Twenty-five years ago, Paul Crutzen popularized the term “Anthropocene” to refer to the epoch in which humanity has had a significant impact on the earth’s geology and ecology. Crutzen’s article contained a dire warning but also a note of hope, suggesting that humans could pursue “careful manipulation and restoration of the natural environment." These papers consider whether religious responses to the Anthropocene require hope. Does our responsibility hinge on the chance of achieving some sort of salvation for humanity? Is “restoration” what we should work toward, or can we renarrate our relationship to the natural world in terms of irony, tragedy, or kenosis?
Before the concept of the Anthropocene was even proposed, environmental scientists, activists, and ethicists (among others) have poured a great deal of attention to exploring how to undo the harms humans have done to the earth. What is presupposed in this hopeful pursuit? Are there limits to and/or consequences of it? And are there different ways of thinking environmental ethics? This paper explores these questions, turning to both queer theories of negativity and contemporary eco-theologies as a resource. Building on Christian ethicist Kyle Lambelet’s proposal for apocalypse as a spiritual practice, this paper explores what the antisocial turn in queer theory might offer and considers eco-theological corollaries. In doing so, it explores what it might mean not to try to save the planet, but rather to critically examine and ethically undo our malformed relation to it.
This paper examines the resources that Arthur Schopenhauer's pessimistic philosophy, reframed as a “subtractive religion,” provides for ethical life in the Anthropocene. I argue that his metaphysics of suffering offers durable consolation without relying on compensatory goods. Rather than minimizing the climate catastrophe or deferring solutions to the future, his ethics of compassion reveals meaning in alleviating present suffering even without hope for an ultimate resolution. This approach helps us navigate ecological disruptions without guarantees of historical progress or divine intervention. My subtractive framework fosters moral action and emotional resilience in an era when climate impacts exceed our capacity for mitigation and adaptation. It presents a philosophical foundation that neither relies on the instrumental value of nature for human flourishing nor requires the sacralization of the natural world. Instead, it recognizes a shared essence that makes all suffering morally significant.
Since life has affected Earth for eons, the Anthropocene is distinguished by moral agency’s planetary influence. Accordingly, insofar as the Anthropocene’s intensification undermines that agency, the Anthropocene becomes less unique. I argue that this irony discloses a moral duty to preserve the Holocene. However, the Anthropocene is ironic and not simply immoral because not all human activity disturbing the Holocene is immoral. Instead, much of that activity is necessary to fulfill other moral duties. I contend this moral tension reflects a link between value and disvalue that is endemic to life. Yet because not all human activity disturbing the Holocene is due to such bivalence, the Anthropocene also manifests immorality. Indeed, the Anthropocene is ironic rather than tragic because its disvalue is suffused with immorality. Still, given that the Anthropocene is bivalent, this tension between moral duties cannot be entirely resolved and thus morality mandates living responsibly amidst it.