Timothy Morton, an English professor at Rice University specializing in ecology and its cultural implications, is a prominent figure in the object-oriented philosophy movement. His latest book, “Hell: In Search of a Christian Ecology,” explores the unexpected intersections between religion and science, while he recently collaborated with Andrew Melchior of Massive Attack and MIT’s Kiyoshi Masui to create music inspired by fast radio bursts. He is also known, perhaps somewhat ironically, as “the prophet of the Anthropocene.”
In a recent interview, Morton delved into the meaning of the Anthropocene and why we should move away from trying to define its precise start. The term “Anthropocene” refers to a new geological epoch marked by the significant impact of human activity on Earth. Morton explained that he earned the title “prophet of the Anthropocene” from a 2017 article in The Guardian. The article, which delved into his work, suggested that he was a prominent figure in the field of Anthropocene studies. He credits his work on “Hyperobjects,” a concept he developed to help people understand and engage with the complexities of global warming, as contributing to his prominence.
The concept of the Anthropocene is deeply intertwined with the concept of “Hyperobjects.” Hyperobjects are entities so vast and complex that they transcend human perception. They are, in essence, things that are so big and so pervasive that they are almost impossible to fully comprehend. Morton believes that both the Anthropocene and Hyperobjects share this characteristic of being difficult to grasp, with the Anthropocene being a prime example.
He further explained that the geological definition of the Anthropocene involves a layer of human-made materials within Earth’s crust, dating back to roughly 10,000 B.C. This layer, consisting of materials like plastics, concrete, and pottery, is a global phenomenon, making it difficult for people to fully comprehend. The debate surrounding the Anthropocene’s start is contentious, with the Subcommission on Quaternary Stratigraphy (SQS), the body that approves new geological time periods, rejecting the concept. However, Morton argues that rejecting the existence of this human-made layer is scientifically unsound.
He maintains that the presence of this layer is not necessarily a testament to human achievement, but rather an acknowledgment that humans have become a significant geophysical force on a planetary scale. He emphasized that this fact is neither good nor bad, but simply an observation.
Instead of focusing on the precise moment the Anthropocene began, Morton believes we should acknowledge the ongoing reality of our geological epoch. He argues that trying to pinpoint a specific start date is futile, as the process is more akin to an explosion or ripple effect than a single, definitive point in time.
Morton further highlights that the Anthropocene is not a static event, but a dynamic process. He points to the gradual shift towards urbanization and the subsequent effects on food scarcity and the rise of cities as early markers of the Anthropocene. He also mentions the “golden spike” of 1945, when the use of nuclear weapons resulted in a significant increase in radio nucleotides in Earth’s crust, contributing to what is known as the “great acceleration.”
He emphasizes the importance of accepting the reality of the Anthropocene, arguing that focusing on how we can address its consequences is more important than debating its beginning. He draws a parallel with global warming, suggesting that acknowledging the issue is the first step towards addressing it.
He believes that understanding the Anthropocene is not about assigning blame but about recognizing our collective responsibility for the changes we’ve made to the planet. He acknowledges that while the process has been happening for millennia, it has become particularly accelerated in recent decades due to the excessive use of fossil fuels.
Morton ultimately encourages us to move beyond the debate surrounding the Anthropocene’s start and focus on finding solutions. He advocates for recognizing our impact on the planet and taking action to mitigate it. He highlights the simplicity of the solution—reducing our dependence on fossil fuels—and asks why we haven’t implemented it more effectively. This, he suggests, is the real challenge.
