Reflections on “After 400ppm” conference at Rutgers #anthropocene

I had the nice privilege of participating in the recent Rutger’s seminar on the Anthropocene, After 400ppm, this past Thursday and Friday. I thought I would distill a few takeaways from my experience there since I do not often comment on what I think about the on-going engagements with the concept of the Anthropocene. Some will be fairly obvious. All comments welcome.

1. There is no reason to define the Anthropocene now that is not inherently political. We’ll have a much better sense of things later – say in 100 000 years.

2. A common inferential mistake is to assume that because humans are affecting Earth systems that somehow nature does not exist. This is a revisionist interpretation of the idea of nature so that, instead of there being things and processes that arose independent of us (as we would find in “nature’s” etymological roots from the latin – nasci – or greek – phyein) we have some metaphorical device instead. The “stage” is a frequent one where we then talk about nature as a background with humans in the foreground. Then we say this is no longer a tenable divide (or that it is even part of the problem) and voila, nature is gone.  Do ecology without it, and so on. I have my doubts.

3. Key debates and dissent on the “anthropos” side of things – where the worry is that a universalized or culturally opaque vision of the human is smuggled in through the anthropocene – seem to be reforming along the lines of older debates between particulars and universals. The main difference in this case is that the claim is a particular set of cultural actions (capitalism is an increasingly common target on which I will not comment) have altered the conditions for all others because these all depend on the earth and that is precisely what has been altered. I’d suggest we stay attuned here to how one vision of the “earth” is now quickly reclassifying things to forge this connection (think: novel ecosystems, rewilding and so on).

4. There is an inordinate amount of faith being put into a return to “things” or “objects.”


  1. sounds dreadful, don’t miss academic conferences at all…

  2. I attended this Anthropocene conference last month in Santa Cruz:

    Some attendees were insistent that capitalism should be discussed in every panel, and were present to tirelessly remind panelists of the need to be explicitly resist capitalist models. One graduate student then very astutely pointed out that the call to attend to capitalism was to miss the point completely – that particular acts of noticing enact a revolutionary form of politics. Brilliant.

    • Interesting. In this case, what were the “particular acts of noticing” that the student was gesturing towards?

      • Noticing how to de-stabilize and de-normalize our stories (Donna Haraway); attending to pain and illness as bodily archives (Kate Brown); awareness of “reciprocal capture” and “co-evolved mutualists” ie. flying foxes and eucalyptus nectar (Deborah Bird Rose); attending to ant-stories unfold through complex algorithms (Deborah Gordon); lichens being “born” as individuals (Anne Pringle)… to name but a few.

      • Cool, thanks! Btw, I’ll be in Halifax come august, we should get together!

      • indeed!

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: