top of page

The Anthropocene and the more-than-human geological theory 

The Anthropocene represents a geological period that is influenced by human control. Scientist Paul Crutzen came up with this term in the year 2000 to summarise environmental concerns about the planet (The Editors, 2018). The time in which the Anthropocene began is up for debate and could have multiple starting points, with some arguing it began during the late 1700s at the start of the industrial revolution. Others predate it to the 1600s during the rise of agricultural farming in England where labour productivity grew by 75% between 1600 and 1700 (Patel and Moore, 2017). Before the 1600s, people were aware that they're existence relied on other beings in nature, they had a more personal and interconnected relationship with the rest of the living world. However, the notion of nature then turned into a separate entity from society, Jason Hickel points out in his book Less is More that “we routinely describe the living world as ‘natural resources’, as ‘raw materials’ and as ‘ecosystem services’” (2020: 79), where civilisation and the natural environment are seen as distinct and unrelated. 

 

Since the Anthropocene is such a multifaceted and complicated subject, the term is quite problematic for a few reasons. The term refers to humanity as an undifferentiated whole suggesting that the entire human race is to blame for climate change when in reality was caused by few, in particular those in the West.

There's an unequal balance of individuals in Western societies who have exploited the environment while the poor, indigenous and colonised suffered the consequences. According to Oxfam (2015), the wealthiest 10% are responsible for 50% of carbon emissions, this the concept that all humans should be held liable highlights how troublesome the term is. It prejudicially holds everyone responsible, ignoring those who are less fortunate and have suffered the results of other people's actions towards the environment.

 

Due to theory’s complexity, the process of renaming the Anthropocene is also controversial. It would essentially come to a deduction of who's responsible and who’s to be held accountable for the changes in our environment. Ultimately, it would be a political act, there are multiple alternative terms that other researchers have suggested instead of the Anthropocene. For example, the Planationocene refers to the increase of plantations caused by the rise of capitalism which included the destructive exploitative modification of forests, farms and pastured into plantations that was caused through labour of alienated slaves and racialised colonial violence (Wolford, 2021).

 

Similarly, another alternative term that derives from capitalist greed is Capitalocene, a label used commonly by Patel and Moore (2017). This term proposes that the violent separation between nature and society allowed for the growth of capitalism, “capitalism couldn't have emerged without the cheapening of nature”. They claim that a new intellectual revolution had emerged where the concept of nature had become the opposite of society. The European civilisation was able to thrive due to the appropriation of the environment for the generation of profits. Making links to the start of this separation, they point out Columbus’s early cataloguing of nature through enclosure in order to make profit from the surrounding colonised habitat (Patel and Moore, 2017). And similar to Columbus, “Locke [...] argue(d) that unoccupied and unused land could be claimed as property by those able and willing to render it fruitful” (Wood, 1999: 157-158). Even alternative beliefs such as witchcraft and indigenous views on the importance of nature were viewed as rebellious and defiant since any following of these groups could pose a threat to capitalism. Conclusively, it isn't necessary to decide between which term is correct but instead it’s the process of thinking through these different labels that provide a perspective on how multiple factors play a role together, working inter-connectedly rather than blaming one reason.

 

The last alternative name I will discuss and focus on is Chthulucene, a term coined by Donna J. Haraway (2016) that explains that unlike the previous terms I mentioned above, the consequences of climate change may not be completely based on human actions and that more-than-human involvement may also play a part. Anthropocene shows a hubris bias, it insinuates that as humans we put ourselves on a pedestal, almost as if we’re paying an homage to ourselves for all the changes in the world today. It's ironic as this way of thinking is what placed us in this problematic situation in the first place, by being too selfish and self-centred that we put everything else around us in jeopardy. Powerful earth forces and multispecies inhabitants affect the environment in ways humans don't have complete control over and yet we ignore that humanity is completely dependent on more than human lives around us. Haraway suggests we move from human mastery ideology to solutions of dependencies on more than human lives that coexist with us, no more ‘us and them’ ideologies.

 

An example of a more than human phenomenon is the impact of salmon domestication and the results of commercial aquaculture on subsequent affected species (Lien, 2017). Since the rise of global salmon exportation in recent generations, there have been unprecedented requirements involved in the farming of salmon. However once large amounts of them are enclosed in underwater compounds, it starts to breed lice in the water that puts the salmon's health at risk and as a result affects the economy. Yet the parasites eventually became immune to the chemical drugs farmers use to kill them resulting in the interference of other types of ‘cleaner’ fish or wrasse to feed on these lice and protect the salmon. Due to the mass production of salmon, the number of wrasses naturally was far too small to accommodate for the large number of salmon, which resulted in them also being farmed.  Consequently the wrasse also required to be fed with crustaceans, and like the other two species, crustaceans had to be farmed to accommodate for the rise in wrasse numbers. 

 

Another case of more than human involvements includes the effect cattle had on capitalism and the New World. “The first cattle to reach the Americas landed on the Caribbean Island of Santo Domingo in 1493 after crossing the Atlantic with Columbus on his second voyage [...] In Santo Domingo, cattle found an environment so welcoming that they grew larger in size than their Old-World counterparts” (Ficek 2019: 261). Due to this wider environment, the cattle were free to eat the vegetation of larger areas, creating pastures from agricultural fields. This in turn benefited the Spanish colonists although out of human control, they helped shape the political and economic improvement of the Spanish colonisation. Apart from the creation of pastures, once the cattle were round up and sold, the revenue this created allowed for the organisation of sugar plantations and the importation of slaves. These examples highlight the notion that the Anthropocene and the state of our world can be influenced by things outside of human control, non-humans aren't simply passive beings but have agency that can have influence in cultural, political and economic forces.
 

Ergo, is a positive outcome possible for the Anthropocene? The 'Seeds of a Good Anthropocene' project argue “a good Anthropocene is likely to be radically different from the world of today, involving fundamental change in human-environment relationships, changes in values, cultures, worldviews, and even the power and gender relations influencing social norms and behaviour”. Similarly, Haraway argues the only way we can live in the Anthropocene is if we are co-existing respectfully with the non-human world. She states we should “make kin not babies” (Haraway, 2016: 12) suggesting that we must place more urgency in and prioritise making changes to our climate and our environment rather than adding more problems to the world as we normally do; in this case adding to the overpopulating world.

 

To conclude, exploring more than human approaches to the Anthropocene does provide a more in depth understanding of our current climate and how these processes are interlinked. However, humanity is still the root cause for these perspectives, these changes in our climate stem from the basis of human damage, which then result in repercussions that are worsened by more than human agencies. When discussing ways to combat this, I found myself questioning the possibility of a better future and whether this is truly possible when it comes to the human race. Looking at humanity philosophically, are we indeed capable of global indifference and selflessness? Unfortunately, I imagine this is exceptionally difficult to achieve; as long as humans have existed, greed and desire for power has always been prominent characteristics of our species. Although I don't believe capitalism is ingrained in us innately, I believe our society is now far too engrossed within the socialisation of capitalism for us to ever retract into a more primitive and less damaging lifestyle. I do think it may be possible to try decolonising our understanding of capitalism and pave our way to a healthier future, yet I contend capitalism is still extremely rooted in our ideologies of society. The time it would take to make the drastic change away from our socialised roots of thinking does not coincide with the little time Earth has to heal nature and climate change. 

 

Bibliography 

bottom of page