This paper deals with the ecological interpretation of “care” within the Anthropocene framework, which I have called Techno-care My basic assumption is that the Anthropocene equates to more than an aspirant geological epoch: it is the best candidate for becoming the métarécit of our age. In its essence, the Anthropocene does not correspond to the “Age of Man”, but to the epoch in which technology becomes the “subject of history and of nature as well.” Hence the idea that its appro priate name is not Anthropo-cene, but Techno-cene. Concretely, the following pages sketch the Paradox of Omni-responsibility, an ethical paradox emerging within the Anthropocene framework and especially evident in the geoengineering solutions being proposed for ecological problems. I have characterized this oxymoron as techno-care, that is, something that transforms responsibility (and care) into a risk rather than a resource. On this basis, the most significant outcome of the Paradox of Omni-responsibility as techno-care is the undermining of Hans Jonas’ principle/imperative responsibility as a standard for the ecological thought of recent decades. In the conclusion, I suggest the possibility of a Care Imperative as a reply to this undermining.
L'assunto di base di questo contributo è che l'Antropocene rappresenta qualcosa di più di un'aspirante epoca geologica: esso incarna il miglior candidato a diventare il métarécit della nostra epoca. Nella sua essenza, l'Antropocene non corrisponde all'“Età dell'uomo”, ma all'epoca in cui la tecnica diventa “soggetto sia della storia che della natura”. Da qui l'idea che il nome più appropriato per definitlo non sia Antropo-cene, ma Tecno-cene. Concretamente, nelle pagine che seguono si tratteggia il "Paradosso dell'Omni-responsabilità", un paradosso etico che emerge nel quadro dell'Antropocene e che è particolarmente evidente nelle soluzioni geoingegneristiche proposte per i problemi ecologici. Un tale ossimoro è stato definito "techno-care," cioè qualcosa che trasforma la responsabilità (e la cura) in un rischio piuttosto che in una risorsa. Il risultato più significativo del paradosso dell'omni-responsabilità e della techno-care è l'indebolimento del "principio di responsabilità" formulato da Hans Jonas, quale standard etico per il pensiero ecologico degli ultimi decenni. Nella conclusione viene suggerita la possibilità di un "care imperative" come risposta a questo indebolimento.
Geoengineering as Techno-care: Ethical Issues in/for the Anthropocene
Agostino Cera
2024
Abstract
This paper deals with the ecological interpretation of “care” within the Anthropocene framework, which I have called Techno-care My basic assumption is that the Anthropocene equates to more than an aspirant geological epoch: it is the best candidate for becoming the métarécit of our age. In its essence, the Anthropocene does not correspond to the “Age of Man”, but to the epoch in which technology becomes the “subject of history and of nature as well.” Hence the idea that its appro priate name is not Anthropo-cene, but Techno-cene. Concretely, the following pages sketch the Paradox of Omni-responsibility, an ethical paradox emerging within the Anthropocene framework and especially evident in the geoengineering solutions being proposed for ecological problems. I have characterized this oxymoron as techno-care, that is, something that transforms responsibility (and care) into a risk rather than a resource. On this basis, the most significant outcome of the Paradox of Omni-responsibility as techno-care is the undermining of Hans Jonas’ principle/imperative responsibility as a standard for the ecological thought of recent decades. In the conclusion, I suggest the possibility of a Care Imperative as a reply to this undermining.I documenti in SFERA sono protetti da copyright e tutti i diritti sono riservati, salvo diversa indicazione.