MSc, Hankuk University of Foreign Studies
E-mail address (preferred) or phone number
Title of paper
Geoengineering: Beyond Green Thinking?
Philip D Brick, Ph.D, Whitman College
E-mail address (preferred) or phone number
Title of paper
Rethinking Conservation in the Anthropocene: Castor Canadensis as Leitmotif
Bertrand G. Guillaume, Prof., Max Planck Institute for the History of Science (Germany)
E-mail address (preferred) or phone number
Title of paper
Technological Hubris and the Earth System: Limits beyond Boundaries?
Corinne M Donly, MA, California Institute of Integral Studies
E-mail address (preferred) or phone number
Title of paper
Towards an Eco-Narratology: Rethinking Crisis by Resisting Conclusion