I’ve reported previously on how critics see the “Anthropocene” concept as overgeneralizing from the causal nuances of actual responsibility for climate (and global system) change. In an excellent summary of recent writing on the topic, ecosocialist climate observer Ian Angus answers the question “Does Anthropocene science blame all humanity?” with a definitive “no.”
That doesn’t mean that the term doesn’t lend itself to a blanket all-humanity-is-to-blame position. It just shows that its main proponents do not, in fact, hold such a position.
The debate continues.
more importantly the deniers (people in actual seats of power) of the anthropocene refuse to acknowledge the role of humans.
dmf –
I’m not sure what’s gained by saying that people in power are “anthropocene deniers.” There may be some climate change deniers, or – more accurately – anthropogenic climate change deniers in positions of power. But does anyone in power deny that humanity has reshaped the surface of the earth to the point that it’s substantially different from how it was before we (humanity) did that?
I would think that that goes along nicely with their more general anthropocentric attitudes (even those tempered by theocentrism). The concept of the anthropocene does not carry any inherent critique of what it describes (even if many of its proponents do); it simply names a phenomenon. The fact that geologists are naming it — and that humanists are paying attention to them — is what I find most interesting, and promising, about the concept.
“anyone in power deny that humanity has reshaped the surface of the earth to the point that it’s substantially different from how it was before we (humanity) did that?” of course there are, take yer pick of the US house (or any of those seeking to privatize our federal parks) or most red-state house parliaments. fer godz sake people in texas and other places are doing evangelical rain ceremonies from the state-houses.
how far does one have to trace out the causes of the geological phenomena to get at who is doing what?
I assume you have seen this but:
http://www.theanthropocenereview.com/
dmf – You seem to be arguing that there are people in power who deny the (substantial) human transformation of the earth’s surface… Can you provide a quote or two from one of these people so that I know who you mean? (E.g., do they think there have always been farms and highways all around them? Or that the impact of oil and coal is no greater than the impact of hunting and gathering?)