How should political thinkers deal with environmental science? The question has acquired a new urgency with the rise of the Anthropocene, a scientific concept rapidly assimilated by the social sciences and the humanities. In that respect, some critics have levelled against it the well-known objections that environmental political thinkers and philosophers have directed towards science at large in the past. Anthropocene science might lead towards planetary governmentality, imposing a reductive way of understanding both the planet and sustainability. This article will claim that a clear demarcation between scientific and sociopolitical enquiries is needed. Political thinkers should take the findings provided by natural scientists as the basis for normative exploration and the quest for meaning. Arendt’s reflections on truth and factfulness will help to make this point.
AlaimoS (2017) Your shell on acid: Material immersion, Anthropocene dissolves. In: GrusinR (ed.) Anthropocene Feminism. Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota Press, pp. 189–120.
2.
ArendtH (2006) Between Past and Future. New York: Penguin.
3.
Arias-MaldonadoMTrachtenbergZ (2019) Introduction. In: Arias-MaldonadoMTrachtenbergZ (eds) Rethinking the Environment for the Anthropocene: Political Theory and Socionatural Relations in the New Geological Epoch. London: Routledge, pp. 1–16.
4.
AutinWHolbrookJ (2014) Is the Anthropocene an issue of stratigraphy or pop culture?GSA Today22(7): 60–61.
5.
BakerM (2016) Is there a reproductibility crisis?Nature533: 452–454.
6.
BaskinJ (2015) Paradigm dressed as epoch. Environmental Values24(1): 9–29.
7.
BeckU (1992) Risk Society: Towards a New Modernity. London: SAGE.
8.
BlalockHM (1961) Theory, measurement, and replication in the social sciences. American Journal of Sociology66(4): 342–347.
9.
BrownM (2016) Environmental science and politics. In: GabrielsonTHallCMeyerJM, et al. (eds) The Oxford Handbook of Environmental Political Theory. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 491–504.
10.
CallonM (2001) Four models for the dynamics of science. In: JasanoffSMarkleGEPetersonJC, et al. (eds) Handbook of Science and Technology Studies. London: SAGE, pp. 29–63.
11.
CastreeN (2019). The ‘Anthropocene’ in global change science: Expertise, the earth, and the future of humanity. In: BiermannFLövbrandE (eds) Anthropocene Encounters: New Directions in Green Political Thinking. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 25–49.
12.
CrutzenP (2002) Geology of mankind. Nature415: 23.
13.
DaviesJ (2016) The Birth of the Anthropocene. Oakland, CA: University of California Press.
14.
Di ChiroG (2016) Environmental justice and the Anthropocene meme. In: GabrielsonTHallCMeyerJM, et al. (eds) The Oxford Handbook of Environmental Political Theory. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 362–381.
15.
DobsonA (2016) Are there limits to limits? In: GabrielsonTHallCMeyerJM, et al. (eds)The Oxford Handbook of Environmental Political Theory. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 289–303.
16.
DryzekJPickeringJ (2019) The Politics of the Anthropocene. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
17.
DryzekJHonigBPhillipsA (2007) Introduction. In: DryzekJHonigBPhillipsA (eds) Oxford Handbook of Political Theory. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 3–43.
18.
EdgeD (2001) Reinventing the wheel. In: JasanoffSMarkleGEPetersonJC, et al. (eds) Handbook of Science and Technology Studies. London: SAGE, pp. 3–24.
19.
EdgeworthMEllisECGibbardP, et al. (2019) The chronostratigraphic method is unsuitable for determining the start of the Anthropocene. Progress in Physical Geography: Earth and Environment43(3): 334–344.
20.
EllisEHaffPK (2009) Earth science in the Anthropocene: New epoch, new paradigm, new responsibilities. Eos90(49): 473–474.
21.
FinneySEdwardsL (2016) The ‘Anthropocene’ epoch: Scientific decision or political statement?GSA Today26(3): 4–10.
22.
FuntowiczSRavetzJ (1993) Science for the post-normal age. Futures25: 739–755.
23.
GabrielsonTHallCMeyerJM, et al. (2016) Introducing environmental political theory. In: GabrielsonTHallCMeyerJM, et al. (eds) The Oxford Handbook of Environmental Political Theory. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 3–14.
24.
GierynT (2001) Boundaries of science. In: JasanoffSMarkleGEPetersonJC, et al. (eds) Handbook of Science and Technology Studies. London: SAGE, pp. 393–443.
25.
GrusinR (ed.) (2017) Anthropocene Feminism. Minneapolis, MN and London: University of Minnesota Press.
26.
HamiltonC (2017) Defiant Earth: The Fate of Humans in the Anthropocene. Cambridge: Polity.
27.
HarawayD (2016) Staying with the Trouble: Making Kin in the Chthulucene. Durham, NC and London: Duke University Press.
28.
JasanoffS (1996) Is science socially constructed–And can it still inform public policy?Science and Engineering Ethics2: 263–276.
29.
KahanDPetersEWittlinM, et al. (2012) The polarizing impact of science literacy and numeracy on perceived climate change risks. Nature Climate Change2: 732–735.
30.
KaufmannW (1994) The Portable Nietzsche. London: Penguin.
31.
KingRVerbaS (1994) Designing Social Inquiry: Scientific Inference in Qualitative Research. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
32.
KitcherP (2001) Science, Truth, and Democracy. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
33.
LatourB (2017) Facing Gaia: Eight Lectures on the New Climatic Regime. Cambridge: Polity Press.
34.
LorimerJ (2017) The Anthropo-scene: A guide for the perplexed. Social Studies of Science47(1): 117–142.
35.
LövbrandEBeckSChilversJ, et al. (2015) Who speaks for the future of Earth? How critical social science can extend the conversation on the Anthropocene. Global Environmental Change32: 211–218.
36.
MalmAHornborgA (2014) The geology of mankind? A critique of the Anthropocene narrative. The Anthropocene Review1: 62–69.
37.
MooreJ (2014) The capitalocene part I: On the nature and origins of our ecological crisis. Journal of Peasant Studies44(3): 594–630.
38.
MooreJ (2015) Capitalism in the Web of Life. London: Verso.
39.
NicholsKGogineniB (2018) The Anthropocene’s dating problem: Insights from the geosciences and the humanities. The Anthropocene Review5(2): 107–119.
40.
NiiniluotoI (2002) Critical Scientific Realism. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
41.
OldfieldFSteffenW (2014) Anthropocenic climate change and the future of Earth System science. Anthropocene Review1(1): 70–75.
42.
PalssonGSzerszynskiBSörlinS, et al. (2013) Reconceptualizing the ‘Anthropos’ in the Anthropocene: Integrating the social sciences and humanities in global environmental change research. Environmental Science & Policy28: 3–13.
43.
PielkeR (2007) The Honest Broker: Making Sense of Science in Policy and Politics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
44.
PopperK (2002) The Logic of Scientific Discovery. London: Routledge.
45.
RuddimanWFFullerDQKutzbachJE, et al. (2016) Late Holocene climate: Natural or anthropogenic?Reviews of Geophysics54(1): 93–118.
46.
SloterdijkP (2017) Was geschah im 20 Jahrhundert?Berlin: Suhrkamp.
47.
SmaldinoPMcElreathR (2015) The Natural Selection of Bad Science. Royal Society Open Science3(9): 160384.
48.
SteffenWCrutzenPMcNeillJ (2007) The Anthropocene: Are humans now overwhelming the great forces of nature?Ambio36(8): 614–621.
UhrqvistOLövbrandE (2014) Rendering global change problematic: The constitutive effects of Earth System research in the IGBP and the IHDP. Environmental Politics23(2): 339–356.
51.
VetlesenAJ (2015) The Denial of Nature: Environmental Philosophy in the Era of Global Capitalism. London: Routledge.
