

The Inhuman Anthropocene - Petiver
http://avidly.lareviewofbooks.org/2015/03/22/the-inhuman-anthropocene/

======
mc32
Why do we feel compelled to dither on the politization phenomena rather than
on finding ways to dig ourselves out?

It's not as if we could go back in time and then decide to retard our
development in order to wait for more "humane" ways to achieve progress?

Whatever mess we're in today, I don't think we're in a less desirable place
than we were in 1610. And we would not be where we are as a species if we did
not go thru the destruction we have inflicted upon ourselves.

Let's look at something analogous in China's rise. Should china have taken a
more measured approach to process and thus have another generation or two or
more eek out a living barely surviving, or as they have chosen, power through
to progress but knowing a good many people would suffer in the convulsion
through injustice pollution, inhumanity, " capitalism with Asian values",
corruption, etc?

It's not an easy call and there are benefits and drawbacks to either approach.
I'm not sure history can educate us on what would have been better, although
it can inform us and help us make future decisions with one hopes, better
understanding.

~~~
diydsp
It's a totally fair question. It definitely doesn't make sense to nail it down
to a single year...

However, the same facts convince and persuade diffrent people through
different aesthetics and contexts. This is especially true in today's age of
the economy of the sign and the nearly mainstream replacement of Christian
theology with science.

IOW, it's to make it scientific b/c so many people believe in science.

This of course ignores the fact that there are still many people UNpersuaded
by science. So, to convince them will require another web page wrapping the
same concepts and facts in the aesthetics and belief systems that will
persuade them...

(Unfortunately the belief system of Christianity has already been eroded to
some extent by the concept opposing climate change theory called "Christian
Dominion" in which it's a religious duty to consume all the resources possible
before the second coming, so those of us who feel strongly about this manner
will have to subdivide and find new ways to convince the stubborn.)

~~~
DanAndersen
>"Christian Dominion" in which it's a religious duty to consume all the
resources possible before the second coming

Question: is this a doctrine as they would state it, or an exaggeration? I've
heard of doctrines of "man has stewardship over the earth" in the sense of all
nature being for man's use, and also doctrines of "God will provide" and thus
that overpopulation cannot be a significant issue. but I haven't heard
official statements of the "use everything up before the Second Coming as a
moral imperative" before. Sources?

~~~
mc32
I am areligious, but I thought stewardship, in their context meant 'looking
after' more than 'exploiting'.

------
JoeAltmaier
tl;dr: Trying to make geology into a movement for social justice, by defining
geologic periods for geopolitical events.

~~~
JoeAltmaier
Hey! That's the OP's own summary! I didn't make that up.

