Man in the Anthropocene: A Post-Anthropocentric Horizon

Abstract

The article deals with the understanding of man in the Anthropocene epoch. The ideas of E. Bińczyk, A. Cera, and Yuk Hui as well as of posthumanists are considered. The Anthropocene is defined as a modern
geological epoch in which technology becomes the main force affecting the biosphere, and its impact is so profound that it threatens the usual existence of the system and, possibly, the planetary system. The realization that humans are not completely able to influence these destructive processes leads to “Anthropocene apathy and melancholy” (E. Bińczyk’s term) and makes post-anthropocentric ideas developed in the philosophical discourse of the 20th – 21st centuries more significant. The Anthropocene can also be understood as a technocene, i.e. an era in which the natural environment is completely replaced by the technical environment. Since technology is a man-made creation, the question is raised about the responsibility of humans as a species towards nature. The topic of responsibility is not new in the understanding of environmental problems and environmental ethics of the 20th century. H. Jonas formulates the principle of responsibility as fundamental to human activity, while viewing responsibility as total and continuous. These qualities have been criticized by modern authors since they can lead to domination and control rather than care and stewardship as principles of action. Post-anthropocentric ideas about man and the world can lead humanity out of the Anthropocene crisis. Post-anthropocentrism consists in recognizing that man is not autonomous from non-human objects, but develops complex relationships with them. The way out of the Anthropocene crisis is not yet another technical innovation that will just aggravate the problems, but a fundamental revision of the ideological foundations that is suggested by post-anthropocentrism. Moreover, it is not only the concepts of being, nature and man that have to be revised, but also the value foundations of human activity, which are associated not with domination and self-affirmation, but with meekness, modesty and respect. Despite the high praise given to posthumanism in the article, the author notes the uncertainty and vagueness of the concept of man developed by posthumanists.