Matthias Frisch

[email protected]
email for assignments - [email protected]

Dialogues on Climate Justice book mandatory

two questions per week, 30%. send always before class.

Near the end of the reading, the text touches upon the topic of climate skepticism and
cognitive dissonance regarding the public's reaction to the Anthropocene concept.

The text draws a parallel between Charles Darwin's theory of evolution and the
Anthropocene concept and how they are capable of causing cognitive dissonance in the
public's eye for challenging the widely accepted belief system of the time. Although it makes
sense to say that the Anthropocene concept opposes the belief of human progression during
periods like the Great Acceleration, it is entirely different from the effect the theory of
evolution had since it challenged completely opposite notions. I question if this parallel is
sensible as there was no directly opposing view system that claimed humanities' progress
was beneficial for the earth's environment. In Darwin's theory of evolution, there was direct
opposition by the commonly accepted belief system that claimed man was created in the
image of God and therefore could not have come from the evolution of an ape like any other.
For these reasons, I question if the Anthropocene concept can be properly compared to
Darwin's theory in the impact of scientific skepticism and if the Anthropocene concept is an
actual cause for cognitive dissonance since there is not any common strong opposing belief
against it.

Monday September 9th class -

Anthropocene geological scale

Loss of biodiversity
ethical standing

hasn’t been officially recognized because they are usually classified retrospectively
In social sciences however, it is widely accepted and utilized.

aside from carbon cycle - nitrogen, phosphorus and sulfur are severely altered by human
activity. also affects the water cycle.

Stated to likely be the sixth major extinction event in earth’s history.

For these reasons humankind is so large it rivals great forces of nature

text suggests planetary boundary approach. involves ranges of safety set by the holocene
period.

3 stages of the anthropocene.

 1. industrialization - 1750 or 1800
2. Great acceleration post ww2
3. Current phase - growing awareness of human impact on the globe

Near the beginning of ''Climate Book'' by Greta Thunberg, the author touches on the terrible
consequences of human activity and how the Earth's environment is suffering from it. It is
mentioned that although as a society we have certainly increased our pollution, it is
incomparable to place a standard civilian side by side to the top percentage of elites. My
question is then why is there so much focus on campaigns for reducing the standard
civilian's carbon footprint? From the data analyzed in this book and the prior reading, it
seems the issue resides not within the general mass population but instead in multibillion
dollar companies with large scale productions. While I understand that any help is needed, it
seems more efficient to focus our efforts in demanding change in the form of protests and
media to be able to influence large scale producers and politicians. It seems like barely
scratching at the surface of the problem to suggest that reducing our carbon footprint would
be the solution when private jets, agricultural companies, and the overall extremely large
scale productions will pollute more on a period basis than a regular citizen ever will in their
entire lifetime.

Wednesday September 11th -

Mitigation, adaptation and loss and damages = 3 forms of actions to help fight climate
change.

use page numbers and cite.

On page 236 of the text, the author gives us an example of how some allies believe there is
a possible finality to Indigenous identity and how they position themselves as saviors or
protagonists who will fix what their ancestors failed to do. The author invites the reader to
discuss how Indigenous people would receive this notion of their finality in regards to
another upcoming disaster scenario, but what I question is that I don't see how that would be
of any less value to their people. While the author has made clear that Indigenous culture
has been suffering from what they would view as an ''apocalyptic scenario'' long before
Western Society took note of the possible impending doom, this ongoing crisis should be
considered as an unprecedented level of danger to their space and culture and should in fact
be even more concerning for them as they depend heavily on their environment.

this climate crisis should still be taken very seriously by them.

While they certainly have already been going through an apocalyptic type scenario, this
ongoing crisis should be considered as an unprecedented level of danger to their space and
culture and should in fact be even more concerning for them as they depend heavily on their
environment.

Wednesday Class question

On page 421 of ‘The Climate Book’ by Greta Thunberg, the author brings into discussion
that people who are not active in their part against climate change must be addicted to
material wealth and ‘spiritual poverty’. The author uses imagery to portray these people as
‘sleepers’ who have not woken up despite the blaring alarms of climate change, saying that
they have been drugged by an egoistic desire for physical wealth. I question if this parallel is
sensible, as I believe this judgment is a broad generalization that paints in bad light people
who have not yet come to support the cause against climate change. While this idea
portrayed by Greta is surely true in some parts, especially in regards to corporations and
large scale producers; I believe it incorrectly portrays the standard civilian ‘sleeper’. I don’t
believe most people make a conscious decision to ‘’put the blanket back over your head’’ as
the author says. The people who have not ‘’woken up’’ yet might not understand the situation
in its entirety, or maybe they’ve been fed lies from scientific skepticism or a multitude of
other reasons that don’t entail willful egoism.

Either way, I don’t see how antagonizing the people you wish to support your cause can
help.

September 16th class -

3 phases of the anthropocene

1800- 1945 = industrialization

1945-2000ish = great acceleration
2000- now = We realize that we messes up

Global south only accounted for about 20 percent of cumulative emissions since 1751, while
containing 80 percent of the population.

Indigenous definition is a group of people who retain their own customs different from those
who dominated them.

Sun expands in 2 billion years

Dinosaurs were killed 65 million years ago.

Intergenerational justice - concept of owing future generations a quality of life. How will
humans live in the next 100-200 years

Apocalypticism is a problem because it just leads people to give up, not find a solution,
based on fear.

Apocalypticism disregards indigenous people because they are already living in

environmental instability.

Spiraling time - non linear time believed by certain indigenous tribes. View that what humans
do is dependent on natural cycles but not enclosed by it. They’re both dependent on each
other. Past and future and also in the present., they make the present what it is. Contains an
intergenerational dialogue, we are asked to understand what we owe to the past and future
generations.

Human beings managed in the holocene = indigenous.

September 18th class

Relationship tipping point has reached too far for indigenous to trust ‘us’, relationship
between us has went past an acceptable barrier

Green colonialism = Colonialism with the view of maintaining green, however can still harm
indigenous people or the environment and biodiversity.

Because of past colonialism, indigenous people cannot trust colonizers.

Spiraling time disallows for the idea of separating the past and the present.

Maori double spiral

Intergenerational Dialogue = ancestors, how can I live up to the gift you gave us
Descendants = how can i leave a gift so you can live a good life.

Indigenous science (fiction) =

Restoryation = restoration of the stories
Restoration of traditional ecological knowledge
Knowledge of how to live with the land and giving back to the land, stories that show how to
incorporate that information on how to live, morality.

Chymera says everyone must become a humble student and learn from indigenous people
in that sense. White says we have no right to utilize their information.

The new knowledge regime prized dualism, separation, mathematization. the aggregation of
units. Its innovations, clustered into scientific revolutions, were at once producers and
products of the previous two transformations-of labor (proletarianization) and land (property).
At the core of the new thought structures was a mode of distinction that presumed
separation. The most fundamental of these separations was Humanity /Nature. Some people
became Humans, who were members of something called Civilization, or Society, or both-as
in Adam Smith's "civilised society" ([1776] 1937, 14). From the beginning of capitalism,
however, most humans were either excluded from Humanity-indigenous Americans, for
example-or were designated as only partly Human, as were virtually all European women.
As with property, the symbolic boundaries between who was-and who was not-part of Nature
(or Society) tended to shift and vary; they were often blurry; and they were flexible. But a
boundary there was, and much of the early history of modern race and gender turns on the
struggles over that line. (Is it so different today?) That boundary-the Nature/Society divide
that the Anthropocene affirms and that many of us now question-was fundamental to the rise
of capitalism. For it allowed nature to become Nature-environments without Humans. But
note the uppercase H: Nature was full of humans treated as Nature. And what did this
mean? It meant that the web of life could be reduced to a series of external objects-mapped,
explored, surveyed, calculated for what Nature could do for the accumulation of capital. And
the substance of that value? Human labor productivity-but not all humanly productive work-
measured without regard for its cultural, biophysical, and cooperative dimensions. This was
human work as abstracted, averaged, deprived of all meaning but for one: value as the
average labortime making the average commodity.

Here we can begin to see the thought-structures of modernity as more than

"superstructures." To turn work into labor-power and land into private property was to
transform nature into Nature. In equal measure, this transformation produced Society as
something outside of Nature, the better that Society could turn Nature into a set of discrete
units, into a repertoire of caku1ab1e objects and factors of production. Marx tells us,
famously, that the relations of capital and labor "drip with blood and dirt" (1977, 926). Does
not also the dualism of Society and Nature? We do well to grasp Society and Nature not
merely as false, but also as real abstractions with real force in the world. In highlighting
Cartesian dualism as a key source of the problem-unconsciously embraced by the
Anthropocene argument-we are seeking to make sense of three great thought-procedures
that have shaped the modern world: (1) the imposition of "an ontological status upon entities
(substances) as opposed to relationships (that is to say energy, matter, people, ideas and so
on became things)"; (2) the centrality of"a logic of either/or (rather than both/and)"; and (3)
the "idea of a purposive control over nature through applied science" (Watts 2005, 250-51;
Glacken 1967. 427).

On page 88, The author Jason Moore explains how the transformation of work into labor-
power and land into private property served to transform the human view of nature and
create a separation of Society and Nature. Moore details that the capitalist view transformed
nature to ‘’Nature’’ (with a capital N) which serves as explorable objects to create more labor
and property, a symptom of proletarianization. The author brings up Cartesian Dualism as a
key source of the problem, an unconscious idea embraced by the anthropocene. It is
explained earlier that Cartesian Dualism proposes the idea of the separation of body and
mind. I don’t understand the relation the author is trying to make here. Moore brings up
points about how it creates an ‘’ontological status’’ upon entities, in which relationships in
society become exploitable ‘’things’’. I don’t understand how this idea can be reached from
the presupposition that the mind and body are separate, or how that is a consequence of
such an idea.

September 23rd Class -

Moore counterarguments -
Not about AC but capitalism.
Talks about instrumentalism = use of the earth without regard, like an instrument.
Reduces the blame from ‘’humans’’ to certain capitalists that participated.
Cheap nature = humans and nature
humans with lower case h are considered cheap labor, and nature is seen as usable
elements.

Alienation, = no knowledge of the means of production

Proletarianization, = transformation of people as labor
 primitive accumulation = period of how capitalism come about
During long 16th century 1450-1650
Included colonial expansion, slavery, end of serfdom = peasant in a feudal system. Not
owned but need to work, they receive a small part of their profit.
It becomes more profitable to use the land for other purposes, they dispose of servants.,
Disposession is an aspect of PA
PA brings = Proletarianization and privatization as well, all for the purpose of profit.
Cash nexus is the market between people and the means of production

To understand the anthropocene you need to bring it back to the PA and understand where
capitalism began.
Generates the separation of Nature and Society

Moore disagrees with Steffen’s timeline, he finds it important to consider the primitive
accumulation.

Cartesian Dualism = Separation of Mind and Body.

Sets up contrast of things existing in space and things from the mind.
Considers animals as ‘’machines’’ as they do not have a mind. Therefore creates the idea
that all is exploitable since they do not have a mind.

Four causes from aristotle

Material
Shape, form
Efficiency, maker of it = nature, human
Finali, purpose

Descartes says there is no causa finali, no purposes in creation. Only thinking things have
purposes.

Moore says lets not call it the anthropocene, as industrialization becomes vague
PA accentuates the separation between humans and nature.
Activities of humans and nature are in a mutually constitutive relation. Opposing idea to
Cartesian Dualism as they change each other, humans alter nature and nature alter humans

Capitalism is a structure that promotes capitalists, creates cheap nature in nature and
humans as cheap laborers.

On page 66 of the Anthropocene Review, The authors discuss how the anthropocene
concept lacks vision into the human history and social relations that have caused such great
damages to the planet. They bring up points about how diagnosing humanity as a whole as
the cause is incorrect and flawed. My question is pertaining to if a geological epoch should
be so concerned with such intricate details of causality. While yes, it makes total sense that
the concept lacks insight into important notes of our history, the scientific denomination of
such concept still holds value right? Like the authors themselves bring up, be it a mongolian
farmer or a factory owner, they are still human. The Anthropocene concept still paints an
accurate depiction of the scientific aspects of modern climate change I assume. Why is it
that rather than adding to the anthropocene concept these values and insights of history, the
authors position themselves against the concept as a whole?

September 25th Class —-

Capitalocene - shifts cause to a select part of humans, not to do with all of humanity.
Brought by capitalists.
Concept focuses more on social aspects and reasons for Climate Change.
Brings up Primitive accumulation, = colonialism, slavery, end of serfdom. Around 1450-1650
Dispossession - These things are taken away from the land, situation, or place that they
belonged to. Land is dispossessed from these people.
Laborers are left with only the option to engage in cheap labor or slave labor.
Dispossession turn land into privatized land, a mean of production.

Cash Nexus is the market placed inbetween the laborer and the means of prod.
If a laborer wants to own means of production, they must engage in the market of cash
nexus, by likely selling their labor to buy the means of production. Market is placed
inbetween people and land.

Nature - nature
Nature = ecologies without humans
nature = nature and humans are mutually constitutive

September 30th Class —

Systemic Capitalism is the main counterargument for the anthropocene in the marxist point
of view. Primitive accumulation is critical in this point.

Primitive Accumulation - Period of time where capitalism came about, colonialism, slavery,
and end of serfdom. Dispossession of people from their land.

Cash nexus is the market between the worker and the means of production.

Systems is the problem that puts these individuals in influence.

Externalization of costs, passing forward the costs of pollution to other generations or other
people to solve.

It is not humanity, it is the capitalist system that drives the extraction and utilization of energy
sources that pollute the anthropocene. This concept is the Capitalocene.

Chakrabaty says that we must consider humanity as unified and approves of the term of the
anthropocene.

Climate change vs ecological overshoot

2 approaches
Ecological overshoot - a family of interconnected problems - climate change, massive loss of
biological diversity, deforestation, ocean acidification. Human activities are taking more from
nature than they can take.

Climate change - single button issue

Consequences of human evolution during ecological overshoot =

Humans ‘’fluked’’ in development of fire, language, tools,

Fire allowed us to cook food and chew less so we had more space and got bigger brains.
Bigger brains and less time needed to chew, we developed languages. Allows for
cooperation, which makes it much easier to hunt and farm.
Tools help with farming, hunting, creating living conditions etc.

This made humans ‘’superior’’ but the self destruction from this development comes with the
anthropocene. Same thing with the story of lions being 20% faster.

Non capitalist systems also use fossil fuels and the problem still remains. Not a strong link
between the two.

Climate change affects all of humanity, including the rich, although less, no lifeboats for
them. Chakrabaty says if it gets bad enough, all will be disrupted and even the capitalists will
not find appropriate conditions and will be affected too.

Wednesday October 2nd Class —-----

Chakrabaty

AC — Capitalocene

Chakrabaty holds on to both ideas in a sense. Defends the notion of the human in this
context.

CC- ecological overshoot

Overhasty Jump - Sudden and significant evolution. Humans shot up to the top of the food
chain. The other species did not have time to adapt.
Fire, tool, languages.
This overhasty jump can lead to self destruction.
Capitalism can only do this major shift because of these fast evolutions to the top of the food
chain. He uses the example that a socialist system could have brought us to the same
climate change situation.

Ethical holism - thinking of the hole, collective entities can also hold moral standards.
vs
ethical individualism - only individual entities can hold moral ethics.
Callicott believes humans are a part of nature, and the speed of evolution separated human
beings and triggered their harmful effects.

Darwinian evolution is random changes of gene mixing that are not motivated, and from this
you get natural selection. Bad changes do not get passed down because they do not
reproduce.

Lamarck’s evolution was that the changes were directed and motivated for a reason.

Language allows for wisdom to be passed down by generation, bringing cultural evolution.

Ethics is something evolution brings about. Land ethic is suggested by cooperation.

Cooperation in ecosystems = biotic community. That’s what he means by the land.

‘’A thing is right when it tends to preserve the integrity, stability, and beauty of the biotic
community. It is wrong when it tends otherwise.’’

The first page of the article by Heidegger discusses how the essence of technology differs
from the relationship humans have with it. They clearly differ that technology as we know it is
not the same as its essence, even going as far as to say that its essence is by no means
technological (1). What is the importance in distinguishing technology from its essence? The
author talks about how it is seen as a means to an end and part of human activity in order to
facilitate processes. What value does he find in distinguishing the essence from the ''thing''?

October 7th

Everything is affected by the humans, heidegger rejects this idea.

Human cannot be the master of earth

October 9th —

Human does not always encounter humans, humankind are receivers not initiators of
processes.

Human being is always responding to unconcealment

Things move from a concealed state to a state of presence, they appear.
U don’t choose or create this process.
Heidegger believes philosophically that humans are the receivers and therefore can not only
encounter itself, since it is not the builder, but a receiver.

4 causes
-material - what its made of
-final - the purpose of the object
-formal - form or shape
-efficient - who made it

True essence of technology is that it is not technological but a way of unconcealment

occurring. Things come forward as if they are resources, mere resources to be utilized.

In the Geoengeneering and Heidegger text , I find myself questioning the relationship
between technology and our understanding of Being. Specifically, I am intrigued by
Hamilton's assertion that geoengineering represents "the first technology of intentional
planetary control" ([[3]]). However, I struggle to grasp how this control aligns with
Heidegger's idea of Enframing, which seems to reduce the world to mere resources for
human manipulation. Can geoengineering be seen as a response to the chaos inherent in
nature, or does it merely exacerbate the disconnection between humanity and the Earth?
Additionally, I wonder about the potential for a "free relation to technology" that Hamilton
mentions ([[24]]). How might we cultivate such a relationship without falling into the trap of
viewing the Earth solely as a resource? I would appreciate further clarification on how
Hamilton reconciles these complex ideas within the context of the climate crisis.

How does the concept of "Enframing," as described by Heidegger, relate to our

current understanding of geoengineering and its impact on the environment? The
text suggests that geoengineering represents a peak of technological control over
nature, but also highlights the risks involved in this approach. Is it possible that by
trying to control the Earth's climate through geoengineering, we are ignoring the
deeper issues of our relationship with nature? I am curious about how this
philosophical perspective reflects on our actions regarding climate change.

The text by Clive Hamilton discusses the topics of Geoengineering and Heidegger’s
philosophy of the concept of ‘’enframing’’. Geoengeneering refers to the strategy of
regulating earth systems to change significant aspects of the planet. The essay emphasizes
the dangers of geoengineering while also arguing that it is the peak of technology control
over the natural world. Is the concept of ‘’Enframing’’, which views everything as a resource
to be utilized for gain, not directly associated with the methods of geoengineering? In that
manner, could the earth be seen as a resource that is being ‘’enframed’’ for human benefit?

October 21st Class —---

Clive Hamilton’s idea is that geoengineering applies to enframing, where the earth itself is an
instrument for human’s gain. It is a strategy that treats the earth as a resource for human
technology.

SRM - strategy of geoengineering of releasing sulfur into the atmosphere to absorb and
reflect sunlight and ideally adjust the temperature of the earth.

Mitigation - turn off the faucet, stop greenhouse gas

Adaptation - Adapt to levels of emissions
Compensate damages- fix issues with compensation
CCS- carbon capture and storage, however needs a lot of energy and very expensive.

Hamilton says geoE is an attempt to control what is uncontrollable.

Enframing - the perspective of viewing everything as resources to be utilized and optimized

just for the sake of being optimized. Always viewing things for what they can benefit us.

Enframing is a mode of unconcealment, there are others

Pre-socratic, ancient, medieval, and modern ‘’enframing’’ - since around 1600

Paradoxical in the sense that climate change is withdrawing from human control, and geoE
tries to control the earth even more. It is necessary to respond differently from it

Climate change is the earth withdrawing from human control, demonstrating that it is
unmasterable.

October 23rd Class —---

Enframing challenges us to interact with nature to extract value from it.

Glazebrook brings heidegger along with two other themes.

Ecofeminism and sustainability science

We should place our greatest hope in sustainability science, rather than art.

Heidegger defends the idea that art should be central, as it requires collaboration between
humans and materials. It does not involve enframing upon it’s resources.

Natural sciences recognize the limits of human exploitation of nature, strong sustainability
makes a relation to releasement or clearing in heidegger’s philosophy

Weak sustainability - sustainability that seeks to preserve capitalism and economic growth to
guarantee ‘development’ . Sustainable development is one that meets the needs of the
present without compromising the needs of future generations. It is weak because it only
pertains to the development of humanity, so it doesn't include the needs of non-humans.
Requires nature to deliver an ecosystem, the ‘’needs’’ discussed only include human welfare
needs. It doesn’t sustain nature, just sustains human development.

Strong Sustainability - Includes wishes to sustain human welfare in general plus natural
capital. SS advocates that there are features of the natural world that in principle cannot be
replaced by human activity.

Absurdly Strong Sustainability - Defends natural capital even at the cost of some decline in
total capital. Moves away from the ‘economic’ view of sustainability.
October 28th Class —--

Global Storm - not just tragedy of commons but vulnerabilities and injustices of the world
Intergenerational Storm - affects further generations
Ecological storm - Affects ecological system and non-human beings, what do we owe to non
human nature
Theoretical storm - Prone to ‘’moral corruption’’, we don’t have good modern environmental
theories to deal with these problems

Moral Corruption - These storms, especially if combined, corrupts moral actions. Not sure
what your moral duties are, can create climate denial.

Two major policy decisions -

1. Total global cap for GHG emissions, well below 2 by Paris Agreement
2. How to distribute the emissions thus permitted

1. Global Storm

Because each country is affected by the tragedy of the commons, they are influenced to
develop as quickly as they can. It is rational from a perspective of individuality but irrational
from the perspective of the collective.

The problem is exacerbated in the case of climate change because of injustice.

Collective Action problem solutions - traditions of cooperation, name and ‘’shame’’, system
of enforceable sanctions, collaboration in interests.

Institutional inadequacy - we lack effective system of global governance, UN

2. Intergenerational Storm
Temporal problem, GHG stays in the atmosphere for hundreds of years. Future generations
will suffer from ‘’our’’ emissions

Incentive to cooperate across generations lacks. Generations won’t reap the benefit of their
withdrawal, only benefits next generations.

Institutional inadequacy - prisoner’s dilemma and tragedy of commons between collective

and individual rationality