The Anthropocene, in my experience, is the accumulation of small, everyday choices. It's knowing the systems you rely on are harmful, but participating in them anyway.

The museum perspective made it feel eerie — like our present is already being archived and judged. It's helped my realization that we're not just studying the Anthropocene, but actively shaping it ourselves.

My main takeaway is that there's no outside to these systems. Even the reflections — through AI, media, or this project itself — are part of the same infrastructures it critiques.

My "favourite" part of living in the Anthropocene is the awareness. I think there's something meaningful about recognition, even if it doesn't always lead to resolution.

Unfortunately, I have no idea what the world will look like 100 years from now, and I would rather leave it that way. I don't like thinking too much about things that are out of my control.

This podcast felt really eerie to me, largely due to the fact that it's AI technology discussing environmental impact. There's something almost oxymoronic about systems that rely on energy-intensive infrastructures reflecting on the damage those same systems contribute to.

This section really challenges my idea of "ethical consumption." I always assumed streaming was the more sustainable option, but this complicates that by showing how its environmental cost is just less visible. It feels like there's no clear solution — either you contribute to material production or to invisible digital infrastructures. I'm wondering if that's the point, but then it also leaves me unsure about what action is actually possible.