Towards Co-existence. Responsibility in the Anthropocene Debate

• Autorzy: Szyndler Jeremiasz

Identyfikatory

DOI

10.35784/pe.2022.2.03

Warianty tytułu

PL

W stronę koegzystencji. Odpowiedzialność w dyskusji o Antropocenie

• Języki publikacji: EN

Abstrakty

EN

P. Crutzen and E. Stoermer’s concept that humanity has entered a new geological epoch – the Anthropocene, in which the human species has become the leading geological force, is the subject of multidisciplinary scientific research. The debate on the Age of Man reconnects the sphere of facts and the normative sphere, while still continuing the eco-developmental concept oriented towards the search for new socio-economic solutions. One of the assumptions of the naturalistic narrative of the Anthropocene is the conviction that human action has the greatest impact on the environment and we are responsible for its condition. Often compared in literature to other great revolutions in science – Copernicus‘ and Darwin‘s theory – the paradigm shift in thinking in the Anthropocene forces us to rethink the key concepts of classical philosophy: human, nature, responsibility. The article presents an outline of the ethical debate on responsibility in the Anthropocene, considering its collective and individual aspects, and introduces a new concept of co-existence, which integrates ecosystems with the technosphere.

Słowa kluczowe

EN

Anthropocene; human; nature; responsibility; ethics; technosphere

PL

Antropocen; ludzie; przyroda; odpowiedzialność; etyka; technosfera

• Wydawca: Lublin University of Technology
• Czasopismo: Problemy Ekorozwoju
• Rocznik: 2022
• Tom: Vol. 17, nr 2
• Strony: 24--30
• Opis fizyczny: Bibliogr. 32 poz.

Twórcy

autor

Szyndler Jeremiasz

• University of Silesia, Doctoral School, Poland Correspondence address: Wojewódzka 50/3A, 40-026 Katowice, Poland

• https://orcid.org/0000-0002-5342-4427

Bibliografia

• 1. BIŃCZYK E., 2018, Epoka człowieka, PWN, Warszawa.
• 2. BIŃCZYK E., 2013, Ocalić Gaję i zbawić zbiorowość. Ekoteologiczne sugestie Brunona Latour, Stan rzeczy, 2(5): 137-150.
• 3. BIŃCZYK E., 2018 Troska o postprzyrodę w epoce antropocenu, Etyka 57: 137-155.
• 4. BONNEUIL C., FRESSOZ J.B., 2017, Shock of The Anthropocene, Verso Books Press, Londyn.
• 5. CIANCONI P., BETRO S., JANIIRI L., 2020, The Impact of Climate Change on Mental Health: A Systematic Descriptive Review, Frotniers in Psychiatry, 11(74): 1-15.
• 6. CIĄŻELA H., 2006, Etyka odpowiedzialności H. Jonasa, a ‘trwały i zrównoważony rozwój’ (Imperatywy i dylematy), Problemy Ekorozwoju/ Problems of Sustainable Development, 1(2): 107-114.
• 7. GARDINER S., 2004, Ethics and Global Climate Change, Ethics 114(3): 555-600.
• 8. HAMILTON C., 2017, Defiant Earth, Allen & Unwin Press, Crow’s Nest.
• 9. HAYES K., BLASHKI G., BURKE S., REIFELS L., 2018, Climate change and mental health: risks, impacts and priority actions, International Journal of Mental Health Systems, 12(28): 1-12.
• 10. HOŁY-ŁUCZAJ M., BLOK V., 2019, How to Deal with Hybrids in the Anthropocene? Towards a Philosophy of Technology and Environmental, Philosophy 2.0, Environmental Values, 28: 325–345.
• 11. HORNBORG A., 2015, The Political Ecology of Technocene: uncovering ecologically unequal exchange in the world system, The Anthropocene and Global Environmental Crisis, Routledge, New York Studies, 44(3): 594-630.
• 12. JAMIESON D., 1992, Ethics, Public Policy and Global Warming, Science, Technology & Human Values, 17(2): 139-153.
• 13. JONAS H., 1984, The Imperative of Responsibility, in Search of an Ethics for the Technological Age, The University of Chicago Press, Chicago.
• 14. IPPC, Special report: Climate Change and Land, https://www.ipcc.ch/srccl/ (20.05.2021).
• 15. KIPEAS A., Człowiek wobec dylematów filozofii techniki, Wydawnictwo Gnome, Katowice.
• 16. KEMPF H., 2008, How the Rich are Destroying the Earth, Green Books, Cambridge.
• 17. LATOUR B., 2017, Facing Gaia: Eight Lectures on the New Climate Regime, John Wiley & Sons, Cambridge.
• 18. MARZEC A, 2018, ‘Jesteśmy połączonym z sobą światem’ – Timothy Morton i widmo innej wspólnoty, Teksty drugie 2: 88-101.
• 19. MARZEC A, 2019, Czy warzywa pamiętają o swoich korzeniach? O nostalgii w społeczeństwie roślin i projekcie ekologii bez ‘Natury’, Poetyki ekocydu. Historia, natura, konflikt, eds. Ubertowska A., Korczyńska-Partyka D., Kuliś E., IBL, Warsaw: 69-83.
• 20. MCKIBBEN B., 2006, The End of Nature, Random House inc.
• 21. MOORE J., 2017, The Capitalocene Part I: On the Nature & Origins of Our Ecological Crisis, Journal of Peasant: 1-39.
• 22. MORTON T., 2016 Dark Ecology: For a Logic of Future Coexistence, Columbia University.
• 23. NORGARD K., 2012, Climate Change, Emotions and Everyday Life, MIT Press, Cambridge.
• 24. ORESKES N., Conway E., 2011, Merchants of Doubt, Bloomsbury Publishing, Londyn.
• 25. RENN J., 2020, The Evolution of Knowledge: rethinking Science for the Anthropocene, Princeton University Press.
• 26. RIPPLE J & 15 364 scientists from 184 countries, 2017, World Scientists’ Warning to Humanity: A Second Notic, BioScience, 67(12): 1026-1028.
• 27. ROCKSTROM J., STEFFEN W., 2009, Planetary Boundaries: Exploring the Safe Operating Space for Humanity, Ecology and Society, 14(2): 32-66.
• 28. STIEGLER B., 2018, Neganthropocene, Open Humanities Press.
• 29. TYBURSKI W., 2006, Powstanie i rozwój filozofii ekologicznej, Problemy Ekorozwoju/ Problems of Sustainable Development, 1(1): 7-15.
• 30. UNEP, Global Environmental Outlook 6, https://www.unep.org/resources/global-environment-outlook-6 (20.05.2021).
• 31. VOGEL S., 2015, Thinking Like a Mall Environmental Philosophy After the End of Nature, MIT Press, Cambridge.
• 32. WILISTON B., 2015, The Anthropocene Project: Virtue in the Age of Climate Change, University of Oxford Press, Oxford.

Uwagi

Opracowanie rekordu ze środków MEiN, umowa nr SONP/SP/546092/2022 w ramach programu "Społeczna odpowiedzialność nauki" - moduł: Popularyzacja nauki i promocja sportu (2022-2023).