![]() |
| "Anthropocene" names a symptom; "Capitalocene" names the disease. Image Credit: Scientific Frontline |
The early twenty-first century has been defined by a growing scientific and social consensus that the Earth system has entered a state of profound and dangerous instability. From the disruption of the nitrogen and phosphorus cycles to the rapid acidification of the oceans and the accelerating extinction of species, the indicators of planetary health are flashing red. For nearly two decades, the dominant conceptual framework for understanding this crisis has been the "Anthropocene"—the "Age of Man." Popularized by atmospheric chemist Paul Crutzen at the turn of the millennium, the Anthropocene thesis suggests that human activity has become the primary geological force shaping the planet, surpassing natural variability. It posits a new epoch in which "Humanity," as a collective biological species, has fundamentally altered the stratigraphic record.
However, a rigorous and increasingly influential critique has emerged from the fields of environmental sociology, historical geography, and eco-Marxism. This critique suggests that the Anthropocene concept, while scientifically useful in describing biophysical changes, is sociologically bankrupt. It argues that the term "Anthropocene" engages in a false universalization, attributing the ecological crimes of a specific historical system to an undifferentiated "humanity." In doing so, it naturalizes the crisis, presenting it as the inevitable outcome of human nature rather than the specific result of a specific mode of production. The alternative framework proposed is the Capitalocene.






.jpg)



.jpg)








.jpg)