The Anthropocene

Soon, the Anthropocene will be formally submitted as a chronostratigraphic unit of the Geological Time Scale. This means, in effect, that Homo sapiens will be recognized as a dominant geological force on the planet. But how are anthropologists engaging with this concept in ways that inform larger debates? And what vital concerns or challenges are being raised by anthropologists and scholars in related disciplines as the Anthropocene becomes an increasingly familiar framework for understanding humanity and its place on Earth? One of the underlying motives for the recognition of the Anthropocene is to call attention to humanity’s pervasive impacts on the planet, which are understood as largely damaging for humans and other organisms that live on the Earth. However, the Anthropocene’s root causes still remain hotly disputed. Some see the Anthropocene as a broader extension of humanity’s long-established tendency of landscape modification or niche construction while others assert that the capitalist system is the underlying cause of the Anthropocene’s emergence. Extending from these debates, anthropologists and other social scientists have looked into the ways that the Anthropocene intersects with histories of race and racism, colonialism and neocolonialism, extraction and extinction, and what anthropological methods—from archaeological excavation to multispecies ethnography—can tell us about the differing dimensions of this confounding time. In a more philosophical vein, the Anthropocene has prompted academic researchers to question basic disciplinary distinctions, heuristics, and taken-for-granted assumptions. For anthropologists specifically, it has prompted a re-evaluation of human-centered analytics and inherited notions about what constitutes “the human.” Without a doubt, this literature and the scholarly debates that animate it will only grow and evolve with time, but here a focus is placed on the origins and politics of the Anthropocene, with specific focus on its relationship to historical and contemporary inequalities. This bibliography also considers what the Anthropocene means for socio-cultural theory, anthropological methods, and movements toward decolonization and collective liberation in a deeply compromised world.

Author(s):  
Mats Alvesson ◽  
Yiannis Gabriel ◽  
Roland Paulsen

This chapter introduces ‘the problem’ of meaningless research in the social sciences. Over the past twenty years there has been an enormous growth in research publications, but never before in the history of humanity have so many social scientists written so much to so little effect. Academic research in the social sciences is often inward looking, addressed to small tribes of fellow researchers, and its purpose in what is increasingly a game is that of getting published in a prestigious journal. A wide gap has emerged between the esoteric concerns of social science researchers and the pressing issues facing today’s societies. The chapter critiques the inaccessibility of the language used by academic researchers, and the formulaic qualities of most research papers, fostered by the demands of the publishing game. It calls for a radical move from research for the sake of publishing to research that has something meaningful to say.


2009 ◽  
Vol 96 (4) ◽  
pp. 249-262 ◽  
Author(s):  
Brian McGowran ◽  
Bill Berggren ◽  
Frits Hilgen ◽  
Fritz Steininger ◽  
Marie-Pierre Aubry ◽  
...  

1997 ◽  
Vol 40 (4) ◽  
Author(s):  
M. Viti ◽  
D. Albarello ◽  
E. Mantovani

Seismological investigations have provided an estimate of the gross structnral features of the crust/upper mantle system in the Mediterranean area. However, this information is only representative of the short-term me- chanical behaviour of rocks and cannot help us to understand slow deformations and related tectonic processes on the geological time scale. In this work strength envelopes for several major structural provinces of the Mediterranean area have been tentatively derived from seismological stratification and heat flow data, on the assumption of constant and uniforrn strain rate (10-16 S-1), wet rocks and conductive geotherm. It is also shown how the uncertainties in the reconstruction of thermal profiles can influence the main rheological prop- erties of the lithosphere, as thickness and total strength. The thickest (50-70 km) and strongest mechanical lithospheres correspond to the coldest zones (with heat flow lower than or equal to 50 mW m-2), i.e., the Io- nian and Levantine mesozoic basins, the Adriatic and Eurasian foreland zones and NW Greece. Heat flows larger than 65 mW m-2, generally observed in extensional zones (Tyrrhenian, Sicily Channel, Northern Aegean, Macedonia and Western Turkey), are mostly related to mechanical lithospheres thinner than 20 km. The characteristics of strength envelopes, and in particular the presence of soft layers in the crust, suggest a reasonable interpretation of some large-scale features which characterize the tectonic evolution of the Central- Eastem Mediterranean.


2021 ◽  
Vol 3-4 (185-186) ◽  
pp. 56-64
Author(s):  
Svitlana Hnylko

Paleogene deposits are the main reservoir of hydrocarbon resources in the Carpathians and creation of the modern stratigraphic scheme of these deposits is the basis for improving the efficiency of geological search works. The reliable stratification is a necessary precondition for the preparation of geological maps. Stratification of the Paleocene–Eocene sediments is provided by foraminifera, nannoplankton, dinocysts, radiolarians, sponge spicules, palynoflora. Planktonic foraminifera is the main stratigraphic group of the Paleogene fauna. In the predominantly non-calcareous flysch of the Paleocene–Eocene of the Carpathians, mainly agglutinated benthic foraminifera of siliceous composition are developed. Planktonic foraminifera are distributed locally – in calcareous facies. The most complete sequence of Paleocene–Eocene planktonic foraminifera is represented in the Metova Formation (the Vezhany nappe of the Inner Carpathians). The results of own researches of natural sections of sediments distributed within the Magursky, Monastyretsky and Vezhany nappes of the Ukrainian Carpathians together with the analysis of literature sources are used. The article presents a generalized biozonal division of the Paleocene–Eocene of the Ukrainian Carpathians by planktonic foraminifera. On the basis of certain correlation levels, a comparison with the Geological Time Scale was made. The Parvularugoglobigerina eugubina Zone (lowermost Danian), Globoconusa daubjergensis Zone (middle Danian), Praemurica inconstans Zone (upper Danian); Morozovella angulata Zone (lower Selandian); Globanomalina pseudomenardii Zone fnd Acarinina acarinata Zone (upper Selandian–Thanetian); Morozovella subbotinae Zone (lower Ypresian), Morozovella aragonensis Zone (upper Ypresian); Acarinina bullbrooki Zone (lower Lutetian), Acarinina rotundimarginata Zone (upper Lutetian); Hantkenina alabamensis Zone (Bartonian); Globigerinatheka tropicalis Zone (lower Priabonian) and Subbotina corpulenta Zone (upper Priabonian) based on planktonic foraminifera are characterized in studied deposits.


2020 ◽  
pp. 3-21
Author(s):  
Bart J. Wilson

The central claim of the book is that property is a universal and uniquely human custom. Contra cultural relativists, every human society has property tools, utensils, and ornaments. Contra biologists, only Homo sapiens has property in things other than food, mates, and territories. Contra philosophers and legal scholars, the bedrock of property is custom, not rights. Contra social scientists and ordinary people, property is indeed a custom and not something that must be instituted by government. Property operates at the three levels. At the micro-level core of property is an organism that perceives the physical world through its body. The meso-level of property is the community within which the organism resides. At the macro-level of property are the institutions that unite strangers of different communities through the modern democratic concept of rights. Whereas the custom of property is ancient, moral, and universal to all people, property rights are modern, amoral, and majoritarian.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document