The Anthropocene: Researchers suggested that the term be included in the geological timescale. It marks the transition to an age marked by the influence of man on the geological processes of the earth. The temporal classification, relevance and necessity of the concept are still being discussed among geologists. Nevertheless, the term is increasingly used in science. This is because experts from a wide range of disciplines recognize that, for the first time in the history of the planet, the future of the entire Earth is fundamentally determined by the actions of the human species, and the effects of human activity are still being will have an impact for generations, if not millennia.
But when you talk about the Anthropocene, it’s not just about climate change. The concept implies a system of being based on the maximum exploitation of resources at the expense of expendable “others”. It is closely linked to a global system of racism, a legacy of centuries of colonialism. And is it inextricably linked to a never-ending succession of industrial wars, which reached its provisional culmination with the endless “war on terror.”
The earth is terraformed to the point of being unrecognizable
The most important argument for the efforts to define the Anthropocene as its own age in Earth’s history is probably the unprecedented consequences of man-made climate change. In recent decades, there has been a worldwide consensus among climate scientists that humanity’s rapidly increasing consumption of fossil fuels — that is, the burning of oil, gas, and coal — is the earth’s natural carbon cycle. Destabilizes. The experts repeatedly warned of the impact of these activities.
Hundreds of thousands of years, the Earth maintained a balance, a kind of “safe functional space” that provided an optimal environment for humans and other living beings, and in which the amount of carbon emanated and absorbed by the planetary ecosystem was stable Remained.
But since the Industrial Revolution, which led to an unstoppable expansion of human civilization and an increasing consumption of fossil energy sources, related carbon dioxide emissions have increased so much that the planet does not absorb more. The result is a steady increase in global average temperatures.
Scientists warn that the increased release of CO2 into the Earth’s atmosphere and the additional solar heat it insinuates are destroying the Earth’s climate, weather and ecosystems. As human civilization continues its expansion and burns ever-increasing amounts of fossil fuels, studies show that the planet’s ecosystem is a turning point from a certain level of CO2 content and global warming. and enter a new, dangerous era — an era that is not comparable to the previous hundreds of thousands of years, with conditions in which man has never lived.
Conservative forecasts suggest that if we simply carry on as before, we will move towards a global average temperature increase of between 3 and 6 degrees Celsius.
According to other estimates, we are heading for global warming of 8 degrees Celsius. This was determined, for example, by the global investment firm Schroders on the basis of the current consumption of fossil fuels. In a study funded by the Climate Change Research Division of the U.S. Department of Energy, researchers came to the same conclusion. They highlighted the potential impact of “multiple feedback loops” triggered by the changing processes of Earth’s systems, which could exacerbate the greenhouse gas effect.
Most climate scientists agree that warming between 4 and 6 degrees Celsius would create such a degree of chaos that the planet would become largely uninhabitable. The changes that result are complicated, depending on the concept of “Earth system sensitivity” — that is, how sensitive the planet’s ecosystems are to changing CO2 levels. But even with a conservative estimate of this sensitivity, a warming of three degrees — the minimum we are moving towards at the moment — should already be classified as “extremely dangerous.” An average global temperature increase between the three-to-four-degree threshold would probably create conditions in which the core infrastructures of human civilization could no longer be sustained.
Governments that take the threat seriously do so only to the extent that, above all, they assess their impact on their own system and consider how, in the context of increasing instability, they can continue to do so as before.
Studies conducted in this context have concluded that our current climate change course will increase the likelihood of conflict.
The National Security Authorities of the Western World, which have conducted studies on the subject, largely agree that while climate change does not automatically create war, it is a kind of “amplifier” for the likelihood of wars, as it leads to water scarcity, the deterioration of vital food systems, the collapse of conventional energy supplies, and extreme weather events with unpredictable effects. These consequences of climate change can destroy infrastructures and lead to the collapse of public institutions. There is a broad consensus that the increasing outbreaks of war and conflict are likely symptoms of climate change on a business-as-usual path.
Unfortunately, there is little talk of the need to change the human system that has brought us into this state. Instead, we are usually told that the security forces need to be expanded in order to counteract the climate-change chaos of our world. It is therefore intended to strengthen the very system that caused the problem in the first place.
At the other end of the spectrum, an absolute idea of state denial can be seen. This is based on the desire to protect the principle of the endless exploitation of fossil fuels at any price. In March 2019, the Trump administration considered setting up a White House committee to challenge the findings of dozens of military and intelligence reports on the serious climate change-related security risks. This is very revealing, as the Pentagon produces more fuel emissions than 140 countries in the world.
The “national security” argument creates a blinkered perspective, leading to people’s focus on the physical threats to nation-state interests.
The resulting obsession with war is ultimately counterproductive and symptomatic of the fragmentary cognitive framework in which human institutions currently think and act. It focuses, in a short-sighted way, on how to ensure the survival of existing state functioning and advocacy groups, rather than seeing the crisis for what it is: a global existential threat to our entire species.
If the worst happens, war would be our least problem, because then the earth turns into a greenhouse. A study by the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences found that the uninhabitability of the planet is not just a remote possibility that could be triggered by a temperature rise of several degrees Celsius. No, this moment may be imminent or it may have already occurred, former NASA senior climate scientist James Hansen said, describing the current temperature increase of about one degree Celsius compared to pre-industrial Average value but as the upper limit for a safe life on Earth. Above this value, Hansen argues, we are in a dangerous and unpredictable climate, with some of the resulting consequences being irreversible.
But climate change is not the only component of the crisis. Our model of civilisation, which is engine-free for exponentially in energy and resource consumption, has led to a rapid increase in resource exploitation and waste production worldwide. The resulting crisis of biodiversity is becoming more and more acute. The result is potentially irreversible changes in soils and oceans, resulting in the mass extinction of many species.
Human Civilization and the War on Life
About 15 years ago, the U.N.’s Millennium Ecosystem Assessment study was one of the first to offer a devastating insight into the man-made destruction that has shaped the Anthropocene. The study established the mid-twentieth century as a marked turning point in a new era, as fast-growing industrial agriculture was marked by an increasing decline in biodiversity.
Consumption of food, water, and fuel has not only increased exponentially since then, but has also become more and more incidence of habitats: more in the last 50 years alone than in the entire history of mankind. The UN study reported that the rate of extinction in the 1950s was up to a thousand times higher than the highest extinction rate determined by fossils. This was less than one species per millennium, measured by 1000 mammal species. The UN estimates that the rate is currently rising and will be “ten times higher” in the near future.
The situation is now much worse than originally thought. This year, the global research report of the UN intergovernmental science-policy platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services was published. It states that one million of the planet’s eight million animal and plant species are threatened with extinction in the near future. The main causes are the climatic changes driven by the expansion of human civilisation, the loss of habitats, overfishing, pollution and the intrusion of non-native species.
Numerous studies warn that our current course is heading for the collapse of our present form of civilization. A model developed using NASA funds showed that the current model of the endless growth of human civilization is likely to lead to a decline in yields and greater economic strata, and ultimately Collapses. The model showed that civilizations tend to pursue a growth trajectory based on a constant increase in complexity, with new levels of complexity added to problem solving.
Each new level creates more complex problems that require even more complex levels of problem solving, which in turn creates more problems. This circular concept is based on the work of archaeologist Joseph Tainter, who studied dozens of earlier civilizations. It suggests that any civilization will eventually collapse under the unsustainable weight of its own complexity, caused by excessive resource consumption and an unequal distribution of wealth — unless it catches in time. to adjust consumption and distribution.
This particular model was relatively simple and limited to a small number of variables to investigate the general plausibility of the core hypothesis. A few years later, the Global Sustainability Institute at Anglia Ruskin University, with funding from the British Foreign Office, developed a much more complex scientific model with thousands of data entries. If the all-as-yet course is maintained in the future, human civilization will collapse in 2040 around 2040, according to this model. At this point, the climate, energy, food, and water crises will simultaneously escalate, and major economies will collapse amid epidemic food conflicts. Conventional wars may also take place, but regardless of this, there will be civil unrest across the planet, both within borders and beyond.
This year, a scenario analysis was carried out taking into account the relevant scientific literature and with the support of the former head of the Australian military. The goal was to outline a plausible future scenario for the all-as-yet course, based on the knowledge of how our planet’s ecosystems might respond to man-made CO2 emissions. For the analysis, the scientific evidence for a possible greenhouse gas scenario was taken into account, it showed that human societies, due to the fatal effects of climate change on important ecosystems, a state of affairs no later than 2050 " will face total chaos”.
Two billion people will suffer from water shortages, and another billion will be forced to emigrate in order to survive. This would severely impair the functioning of human civilization and increase the likelihood of total collapse.
The scenario analysis calls on the Australian security sector — those responsible for war — to respond more appropriately to these risks by initiating an emergency mobilisation on the scale of the Second World War in order to: to ensure the transition to a post-fossil fuel civilization.
Although the call may have been well-intentioned, the report did not take into account the fact that these war authorities are structurally unlikely to be able to take such a measure — because they are part of the institutions on which the current fossil-fuel system is fuels. A transformation of the current system would deprive these authorities of their own raison d’etre.
A further analysis in the form of a scientific briefing, which was included in the UN Sustainable Development Goals Report, found that one of the main reasons for the increasing risk of collapse in the nature of the endless growth model of the current structure of capitalism. The more we increase our consumption of resources, raw materials, minerals and energy, the faster we need the cheap and rich resources. For this reason, the cost of further production is rising. Based on the groundbreaking work of environmentalist Professor Charles Hall, the study argues that the Energy Return on Investment method should be used to measure their actual efficiency with regard to national and global energy systems. EROI measures the amount of energy needed to generate energy.
The result? Energy efficiency is falling mainly for geological reasons. The cost of production is rising due to greater energy consumption and more complicated mechanisms of exploitation. As a result, the return on society decreases. As we devote more and more energy and resources to attracting more energy and resources, the surplus we need to finance the public goods and services needed to sustain a civilisation is diminishing. This does not mean that we run out of energy resources — but it does mean that the reserves for investment in important social goods are falling further and further as a result of rising energy and environmental costs.
The French economists Victor Court and Florian Fizaine demonstrated in a current global EROI study that we have long exceeded the peak of efficiency levels. The amount of usable energy from fossil fuels compared to the energy invested was once lucratively high: in the 1960s, the ratio was about 44:1. Since then, the harvest factor has fallen inexorably to just over 30:1 globally. This development was accompanied by a long-term slowdown in the growth rate of the world economy, a decline in productivity and an increase in debt.
Economists predicted that with the current decline in energy efficiency in 2100, we will have the same fossil fuel harvest factor as in 1800. Although the total value of the energy produced is likely to be higher by the end of the century than in the 19th century, the available energy surplus could be at the same level if we simply reduce our dependence on fossil fuels. so far have been maintained.
This predicament is already creating social unrest and social polarisation. Populism, too, is resurrecting in this situation, in which neither governments nor the wider public seem to understand why economies suffer from chronic dysfunction, instability, and low growth.
The report to the UN predicts that the current economic system, which depends on endless growth for its survival, simply cannot be sustained. He therefore points to a future marked by increasing unrest without a change of course. Sooner or later we will have to move to a new form of economy — if we do not, the risk of social tensions that could turn into conflict and, in the worst case, even lead to collapse will increase.
War as a reflection of civilization
The risk of collapse is inextricably linked to war, because the growth trajectory of industrialized civilizations enabled, on the one hand, the development of war technologies, and on the other hand, they enable the growth course.
This year, the scientific working group, established to determine the Anthropocene definition, confirmed that the starting point for the beginning of the new geological epoch, as originally proposed, was set for 1950.
This confirmation is the first stage in a longer scientific process in which this hypothesis — since the proposed epoch is not yet scientifically - is being tested for its validity. The preliminary assessment that the starting point of the new era should be set in the middle of the 20th century is based on the assumption that this period is due to industrial expansion, the spread of agricultural chemicals and, in particular, the invention and the use of the atomic bomb was a turning point towards a new epoch of human intervention in the geology of the earth. The radioactive debris of atomic bombs, for example, was deposited in sediments and glacial ice and became part of the geological records. These developments leave an unprecedented and unmistakable human footprint throughout the planet that will be on display for decades, centuries and millennia.
As a result, war is woven into the fabric of the Anthropocene. Both the twentieth and twenty-first centuries exemplify the inherent lyedial dynamics of the exponential growth of human civilization. They share another typical feature, namely the systematic spread of war, massive violence and various forms of genocide.
These parallel characteristics — ecocide and genocide, the destruction of our vital ecosystem and the destruction of the lives of members of our own species — do not occur by chance together. Rather, they are inherent components of human life in its present form.
Since 1945, human civilization has been at the crossroads of tension between two pseudo-scientific ideologies of endless growth: capitalism and communism. The former is based on extreme privatisation and individualisation, and the latter is based on extreme nationalisation and collectivisation. Both paradigms saw the Earth as little more than an external resource repository to be exploited for the endless consumption of the human species ad infinitum — a species that today is defined by its ability to become a technological industry.
Both ideologies promised that their paradigms would produce utopian oases of industrial prosperity for their respective societies.
In fact, however, they constructed the Earth as something “other”, as a mere resource that serves the consumption of the predator man. Similarly, large parts of the working population in and outside their demarcated areas have been dealt with: it has been seen as a mere instrument for the endless acceleration of industrial productivity. And as if that weren’t enough, the two ideologies constructed each other as “others” at every encounter, and even if they didn’t meet.
As a result, millions of people died as a result of the very different expansion efforts of the two systems.
The Soviet Union and Maoist China used brutal methods of collectivization on their way to increasing productivity, which, unsurprisingly, led to mass casualties. Among the methods was the generation of devastating artificial famines: Stalin’s policies eliminated between 20 and 60 million people, and 27 million people in China starved in the course of Mao’s industrialization campaign of the “Great Jump forward”.
But the liberal Western governments have also left a very clear trail of blood in the context of a first major wave of violence since the provisionally defined beginning of the Anthropocene.
Since 1945, Western governments, led by the US, euphemistically referred to as the leader of the “free capitalist world,” have continuously conducted open and covert military interventions around the world. This has led to ongoing unrest and violence in more than 70 developing countries in Asia, Africa, South America, and the Middle East.
The British historian Mark Curtis estimates the total number of deaths resulting from these interventions to be between 8.6 and 13.5 million people — a conservative estimate, as he makes clear. Interventions often targeted emerging national movements for greater self-determination. They were officially legitimized on the grounds of fighting communist subversion.
However, Curtis’s analysis of US and British government archives revealed that the communist threat to policymakers to justify militarism based on the defense of Western business interests and the control of important resources and raw materials, was deliberately inflated. The biggest prey in the Middle East, for example, was control of strategic fossil fuels, the lifeblood of economic growth.
The development economist J. W. Smith put the number of deaths directly caused by military inventions higher, namely between 12 and 15 million. In addition, “hundreds of millions” died as a result of the destruction and subsequent economic restructuring. Smith explained how Western interventions paved the way for the implementation of new capitalist conditions that would eliminate internal resistance and forcibly integrate developing countries into the global capitalist economy. aimed.
Instead of fading away, this course of war has escalated in the 21st century. The logic behind this remains to ensure access to resources and labor using force to feed the ever-expanding networks of global capital. However, this process is being sold under the guise of slogans such as humanitarianism, development aid and ‘national security’.
For example, interventions in Iraq and Afghanistan in the context of the ‘war on terrorism’ are basically resource wars.
Documents from the British Foreign Office clearly show that British and US policymakers saw the invasion and occupation of Iraq as a way to reduce access to one of the world’s largest oil reserves, as well as a continuous oil supply to world markets, thereby contributing to the stabilisation of the global economy. In Afghanistan, National Assembly records revealed that Western forces have long sought to build a trans-Afghan pipeline to transport oil and gas from Central Asia to Western markets, bypassing U.S. rivals Iran and Russia. In the 1990s, the US and Britain even financed the Taliban in the ultimately failed attempt to establish the “security” necessary for the project.
Both the Obama administration and the Trump administration have consistently supported the pipeline project, which is continuing to build.
The resource wars of the Anthropocene are always about the assertion of different interests.
The conflicts in Iraq and Afghanistan created an enormous amount of violence. Generally accepted estimates are hundreds of thousands of victims. That would be bad enough. However, there are higher-level, more plausible estimates that the conflicts since 1990 have resulted in far more people being killed directly or indirectly: a total of probably about four million.
Since then, warfare in the Anthropocene has increased and intensified in a new, striking way. The reason for this is the steady acceleration of the converging climate, energy, food and water crises, which confront the weaker nodes of human civilization with overlapping levels of collapse. . For example, the Arab Spring of 2011 led to a delayed, long-term fusion of insurrections, civil wars, and armed conflicts that spread across Egypt, Syria, Libya, Yemen, and beyond.
The Arab Spring was triggered by a shock to food prices. This, in turn, was caused by a combination of energy and economic shocks and a series of climate shocks that had led to droughts and extreme weather crises in the world’s major granaries.
In the years before the Arab Spring, many governments, from Syria to Egypt to Yemen, had cut food and fuel subsidies. This was mainly due to a collapse in government revenues, as many of these countries were formerly large oil exporters, but had exceeded the zenith of their conventional oil resources in the mid-1990s. As production began to decline, export revenues also declined. As subsidies were eliminated in the years before 2011, global price increases on raw materials due to unbridled market speculation, and a global food shortage, the prices of staple foods soared in the largely import-dependent Arab countries. When people could no longer afford bread, they took to the streets all over the region.
The crisis in the Middle East has been decisively protracted and intensified by the global crisis of the anthropocene earth system. This, in turn, led to an unprecedented level of migration and asylum applications between 2011 and 2015. In Syria alone, about 11.5 percent of the population died in the war that followed the Arab Spring.
The West, Russia, Iran, Turkey, Saudi Arabia, Qatar and the United Arab Emirates had long been geopolitically in fighting for control of Syria, not least because of its strategic location as a potential hub for oil and gas for world markets. The supporters of these different parties actually tend to relieve their respective accomplices. It is therefore worth noting that before the 2011 uprising, the US State Department was in active negotiations with Syria and EU officials to promote the construction of a pipeline on Syrian territory for the transport of Iraqi oil.
At the same time, Putin saw Assad’s efforts to exploit Syria’s strategic position on the region’s energy corridors as a fundamental threat to his own plans to export gas. The war provided an ideal spoiler. All interested parties tried to use it for their own plans, without any consideration for the Syrian people.
In the Anthropocene, so-called anti-imperialists have no qualms about waging resource wars because of personal interests.
The flight of millions of people to Europe was a direct consequence of these wars. They fled devastating geopolitical conflicts caused or exacerbated, on the one hand, by the self-interests of different parties and, on the other, by severe droughts caused by climate change.
Dr Raya Muttarak is co-author of a key study on the link between climate and migration and lecturer in geography and international development at the University of East Anglia. It illustrates that climate developments between 2010 and 2012, when many West Asian countries underwent political transformations in the arab Spring, had a strong impact on the emergence of conflicts in those countries. Muttarak and his team found that climate change, caused by droughts and the resulting mass migration, laid the foundation for the fermenting tensions that eventually led to the outbreak of war in Syria and other parts of the region.
Mass migration triggered by these processes, in turn, has changed and radicalized the politics of the entire Western Hemisphere. It offered a found fodder for radical nationalist narratives, funded by vast amounts of “dark money” from a cross-section of the transatlantic right-wing elite, most of whom have a personal interest in non-regulation. oil and gas giants as well as other large corporations.
Mass migration thus stoked nativist fears that helped drive the rise of radical nationalist movements. They suddenly found a new following for their views and policies: the growing number of disillusioned ordinary citizens who were dissatisfied with the ruling order but did not understand the reason for this. They felt and knew that something was wrong, that the old order was about to collapse, but their diagnosis is incomplete, narcissistic, fragmented, and symptom-oriented. This, in turn, has led to an incomplete, narcissistic, fragmented, and symptom-oriented political reactionism.
The triumph of right-wing extremism after the outbreak of the Earth system crisis in the Middle East between 2011 and 2015 may therefore be a direct result of an incoherent cognitive response to the main symptom of the crisis — the desperate mass migration of vulnerable people — be considered.
So we witnessed how Western political systems were reconfigured in the course of seismic shifts, how power relations hardened and centralized, how values were centered, how a defensive rejection of science grew, and how how identities polarized, as is reflected in the growing acceptance of extreme nationalist views. In 2014, for example, far-right parties won just under a quarter of the seats in the European Parliament. David Cameron was re-elected Prime Minister of the United Kingdom by a parliamentary majority in 2015. The victory is partly due to his promise to hold a referendum on Britain’s exit from the EU. What most Britons do not know is that Cameron’s party had quietly built wide-ranging relationships with many of the far-right parties that had won seats in the EU Parliament.
A year later, the result of the Brexit referendum shocked the whole world: the majority of those who voted to leave the EU. Six months later, billionaire real estate guru Donald Trump became president of the world’s most powerful country. Like the Conservative Party in the United Kingdom, Republicans had built transatlantic relations with far-right European parties and movements. Since then, far-right parties have achieved electoral successes across Europe, be it in Italy, Sweden, Germany, France, Poland, or Hungary. These parties now hold almost a third of the seats in the European Parliament. They are also growing rapidly in other parts of the world, including Brazil, India, Myanmar and the Philippines.
The anger and adversity of contemporary politics, the increasing polarization between left and right, and the chronic inability to network constructively across ideological boundaries are a pantomime hyperreality. which controls our consciousness using TV screens, computers, laptops, smartphones and other portable devices. The lack of connection to reality is the global context — because the crises of current politics are indeed tidal waves, but since we focus only on the surface, we are practically blind to the ocean below, which is in turmoil. located.
The political crises are a symptom of the worsening earth system crisis. And, as Clausewitz already recognized, war is the continuation of politics, only by other means.
Colonization and Globalization in the Anthropocene
Not all scientists agree to set the beginning of the Anthropocene to the mid-twentieth century. Some argue that there is clear geological evidence that the age began with the advent of the modern global empire.
The British geographers Simon Lewis and Mark Maslin, for example, proposed a much earlier date as the starting point for the new age, one that “adheres to the geological criteria for defining an epoch: 1610. This date marks the beginning of an irreversible species exchange in the wake of the Collision of the Old and New Worlds” and, according to the researchers, coincided with an unusual drop in atmospheric CO2 concentrations in Antarctic ice cores.
This alternative dating for the Anthropocene is based on the measurable effects of a changed agriculture in the context of the colonization of the Americas by the Spaniards. Many historians see this central event as the beginning of a new, characteristic age of imperialism that enabled the birth of global capitalism. According to Lewis and Maslin, the decline in CO2 at the time, now visible in the Antarctic ice cores, was the result of renewable vegetation on set-aside arable land after the deaths of 50 million Indigenous Americans, mainly caused by colonizers. imported smallpox. America’s integration into the European system was also the decisive pioneer of the industrial revolution, encompassing the later phases of climate change that it caused.
The British scientists ' proposal offers a new, compelling look at the Anthropocene and connects it directly with the violence perpetrated by the Empire. The date 1610 establishes the bridge between the historic violence during the colonial “discovery” and the subsequent biological conquest-driven expansionism.
These included the massive famine caused by the “free market” in Ireland and India, in which one Million or up to 12 million people died, and the transatlantic slave trade, in which over the course of five centuries about 65 million Africans died and represented a bloody international Regime. This was inextricably linked to the formation of a capitalist world system and enabled the industrial Revolution in Great Britain.
According to this understanding, the Anthropocene — the age in which the human species began to make profound and possibly lasting changes to the Earth’s geology — stands for the rapid Expansion of imperialism and thus for the construction of new racial categories that served to legitimize the emerging system of global Apartheid.
It is precisely at this time that the development of scientific racism, this official and scientifically based concept of the existence of various human races, with whose grotesque heritage we are still struggling today, began. The idea that there are different “races” dates back to the political appropriation and distortion of the neodarwinist theories of evolution. In this context, the white European was positioned to the forefront of civilized human progress, thereby defining the racial hierarchy in the Moloch of global industrial Expansion.
Consequently, racism is not discrimination against other “races”, but rather the creation of a concept of fundamentally different human “races” and the idea that the members of a “race” all share the same characteristic characteristics. The creation of racism is therefore inextricably linked to the emergence of the Anthropocene, in which a human civilization emerged, characterized by its insatiable desire for resources and Labour.
Polarized constructions of the” other " have played a decisive ideological role throughout the Anthropocene. They were used to tear people out of their environment and separate them into exploitative power fractions. So it is not surprising that the formalization of racism as a global System took place during the Industrial Revolution, when the rule of the human species over the Earth began to accelerate exponentially.
In the early 19th century, racism was manifested mainly as a religious ideology. Based on interpretations of the Bible, non-European human groups were classified as inherently inferior because of their ancestry and pagan faith. This racism was often directed against Jews. From the middle of the 19th century to the early 20th century. In the 19th century, a concept of racism was developed on the basis of scientifically based biological theories, which attributed to certain groups of people, due to their allegedly characteristic biological characteristics, fixed characteristics, behaviours, abilities and limitations.
Since then, the concept has evolved and is supported mainly by a cultural theory, which is still based on a homogenising construction of different social groups with seemingly common characteristics and characteristics, with the difference that they are derived from belonging to a culture, ethnicity, Nation, language or belief. Often, racism makes use of certain aspects of these subliminal, subliminal theories, without the proponents being aware of what they are doing.
The famous sociologist Stuart Hall defined the term “race"as” moving significant”. According to him, it is not a fixed concept, but an inherent political construct, which is used by dominant groups to legitimize unequal power relations with other groups. As such, it is changeable and adapts to historical circumstances. Hall pointed out that racism is not biologically justified and that the new form of Culturalist racism goes beyond discrimination on the grounds of colour. It creates a hierarchy of cultures based on the imaginary skin color of people — generalizing abstractions of their practices and beliefs.
Racist prejudices and patterns of reasoning are no longer necessarily pinned on skin colours, but they are different, not racial categories such as faith, culture and civilization, which become a racist Code for similar discriminatory practices. A result of the construction of a seemingly insurmountable gap between the “West” and “the Rest”. The inhabitants of the “West” are classified as “civilized”, “safe” and “known”, while the “migrants”, “Muslims”, “refugees”, “foreigners” et cetera are classified as “uncivilized”, “dangerous"and " different”.
The intensification of identity politics is a key feature of the last stage of the Anthropocene, because the project of endless growth — designed for maximum extraction, exploitation and the centralisation of resources — invents and fastened on his search for self-legitimacy, a plurality of dividing lines between people. And so the devastating effects of the Earth System crisis are due to racist dividing lines, because it is the poorer and inhabited by people with” dark " skin color nations that are disproportionately affected by the worst consequences.
War is perhaps the most visible Symptom of the things that make the Anthropocene.
In the Anthropocene, we all become others.
But it is not too late to start actively reshaping what constitutes the Anthropocene.
After all, the current character of the Anthropocene is a reflection of the prevailing paradigm of the human civilisation system. It is a life-destroying paradigm ,a machine of death, whose inner logic culminates in its own end. It is a Matrix of intertwined beliefs and values, behaviours and organizational structures that does not act as a point of access to life, nature and reality, but creates a barrier to it.
In this sense, the end of this paradigm is absolutely unavoidable. But this does not deprive us of the opportunity to decide whether humanity will go down together with it or instead scatter the seeds of a new life-affirming paradigm by building a new System that will allow the flowering of a new ecological civilization.
Should human civilization survive, then it is not in doing what we currently experience: a civilization built on the blood of millions of people, based on the depletion of the global resources of the poor, the Vulnerable and the Weak trampled, and everything sets itself to destroy. This paradigm is deceived by the Techno-hyperreality of its own projection: a utopian illusion of endless growth, which by all means attempts to hide its own dystopian core from self-cognition.
And so we have the task of thinking about what we have actually done to our fellow human beings and our planet. Only in this way can we realize that these two phenomena are parts of the same self - destructive paradigm. A paradigm that continuously constructs a hyperreality of the dividing lines, boundaries and cleaves around an externalized “other”, which is supposed to require exploitative and parasitic behaviour. If we recognize this, we can break away from the binary delusions that have marked the path of civilization for centuries, taking a new perspective on what being human means. We can regain the essence of our existence, because basically we are beings who have come together from the Earth itself and will inevitably return to it.