Frank Uekötter from Bochum’s chair for the history of technology and environmental history talks about the newest developments in the anthropocene debate.
Prof. Dr. Frank Uekötter
Lehrstuhl für Technik- und Umweltgeschichte
Historisches Institut
Ruhr-Universität Bochum
TUG on Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/tuganderrub/
Webpage: https://www.tug.ruhr-uni-bochum.de/tug/index.html.de
Hello and welcome to my video channel we in recess at German University it’s pretty much the middle between the fall and the spring term over here in Germany but I take the liberty of interrupting the recess L with a video on a matter of the day last week an expert panel voted
Down the proposal to declare a new Epoch the anthropo scene and that decision sent shock waves through the academic world and Beyond the academic world the an scene is about the human place on this planet and how it has changed over time so that’s definitely something that requires an input from an environmental
Historian I’ve covered the anthropos scene in my lecture uh on the history of energy so technically this is an addendum to my own video series but of course there’s also the vanity of the historian how many times if you are trained as a historian have a video
Channel like this one how many times can you comment on a matter of the day and really record something in terms of news flash uh mode so this is my news flash anthropos scene is not a geological Epoch and here comes the environmental historian who will make sense of it all
So what is this about well in another nutshell my verdict is this is the wrong question being answered by the wrong people in a pretty awkward way to start with the wrong question part well of course asking questions is a key topic for history actually the key skill that
We bring to uh the engage engagement with the past every historian is trying to reflect on the questions that he or she is asking and every German historian knows about Yan Gustaf roen the leading theorist of The Craft of history in the 19th century who said that reflecting on
The questions that guide your research is the Supreme skill of every historian so if you look at the question uh whether the epine is a geological Epoch or not if you look at this question uh in this vein you see very quickly this is not really a good way to frame a
Research question it’s a yes or no question and questions of this type are best reserved for uh questions when it’s about matter of fact whether something is a fact or something is fiction separating fact from fiction is one of the uh key things that we historians do some things have happened some things
Have not happened but some people say it has happened separating the two is something where you need yes no but the osine is not a question that you should answer in a yes no mode thenine is about a concept and when you deal with Concepts and history you should ask
Different set of questions like what do you see when you use a certain concept what does it highlight what does it ignore is the concept based on a proper theoretical framework in short in dealing with Concepts the key question is what is the concept really good for
Well if you look at the anos scene it has its Merit it highlights the extent to which humans have shaped natural Cycles on this planet or maybe we should better say how they shaped Planet cycles that we commonly view As Natural because there is not much nature left in the
Sense of untouched nature on this planet due to the fact that we have changed our ways enormously over the last one or two centuries if you look at the flow of water if you look at soil erosion if you look at the nitrogen cycle the carbon dioxide cycle there quite a few material
Flows on our planet that we can no longer understand unless we account for the role of eight billion humans on this planet and there’s plenty of researchers who have analyzed these Flows In fact there is an entire branch of science uh that looks at these matters Earth system
Science which studies the material and energy flows on a planetary State who try to quantify the flows to try to model the flows what goes where to what extent um and the results of Earth system science have shown time and again that we are now on quite a few issues on
A par with the forces of nature and if you have this outside role of humans in planetary uh processes and material energy flows maybe it’s legitimate to speak about an age of humans on our planet and that’s exactly what the word anthropos scene means but here’s the
Point about the wrong people last week’s decision was not a decision taken by Earth system researchers it was a decision taken by geologists and these are different researchers with a different mindset they’re not so much interested in the flow of materials and energy uh flows the mind of geology if
You partner the generalization is essentially taxonomic they want to classify geological specimen and that requires a rigid framework including rigid time scales that everybody can agree conso can work and classify everything that you find out there in the field um now to be even more precise this isn’t really about defining time
Scales uh when geologist talk about um periods they’re not really concerned first and foremost about time they’re concerned about geological sample one sample from one specific place the uh candidate for defining the anene was about the sediments in a lake in Canada Crawford Lake in Ontario um a deep lake
With lots of sediments that deposit in a fairly uh regular uh undisturbed base and that provideed a geological record where you can identify shifts um that would justify talking about a new geological Park all these things matter for geologists this is a legitimate approach but legitimate for the purposes
Of geology um if you look at this in a wider context if you think about what does this say about the place of humans on our planet what does it mean for our engagement with environmental challenges well I always had my doubts whether geology could play a big role in making
Sense of Highly Dynamic processes and maybe after last week’s decision we can say that these doubts were legitimate last week’s decision reflects a quason within geology about Modern Times And The dynamism that you’re dealing with or shall we say it shows the discipline’s reluctance if not inability to speak
About the last 200 years on our planet’s history with scientific Authority well fortunately there are other people who can speak about what happened in the last 20 years with some Authority that includes the Earth system scientist whose results really should be acknowledged by each and everybody who
Studies the recent TK and of course there is us the historian whose natural task is thinking about turning points thinking about periodizations and if you look at the approach that GE geologists have taken as historian you know the first and most fundamental thing you should say you know stop thinking about
This in terms of one place or One Moment In Time um the entire thought that there was one moment when Humanity stepped into new po you know that’s that’s storytelling made in Hollywood is nice and it’s dramatic and maybe creates a certain um sense of excitement when
There’s that one moment where we stepped into a new Epoch you know when the first nuclear explosion shook the New Mexico desert humans entered in New Park well you can probably tell exciting Hollywood style stories with that but if you argu in this way you won’t last long in a
Decent history Cinema the making of global modernity is about many small steps that added up to a watershed of the first order there is not one moment one individual one place one decision that made the difference the key point is that many decisions many steps accumulated to something really big so
The anthropos decision really reflects a poorly phrased question answered by the wrong discipline and then there is the awkward way of taking this decision last week’s vote came from and to look this uh up in my script here because because I want to be precise here the vote came
From the subcommission on quinary stratagraph who voted on the findings on the the anthropos working group uh the subcommission on quarternary Strat graphy was one of three comedies who needed to vote on this proposal each of these ComEd had to vote with a 60% majority and only then with the anine
Turn into a category uh with the stamp of approval from the international Union of geological Sciences well if you are a child of the Cold War years like I am that really reminds you of something you know this is a mode of decision- making that you
Has um an air of the age of planned economies of centralized planning where you have a working group that reports to comedy with then reports another comedy and then it reports to you know some kind of plary and at the end somebody will you know take a decision I guess
The point is clear you know if you use a layered bureaucratic operatus to something as dynamic as well an economy or an earth system don’t complain if you end up looking foolish and as un looking foolish you know the ultimate irony of last week’s decision is that there are
Not credible claims that the decisionmaking process violated procedural rules you know if there is something more embarrassing in science than a complex decision-making process by comme it is scientists failing to follow the comedy rules that they themselves set up so where does this leave us in a view to the scene well I
Think we should still use the term but you should always be able to explain what it means why is it a helpful concept what does it say what are the theoretical the conceptual underpinings what is the empirical evidence that the concept flexs what does it why does it
Matter in in which way and I say that with a view to the other big group that was a loser of last week’s decision I think it’s clear that the vote says something about the inability or unwillingness of geology to engage with the environmental crisis of our time but
I think the vote is also a slap in the face for every academic who talked about the anthropos scene if it were the Act of Faith if believing anos scene was something that showed that you’re an open-minded rational environmental citizen or if you don’t uh believe in
The anine that you have not um you have not taken account of where we are they don’t know what all this about there are quite a few academics who talk about the anine as if it were that magic word that explains everything and plenty of people I’ll
Evoke this with you know quaa religious favor be it to make the case for rig rigorous policies against climate change or out of moral concern about the damage that we have done on our planet or maybe because it was the buzzword dour achieve way to look cool and to get uh gr money
Because you have understood the buzzword of our time so last week’s decision puts us where we should be if you use the word anthropos you should be clear about what it means and if you’re one of the people who have gone transerfing in recent years and
Have used this word as if it were the ultimate truth about man and nature well for you it’s welcome back to planet Earth
1 Comment
Great video and refreshing thoughts on the topic. Thanks much and keep the contents flowing, please!