Aleksandra Jach: Skąd się wzięła popularność antropocenu?
Marcin Ryszkiewicz: Ja mam do tego pojęcia lekko sceptyczny stosunek, dlatego że jest ono ściśle geologiczne, ale karierę robi głównie gdzie indziej. Antropocen to dalszy ciąg epok ery kenozoicznej, które jeszcze w XIX wieku wydzielił Charles Lyell nazywając je kolejno eocen, miocen i pliocen. Potem dodano do tego jeszcze paleocen, oligocen, jeszcze później plejstocen, no i ostatnio holocen. To nietypowe nazwy w tabeli stratygraficznej, bo nie odnoszą się do żadnych wydarzeń biologicznych, ani geologicznych, a jedynie do stopnia podobieństwa do świata dzisiejszego (eo-, mio-, plio- itd. oznaczają w przybliżeniu „coraz bardziej współczesny”). Inne epoki mają nazwy pochodzące od nazw geograficznych (jak kambr czy dewon), albo od nazw skał, tak jak kreda czy karbon. W epokach Lyella kończących się na –cen („nowy”) przyjęto jako wyznacznik udział procentowy ślimaków morskich w osadach trzeciorzędowych – im mniejszy procent ślimaków na danym obszarze, tym starsze piętra wydzielał badacz. Granice pomiędzy tymi piętrami nie odzwierciedlają jakichś wybitnych wydarzeń geologicznych. Natomiast wcześniejsze piętra i epoki nazywano najczęściej w związku z wielkim wymieraniem albo ruchami górotwórczymi. Coś wyraźnie działo się na tych granicach. W ujęciu Lyella podział na epoki to właściwie ściśle statystyczny proces przechodzenia do coraz młodszych okresów. Zależało mu na tym, żeby przedstawić tablicę stratygraficzną w sposób obiektywny, nie uzależniony od tych wielkich „wydarzeń”. Tymczasem antropocen niby wpisuje się w taki ciąg wydzieleń geologicznych, ale jednak ma znaczyć coś zupełnie innego. Moim zdaniem jako jednostka stratygraficzna nie ma większego sensu, natomiast jest to ważne pojęcie kulturowe, ale to nie ludzie kultury wprowadzają jednostki do tablicy stratygraficznej.
Aleksandra Jach: Scientists tell us that we are living in the Anthropocene, even though the geological community has not officially accepted this term. Earlier, we were confronted with various holistic concepts which aimed at describing how the Earth works as a system. I think in recent decades the Gaia hypothesis, introduced in 1972 by James Lovelock, has gained great popularity. Can you explain how you understand the role of such new terms? Do you think that they just popularize some ideas among a wider audience or do they also have the power to transform the scientific community?
Michael Jones: The idea of the Anthropocene is interesting to science and to society. Kate Raworth´s extension of the idea to a develop a safe and just operating space for humanity is even more interesting (http://www.kateraworth.com/doughnut/). They both draw attention to the fact that earth represents a limited resources for life, including human life, and that we need to think seriously about how human society is going to live in harmony with nature instead of attempting to dominate nature with technology. “The Limits to Growth” book, published in 1972, expressed similar ideas using complexity models to develop scenarios describing what might happen if…. The Gaia theory is also holistic in outlook and is based on complexity thinking. It includes the idea that physical parts of the earth behave in life-like ways (orogeny, erosion cycles, plate tectonics, etc.) which is controversial but still useful in helping us understand the dynamics of the planet and life on the planet. The Anthropocene, Gaia theory and “Limits to growth” - all have a certain emotive content which will catch peoples’ attention. Science is a conservative business, so the words themselves are less likely to sway scientific attention than evidence to support the theories and models. The words will have more popular appeal, but I am not sure that it is enough to have a transformative impact on society as a whole. I think that there is something a little scary about the Anthropocene and “Limits to Growth” which will drive some people to denial, others to anxiety and yet others to take action.
Aleksandra Jach: I would like to ask you about usefulness of the concept of the Anthropocene in the practice of cultural manager, curator and writer? The Gaia hypothesis, a planet-scale holistic concept that encourages us to personify the Earth, at the same time denying the same to the single man. In the Anthropocene, a man can play a role of a steward or guardian again. What do you think about performative potential of both concepts?
Nicola Triscott: The notion of the Anthropocene – that the scale of human influence on the planet is now so large that humanity may constitute a geological force – has provided a simple, powerful concept for scientists and environmentalists to grasp and convey the scale of human impact on the planet, and it has been taken up enthusiastically by the humanities and the arts world. I think that the exploration of the Anthropocene through philosophy, literature and art has raised interesting questions about death, the end of civilization, memory and archives, and concepts of deep time, which has developed the cultural discourse within which the Arts Catalyst’s work is situated.
My own curatorial and research work, as director of Arts Catalyst, however, particularly over the past decade, has been framed and influenced more by the concept of the ‘global commons’, that I have found helpful in considering and questioning strategic relations of power and production, and associated issues of inequality, commodification, ownership, control and conflict, and through which to explore the complex mosaic of human activity, politics, natural resources and technology. The Anthropocene, as conceptualised as a geological epoch, tends to disempower the individual, faced as we are with irreversible processes on a global scale, while the ‘commons’ situates the issue in the political and social domain, within the scope of some human affect, at least in our response and adaptation.
