14 Matching Annotations
  1. Apr 2019
    1. Although ostensibly inert, like Chernobyl’s ‘undead’ isotopes, plastics are in fact intensely lively, leaching endocrine-disrupting chemicals.
    2. The ‘uncanny’ might serve us better. One of the most chilling traces of the Anthropocene is the global dispersal of radioactive isotopes since mass thermonuclear weapons testing began in the middle of the 20th century, which means that everyone born after 1963 has radioactive matter in their teeth. The half-life of depleted uranium (U-238) is around 4.5 billion years, roughly the same as the age of the Earth, while that of the plutonium in Chernobyl’s nuclear reactor is 240,000 years. Such timescales resist the imagination, but exist as a haunting presence in our daily lives.
    3. The concept of ‘deep time’ was first described in 1788 by the Scottish geologist James Hutton, although only coined as a term 200 years later, by the American author John McPhee. Hutton posited that geological features were shaped by cycles of sedimentation and erosion, a process of lifting up then grinding down rocks that required timescales much grander than those of prevailing Biblical narratives.
    4. Deep time represents a certain displacement of the human and the divine from the story of creation. Yet in the Anthropocene, ironically we humans have become that sublime force, the agents of a fearful something that is greater than ourselves. A single mine in Canada’s tar sands region moves 30 billion tons of sediment annually, double the quantity moved by all the worlds’ rivers combined. The weight of the fresh water we have redistributed has slowed the Earth’s rotation. The mass extinction of plant and animal species is unlikely to recover for 10 million years.
  2. Jan 2019
    1. Anthropocene

      My understanding of this term is that it refers to the epoch or age in which human beings began impacting their environment. However, I didn't think that its origins were settled. Is there an agreed-upon originating point for the Anthropocene, and is this a scientific designation?

  3. Oct 2017
    1. e concept of the Anthropocene and sharing some key ways it has been discussed by scholars and has entered the public consciousness.

      Claim we have entered a new geological epoch, Anthropocene first made by Paul Crutzen & Eugene Stoermer in IGBP Journal, May 2000 Pg 17-18 [] (http://www.igbp.net/download/18.316f18321323470177580001401/1376383088452/NL41.pdf)

      Crutzen elaborated on this in article published in Nature in 2002. NB : Stresses humanity have become the crucially significant factor in potentially cataclysmic changes to our planet. [] (http://www.geo.utexas.edu/courses/387H/PAPERS/Crutzen2002.pdf)

    2. ‘Truly it would seem as if “Man strews the earth with ruin.”4 But this conclusion is too flattering to human vanity. Man's most permanent memorial is a rubbish-heap, and even that is doomed to be obliterated’ (Sherlock, 1922, p. 343

      CO2 atmospheric concentration used as simple indicator for many years to track great acceleration / progression in Anthropocence, this now joined by long list of other indicators, escalating at an alarming rate, population, water use/ shortage, paper consumption, global warming, increase in number and ferocity of storms .......

    3. In 1873, the Italian geologist and priest Antonio Stoppani suggested that our technologies, infrastructures, and patterns of land use had created fundamental changes in Earth’s systems, propelling us into what he called an ‘anthropozoic era’

      Note : Read over Article again by Will Steffen, Paull J Crutzen & John R McNeill. [] (https://www.pik-potsdam.de/news/public-events/archiv/alter-net/former-ss/2007/05-09.2007/steffen/literature/ambi-36-08-06_614_621.pdf)

      Explore development of Anthropocence. How do we track progression of Anthropocene? CO2 Emissions??

    4. Ted Talk by Will Steffen . Journey through science measuring humanity effect on the planet. important for me, while i had heard and read about debate on climate change, Anthropocene is a new concept for me. Irrefutable change, cannot be ignored.

  4. Apr 2016
    1. But I have emphasized many times that ”modernism” carries with it another idea, that of emancipation from some stagnant, archaic and stifling past, so that ”modern” is always a way to orient action according to an arrow of time that distinguishes the past from the future. An essential component of the concept of modernity is the idea of a future toward which we travel after a radical rupture with the past.

      The crucial formulation of Latour's argument—in tandem with the corollary, below, that "we have never been modern in the very simple sense that while we emancipated ourselves, each day we also more tightly entangled ourselves in the fabric of nature."

    2. ”Nature” isolated from its twin sister ”culture” is a phantom of Western anthropology. What we are dealing with instead are distributions of agencies with which we are all entangled in ways which are highly controversial and the reactions to which are almost always highly counterintuitive. Or to put it in my language, the world is not made of ”matters of fact” but rather of ”matters of concern”. ”Nature is but a name for excess”.

      "Matters of concern": I want to align this with my understanding of the dappled nature of the world.

    3. Now for the definition of ”nature”. I think we could easily agree in this assembly that since nature is not ”wilderness” nor the outside, nor the harmonious providential balance, nor any sort of cybernetic machine, nor the opposite of artificial or technical, it would be much more expedient to forget entirely the word “nature” or to use it in William James’ definition: ”nature is but a name for excess”.

      This quote from James by Latour is priceless, and deep: nature is but a name for excess. I need to track down the source.

  5. Feb 2016
    1. Everyday interactions replay the Turing Test over and over. Is there a person behind this machine, and if so, how much? In time, the answer will matter less, and the postulation of human (or even carbon-based life) as the threshold measure of intelligence and as the qualifying gauge of a political ethics may seem like tasteless vestigial racism, replaced by less anthropocentric frames of reference.

      That's beautiful. I only hope the transition isn't jarring and the rate of expansion for compassion matches or exceeds that of cognition.