December 3, 2015 - 02:00
Latour begins with the declaration that, just as Galileo’s discoveries changed the way that we think about the Earth and its action, the discoveries made today change the way we see the Earth and our actions. It is an “active, local, limited, sensitive, fragile, quaking, and easily tickled envelope”, and we are forced to recognize the damages to which we subject it and the consequences of those damages.
Noted also is the fact that the Age of the Anthropocene mixes up subjects and objects, active and passive conduct. There are so many elements in our environment that act on one another that these divides start to become less clear. Instead, claims Latour, agents must be defined by their actions. In a way, he says, humans play the role of the object while nature represents the most active subject.
He also stresses the importance of telling a “geostory”, and bringing diverse groups of people in order to do so. Earlier, he posited that a “contract” with the earth, or really any sort of agreement, is impossible—and he states here that it wouldn’t be feasible because it implies two sides (society and nature), rather than unification.
so...
I’m interested in discussing the shift in Earth as object -- > Earth as subject narrative. What led us to see this, and do we now hold more or less responsibility for the environment under this new idea? What does our relationship as humans with the world have to do with the way we treat it/the way that we understand it?