A safe operating space [see previous post for definition] is a kind of temporality, one amidst indifferent, intersecting temporalities. Our fragile existence floats in the vast time and space of the planetary, and in the shorter times of ecosystems, the faster times of viruses and diseases, the times of economics, the times of anger and prejudice, and the warp speed of the digital—to mention a few. A human temporality is a temporary shelter of intimacies, comforts, food, ideals, stories, projects, and plans that cushion us against impingements of temporalities kept in check first by planetary boundaries and second by internalized ethics, as well as governments. These cushions are our dikes and sea walls. In breaching Holocene boundaries, we have subjected ourselves to temporalities inimical to many of the boundaries we have unconsciously relied on. Slow, unseen, background changes have gathered speed and erupted perilously as heat waves, fires, floods, famines, and viruses. Unseen viruses spread because they adapt faster than we can. We try to keep pace with new vaccines. Rockstrom published his essay on “safe operation space” for humanity in 2009, and today in the New York Times, he and his co-author speak directly to the intertwined crises that face us. It is called a “polycrisis,” whereby all the crises are happening at once and they are interrelated temporalities that lead to “slow violence” mingled with many forms of “fast violence.”
Rob Nixon coined the term “slow violence,” which he defines as “a violence that is neither spectacular nor instantaneous but instead incremental, whose calamitous repercussions are postponed for years or decades or centuries.” He provides examples of slow violence, and I am adding a few: structural adjustment programs; degradation of ecosystems; deforestation; radioactive fallout from atom bomb testing in the Marshall Islands; acidifying and rising oceans; lack of health insurance; a diet of ultra-processed food; private equity firms buying foreclosed homes, rental properties, and farmlands; failure to fund public media; redlining; not listening; failure to provide 40 acres and a mule, etc. Each choice has antecedents, and each choice unleashes the long-term consequences that become what Nixon calls “slow violence.” In some cases, it is difficult to figure out who or what is responsible—but not always.
There are also instances of fast violence that become slow violence: some of the above; domestic abuse; rape; the internment of children and migrants; sudden displacement due to floods and fires; so much of what we read in the news…. Slow violence ripens in the background and is experienced as fast violence, making it easy to lose sight of the links in the causal chain and to blame our neighbor. “Violence,” from the point of view of physics is force; from the point of view of humans, it is unwarranted, unjust damage. There is no justice at the level of the planetary, which is why we need human justice. Because planetary changes have become an emergency, it means they now intersect with human temporality, but the upside is that this violence has created the possibility of a change in consciousness. A change in consciousness is also the possibility of intervening.
“There is no justice at the level of the planetary, ….” A very sobering reality. I believe you are correct, and if justice is not inherent and obvious in our environment, then if we are to have it, we must actively grow it out of our consciousness. You have offered hope that we can do this and I thank you for it.
“There is no justice at the level of the planetary, ….” A rather sobering reality. I believe you are correct. If justice is not inherent and obvious in our environment, then if we are to have it, we must indeed grow it out of our consciousness. Can we do it? Do we as a species still have the skills? You have offered hope and I thank you for it. However, most days I am concerned as to the program’s prospects.
Mixed with my fears about humanity’s ability to meet the challenge of once again coordinating our lives with the life of the planet, I will admit possessing some guarded optimism. This is due to watching a group of people make a heroic effort to do just that. To get to and from my home I must travel through an Indigenous Nation. I have witnessed these people save themselves from many destructive influences and consequences of American society. They accomplished this, and continue to preserve at the work, by tenaciously holding onto as much traditional culture as they can. A major aspect of these traditions is an intimate and dependent relationship with nature. In addition, they have diligently, as a group, worked at finding those aspects of non-Indigenous culture that support their view of how life must be lived. Even as a outside observer I can attest to how difficult and stressful this process is. The path has been filled with failures, contradictions, frustrations, misunderstandings in and out of the group, and all the difficulties we all face. It may be harder to find our way back to the earth than it was to wonder off into patterns of consumption based solely on appetite and imagination.
Thank you Vida for you site.
I have no doubt that it is more difficult to find our way back to what is obvious: that we are flesh and blood and made up of the same elements as what we call nature. Consumption and hyper-individualism–but also the digital revolution. Elizabeth Kolbert’s book on the sixth extinction has a section about how we experience nature: as pixilated and something else to be enhanced, consumed, and not directly experienced with all our senses. I think you are fortunate to be able to observe the indigenous people who live near you. What a counterpoint, and I don’t intend to romanticize it. What they are doing is terribly difficult.
Greetings! Very helpful advice in this particular article! It is the little changes that will make the most significant changes. Many thanks for sharing!
You are welcome. Thank you for reading.
In an issue of New Scientist Weekly, September 9-15, 2023, is an article concerning a controversy over the fixing of a date for the start of the Anthropocene. It seems that the geologically oriented members of the Anthropocene Working Group decided that the epoch needed a unique starting date and voted to designate 1950 as the Anthropocene’s beginning. The physical event that was selected as the starting point had to do with the measurement of plutonium isotopes in Crawford Lake in Canada. The plutonium was identified as fallout from nuclear weapons. The author of the article, Erle C. Ellis, and other members of the group objected, wanting the epoch to be known more for the broad ecological consequences of human activity than for a single act.
I admit to not knowing, which is more depressing, that humanity’s geologic legacy will be marked by its trashing of the planet through pollution or the human dispersing of plutonium by way of bombs. Oh, that we could have been a bit more “of the earth” and less obsessed with being more like the “gods!”
Yes, I know about the lake. I think the main argument about using the 1950s as a starting point, the so-called “Great Acceleration,” is because of the exponential increase in everything, e.g., population, emissions, you name it. One of the problems is that the “Anthropocene” and the “Holocene” before it are a nanosecond in geological history. I really wonder if we can designate an entire geological epoch/era/age within the time frame of human history. Maybe so. I don’t know.