Dipesh Chakrabarty grows too Calcutta between the 1950s and 1960s he completed a degree in physics, a masters in management training and then a doctorate in history in Canberra, Australia. His first thoughts on the relationship between open spaces, megacities, nature and people go back to this time. Chakrabarty is best known to the public for his book Provincializing Europe (latest edition translated for Meltemi, 2016 and first published in the original language for Princeton University Press, 2000), which is a historical reading of globalization. emphasizes the importance of “decolonize“The point of view: that is, to look at the many different historical paths of the different geopolitical realities, without flattening everything down to the one vision and direction dictated by the first white and northwestern world and by the capitalist mode of production. The author has also revisited the subject of the relationship between man and nature, or rather the relationship between human history and natural history, throughout his extensive production. His two most important essays were The climate of history: four thesis, in Critical Inquiry, Vol. 35, 2009, and Climate and capital: on conjoined histories, in Critical Inquiry, Vol. 41, 2014. Matteo de Giuli and Nicolo Porcelluzzi – both editors of Il Tascabile and contributors to various online and print magazines, together they curate the Medusa newsletter on climate and cultural change, from which the book Medusa was published for NOT Nero issues in 2021. Tales from the End of the World (As We Know It) – they recently published an edition for the Essays series At night (2021) entitled Climate, History and Capital, preceded by a lengthy introduction discussing the selection and presentation of these two essays together, translated here with the titles: The climate of history: four theses and Climate and capital: shared histories. These two essays represent fundamental steps to try to think critically, also with regard to the current climate crisis, its historical responsibilities and the relative scope for action that we have.
In the articles we first talk about anthropocene, a term frequently recurring today in general discourse, denotes the current geological epoch in which the terrestrial environment with all its physical, chemical and biological properties is strongly conditioned by human actions, both locally and globally. According to Chakrabarty, ie climate change triggered by human activities bring into crisis the our coordinates out historical understanding. What does that mean? Basically, this passage caused the ingrained distinction between human history and natural history. In fact, the “two stories” have long been interpreted as separate: one before, the human one, faster, more interpretable, more usable; a second, the natural one, with times so long and independent that it was thought we could not see the connections, the paths, and the extent to which one and the other affect each other. Our time, the time of the Anthropocene, has clearly refuted this notion.
However, things should not be simplified: other authors have suggested another denomination, that of Capitalocene, attributing responsibility for these transitions to the capitalist system. Chakrabarty does not deny, he even emphasizes the enormous responsibility of capitalism, which has played and continues to play a leading role in defining the climate crisis and its multiple social and geographic impacts. Indeed, climate change raises wide-ranging and diverse equity issues associated with the functioning of the current economic system: “Different impacts of the generations, between small island nations and polluting countries, between developed and industrialized nations (historically responsible for most emissions) and the of recent industrialization”. The population groups that will suffer most in the future (i.e. in general today’s younger generations) will be the poorest in the developing world. This is clearly a question of class and “race”. Not surprisingly, the time the “Great Acceleration” of the climate crisis between 1945 and 2015, when world population, real GDP, foreign direct investment, water use, fertilizer use, urban population, bicycle traffic, telephones, international tourism fell along with it i.e he time of great decolonization together.
However, Chakrabarty also points out something else: It is important to understand this the influence of the human species has on the planet long and deep roots that will precede and transcend the stability of capitalism, although the latter also remains an element to be contrasted in relation to the climate crisis. At the same time, this crisis is forcing us to think even further on multiple timescales, trying to analyze both the immediate human impact and the deep history of the Earth, which plays a role as a player and must also take into account a sustainable future within the framework of the imagine human possibilities. human history and history naturallySo, they are not separable. At the same time, it is not human history that exclusively influences natural history. The influence is mutual, and as much as we must start from the human and the political, a long, very long-term thought must not be abandoned. All within the limits of what we can think of and trying to both prevent and cure.
For example: me paleoclimatologists They know that the Earth has experienced several moments of warming in the past that have determined points of no return that are unpredictable and beyond the capacity of human analysis. On the one hand, we know that carbon-related emissions have a major impact on climate today; On the other hand, we know that we cannot know when we will reach the point of no return. Based on this, for those developing policies, the point cannot be anchored on a cost-benefit analysis linked only to the human perspective: we cannot know the real estate of the planet; That is why we need a precautionary principle, and if we want to solve at least part of the climate problem, we need to phase out carbon-related emissions as quickly as possible. Not only human history provides the rules, but also natural history, in a continuous balancewhich certainly cannot be in the interest of capital.