Abstract
Without a doubt, the most remarkable consequence of the recent proposal to name our current geological epoch the Anthropocene is the philosophical inquiry it has yielded. For what is at stake in the ‘epoch of the human’ is not, as would first appear, the task of exposing the scandal of human exploitation of planetary resources over the past century (though it is this too) but to expose, as scandalous, the very nature of human agency as such (Latour in New Literary Hist. 45: 71–81, 2014). The Anthropocene tells a story about causality, of how human beings have caused the earth’s atmospheric composition to change. That human beings have been instrumental in causing climate change few would now deny, yet attempts to account for how this causality is distributed repeatedly fail. As critics are beginning to realise, to claim that the guilt is collective, applying to humanity as a species, is absurd, for in developing nations many are without substantial carbon footprints, and even in the developed world the day-to-day activities of the average citizen will have a vanishingly small effect on the planet as such (Malm and Hornborg in The Anthropocene Rev. 20: 4, 2014). Yet it would be absurd, equally, to claim that the responsibility rests only with the few, for the situation is now more complex than that, and perhaps has always been so (Morton in Being Ecological. Penguin, London, pp. 3–35, 2018). Whether or not an individual is materially responsible for the increase of carbon-emissions they are, today, implicated in a planetary situation and contribute to its acceleration simply by being alive and so put a strain on the planet’s resources. This is bad news, since it means that everyone is, after all, part of the problem. But it is also good news, since by the same reasoning everyone is part of the solution. It is this general solution—its structure and logic—that I want to think through in what follows.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
References
Ballard, J. G. (1962). The Drowned World. London: Harper Perennial.
Battalio, J. T. (1998). The Rhetoric of Science in the Evolution of American Ornithological Discourse. Stamford, CT: Ablex.
Birkhead, T., Montgomerie, B., & Wimpenny, J. (2014). Ten Thousand Birds: Ornithology Since Darwin. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
Canavan, G., & Robinson, K. S. (Eds.). (2014). Green Planets: Ecology and Science Fiction. Middletown: Wesleyan University Press.
Descola, P. (2013). The Ecology of Others (G. Godbout & B. P. Luley, Trans.). Chicago: Prickly Paradigm Press.
Eliot Howard, H. (1935). The Nature of a Bird’s World. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Folz, B. (2014). The Noetics of Nature: Environmental Philosophy and the Holy Beauty of the Visible. New York: Fordham University Press.
Fourcher, L. A. (1979). Human Ethology and Phenomenology, Part 1. Behaviourism,7(1), 23–36.
Haraway, D. (2015). Anthropocene, Capitalocene, Plantationocene, Chthulucene: Making Kin. Environmental Humanities, 6(1), 159–165.
Hudson, W. H. (1924). Adventures Among Birds. London: Dent.
Husserl, E. (1981). Foundational Investigations of the Pheonemoneoogical Original of the Spatiality of Nature (F. Kersten, Trans.). In P. McCornick & F. Elliston (Eds.), Husserl: Shorter Words (pp. 222–223). Notre Dame: University of Notre Dame Press.
John of the Cross. (1991). The Collected Works (K. Kavanaugh & O. Rodriguez, Trans.). Washington, DC: ICS Publications.
Keller, C. (2015). Cloud of the Impossible: Negative Theology and Planetary Entanglement. New York: Columbia University Press.
Kotva, S. (2016). The God of Effort: Henri Bergson and the Stoicism of Modernity. Modern Theology,32(3), 397–420.
Lack, D. (1959). Some British Pioneers in Ornithological Research, 1859–1939. Ibis,101, 71–81.
Latour, B. (2014). Agency at the Time of the Anthropocene. New Literary History,45, 1–18.
Latour, B. (2017). Facing Gaia: Eight Lectures on the New Climatic Regime (C. Porter, Trans.). Cambridge: Polity.
Louv, Richard. (2005). Last Child in the Woods: Saving Our Children from Nature-Deficit Disorder. Chapel Hill, NC: Algonquin.
Malm, A., & Hornborg, A. (2014). The Geology of Mankind: A Critique of the Anthropocene Narrative. The Anthropocene Review,20, 1–8.
Marno, D. (2016). Death Be Not Proud: The Art of Holy Attention. Chicago: Chicago University Press.
Martz, L. (1962). The Poetry of Meditation (Rev. ed.). New Haven: Yale University Press.
Merchant, C. (1990). The Death of Nature: Women, Ecology, and the Scientific Revolution (2nd ed.). New York: Harper and Row.
Merton, T. (1967). Mystics and Zen Masters. New York: Delta.
Morton, T. (2013). Realist Magic: Objects, Ontology, Causality. London: Open Humanities Press.
Morton, T. (2018). Being Ecological. London: Penguin.
Northcott, M. S. (2014). A Political Theology of Climate Change. London: SPCK.
Posner, M. (1994). Attention: The Mechanisms of Consciousness. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America,91, 7398–7403.
Posner, M., et al. (2012). Mechanisms of White Matter Changes Induced by Meditation. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America,109(26), 10570–10574.
Ricoeur, P. (1967). Husserl: An Analysis of His Phenomenology. Evanston, IL: Northwestern University Press.
Robinson, K. S. (1997). Antarctica. London: HarperCollins.
Robinson, K. S. (2015). Aurora. London: Little, Brown.
Sheldrake, R. (1985). A New Science of Life. London: Collins.
Sloterdijk, P. (2012). You Must Change Your Life: On Anthropotechnics (W. Hoban, Trans.). Cambridge: Polity.
Steffen, W., Grinevald, J., Crutzen, P., & McNeill, J. (2011). The Anthropocene: Conceptual and Historical Perspectives. Philosophical Transactions: Mathematical, Physical and Engineering Sciences,396(1938), 842–867.
Szerszynski, B. (2017). Gods of the Anthropocene: Geo-Spiritual Formation in the Earth’s New Epoch. Theory, Culture & Society,34(2–3), 253–275.
Thorpe, W. H. (1959). Foreword. Ibis,101, 1–7.
Zalasiewicz, J., Waters, C. N., Summerhayes, C. P., Wolfe, A. P., Barnosky, A. D., Cearreta, A., et al. (2017). The Working Group on the Anthropocene: Summary of Evidence and Interim Recommendations. Anthropocene, 19, 55–60.
Acknowledgements
The author would like to thank the Fellows of Emmanuel College and participants at the After Science and Religion project (particularly William Desmond for his insights on metanoia), for their invaluable comments on earlier versions of this article.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2019 The Author(s)
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Kotva, S. (2019). Attention in the Anthropocene: On the Spiritual Exercises of Any Future Science. In: Bobbette, A., Donovan, A. (eds) Political Geology. Palgrave Macmillan, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-98189-5_9
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-98189-5_9
Published:
Publisher Name: Palgrave Macmillan, Cham
Print ISBN: 978-3-319-98188-8
Online ISBN: 978-3-319-98189-5
eBook Packages: Social SciencesSocial Sciences (R0)