Gamtos transformacijos: modernybė ir antropocenas

• Gutauskas, Mintautas
• Daraškevičiūtė, Vaiva
• Cuozzo, Gianluca
• Bacevičiūtė, Danutė

LTŠiandien neįmanoma kalbėti apie modernybę, nekalbant apie antropoceną, o kalbant apie antropoceną, nederėtų pamiršti modernybės. Naujai pasirodę antropoceno diskursai pasakoja, kaip „mes čia atsidūrėme", „kas kaltas" ir „kur link einame". Būtent modernybė, jos eksploatacinis santykis su gamta bei centre esantis Žmogus yra didieji kaltininkai, todėl skelbiamos programos išeiti anapus modernybės, ją palikti ir pamiršti. Tačiau ar galime greitai išeiti anapus modernybės? Išstumti ją iš dėmesio lauko galime, bet tai nereiškia, kad tapsime nuo jos nepriklausomi. Ši knyga kaip tik ir norėtų „priminti" modernybę, atskleisti, kiek ji vis dar veikia mūsų mąstymo prielaidose, mūsų siekiuose įveikti ją pačią. Modernybę ir antropoceną produktyvu nagrinėti ne kaip atskiras epochas, kurių viena keičia kitą, bet kaip tikrovės, glaudžiai susijusias genetiniu ryšiu. Knygoje pasirinkta genealoginė-hermeneutinė prieiga leidžia klausti, kokia gamta transformuojasi, kokios gamtos pabaigą skelbė vėlyvoji modernybė, su kokia gamta turime reikalą antropocene? Kiek „žmonių pasaulis" dar lieka žmonių pasaulis, o „gamtos pasaulis" - gamtos? Kiek pati gamta dar lieka tikrovė, o kiek - „hibridas", utopija, vieta, kurion grįžti motyvuoja nostalgija? Kas antropocene yra pats žmogus sužalotos ir nykstančios gamtos akivaizdoje? Ar ir kaip galėtų būti įgyvendinta žmogaus atsakomybė už jo techninės veiklos poveikį klimato kaitai?. [Anotacija knygoje]

ENIt is impossible to talk about modernity without talking about the Anthropocene today, and when talking about the Anthropocene, modernity should not be forgotten. In fact, it can be noted that the problems of modernity have been silenced in theoretical discourses, with the Anthropocene taking over its place. At the end of the twentieth century, it was still possible to claim confidently that we are living in an era of late, high, and global modernity, or, conversely, postmodernity. The debate between modernity and postmo-dernity was still ongoing. It now seems that this debate is no longer that relevant - even verging on the brink of forgetfulness. Neither the concepts of modernity nor postmodernity are appropriate today. The Anthropocene became topical. Why did this happen? What happened to modernity? What happened to us? An influx of discourses, narratives, stories, and histories of the Anthropocene began in the second decade of the twenty-first century. This was caused by the transformation of nature. Climate change, pollution of the planet, the extinction of species have become a philosophical problem, and philosophy, in turn, offers its own prospects. Newly emerging discourses of the Anthropocene have diagnostic and programmatic aspects. They all tell how "we got here", "who is to blame", and "where we are going". The crisis and the extinction are the background noises of debates which are different from the joy of liberation that postmodernism brought. It is modernity, its exploitative relationship with nature, its aspiration to "become the masters and possessors of nature" and the Human at the centre that are the main culprits; and many discourses express the need to go beyond modernity, leave it behind, and forget it. Programmatically, modernity seems to be a failed affair, and no one associates the future with the modern order.The Anthropocene appears not only as a new naming of the epoch but as a promise of a new discourse, and even a new way of thinking. The thinking of the Anthropocene should overcome the opposition of nature and culture, human anthropocentrism, and form a perspective through which a new self can form. The new human should be in the symbiotic and sympoetic relation to other living beings, and not live by subordinating them to ones own needs. And yet, can we go beyond modernity? Can we leave it behind and forget it? We can push it out of the field of attention and temporarily forget it. However, this does not mean that we will become free of it. On the contrary, if we submit to forgetfulness, we will no longer be able to realise how modern we still are and to what extent we are no longer modern. In the Anthropocene, modernity has not disappeared anywhere, it has only split into fragments and left the centre of attention. It might not be the primary programs that figure in our future plans, but that does not mean it has disappeared as presuppositions, as frames, which shape and direct our questions about nature and ourselves. This monograph aims to "remind" us of modernity, to reveal how much it still participates in our presuppositions of thinking, in our aspirations to overcome it ourselves. We would think that modernity and the Anthropocene can be examined more extensively not as separate epochs, with the latter historically succeeding the former but as realities closely interlinked by a genetic connection. The genealogical-her-meneutical approach chosen in this monograph allows us to see that the transformations of nature are not purely physical. The following questions should be raised: what nature is being transformed? What kind of nature was declared at the end of late modernity? What kind of nature are we seeing in the Anthropocene?.To what extent do the transformations of nature depend on our presuppositions which determine the concepts, images, and relations of nature? Of course, one should not think of nature as an arbitrary human product. The being of nature is not produced by the human, and yet, how humans treat nature and what global consequences of the human activity nature experiences depend on our attitudes and perceptions of it. Current changes call into question the human self-awareness established in modernity. The transformations of nature raise questions on how much of the "human world" remains human? How much of the "natural world" is left to nature? To what extent does nature itself remain a reality, and to what extent it is a "hybrid", a utopia, a place to return to which is induced by nostalgia? Who is the human in the Anthropocene, in the face of destroyed and perishing nature? How can humans become self-aware of their responsibility, the impact of technological activities on climate change, the loss of biodiversity, the depletion of the ecosystem and natural resources? Is the very idea of responsibility for and against nature not the result of modernity? [...]. [From the publication]