Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-g8jcs Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-24T01:03:29.516Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

I am uncertain, but We are not: a new subjectivity of the Anthropocene

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  23 April 2019

Scott Hamilton
Scott Hamilton*
Affiliation:
Banting Postdoctoral Fellow, Balsillie School of International Affairs and Wilfrid Laurier University
*
*Corresponding author. Email: [email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

The concept of ‘the Anthropocene’ as a new human-induced geological epoch has made its way into IR. Debates have recently arisen between ‘post-humanists’ stressing its destruction of subject-object binaries and ‘New Anthropocentrists’ arguing that it increases the importance of the human being as planetary steward. This article moves beyond these debates to question a strange but unexplored foundation that underlies the basic discourse of the Anthropocene: the assertion that humanity must be grouped together as a collective species, ‘anthropos’, or planetary ‘We’. Using the philosophy of Martin Heidegger, it argues that the Anthropocene reveals a new and deeper shift in human subjectivity, moving from an individualistic Cartesian ‘I’ to a collective and planetary ‘We’. This argument is made in three steps. First, today's common treatment of humanity as a collective whole in Anthropocene literature is examined. Second, it details how transformations in subjectivity occur by shifting the historical boundaries of our most fundamental notion of certainty – the ‘subiectum’ – and how the technologies of Earth System Science (ESS) subtly facilitate this shift today. Finally, the article argues how this subjective transformation from the ‘I’ to the ‘We’ results from the temporal, spatial, and existential incalculability and uncertainty of the Anthropocene, thereby fostering the rise of certainty in new forms of conflictual identity politics.

Keywords

WeAnthropoceneSubjectivityEarth System ScienceSpeciesPlanetary Humanity
Type
Research Article
Information
Review of International Studies , Volume 45 , Issue 4 , October 2019 , pp. 607 - 626
Copyright
Copyright © British International Studies Association 2019 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1 Heidegger, Martin, Contributions to Philosophy: (Of the Event) (Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 1989), p. 43Google Scholar.

2 Joseph Stromborg, ‘What is the Anthropocene and are we in it?’, Smithsonian.com (2013), available at: {https://www.smithsonianmag.com/science-nature/what-is-the-anthropocene-and-are-we-in-it-164801414/} accessed 21 February 2013.

3 Steffen, quoted in ibid.

4 Maslin, Mark A. and Lewis, Simon L., ‘Anthropocene: Earth System, geological, philosophical and political paradigm shifts’, The Anthropocene Review, 2:2 (2015), pp. 108–16CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

5 Hamilton, Clive, ‘Getting the Anthropocene so wrong’, The Anthropocene Review, 2:2 (2015), pp. 102–07CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

6 Harrington, Cameron, ‘The ends of the world: International Relations and the Anthropocene’, Millennium: Journal of International Studies, 44:3 (2016), pp. 478–98 (p. 479)CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

7 See Burke, Anthony, Fishel, Stefanie, Mitchell, Audra, Dalby, Simon, and Levine, Daniel J., ‘Planet politics: a manifesto from the end of IR’, Millennium: Journal of International Studies, 44:3 (2016), pp. 499–523CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Dalby, Simon, ‘Anthropocene formations: Environmental security, geopolitics and disaster’, Theory, Culture & Society, 34:2–3 (2015), pp. 233–52CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Chandler, David, Ontopolitics in the Anthropocene: An Introduction to Mapping, Sensing and Hacking (London: Routledge, 2018)CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Biermann, Frank, Earth System Governance: World Politics in the Anthropocene (Cambridge: The MIT Press, 2014)CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

8 Fagan, Madeleine, ‘Security in the Anthropocene: Environment, ecology, escape’, European Journal of International Relations, 23:2 (2016), pp. 292–314CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Hamilton, Scott, ‘The measure of all things? The Anthropocene as a global biopolitics of carbon’, European Journal of International Relations, 24:1 (2016), pp. 292–314Google Scholar; Crist, Eileen, ‘On the poverty of our nomenclature’, Environmental Humanities, 3:1 (2013), pp. 129–47CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

9 Burke et al., ‘Planet politics’, p. 502.

10 Zalasiewicz, Jan, Williams, Mark, Steffen, Will, and Crutzen, Paul, ‘The new world of the Anthropocene’, Environmental Science and Technology: Viewpoint, 44:7 (2010), pp. 2228–31 (p. 2231)CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed.

11 Clark, Nigel, ‘Geo-politics and the disaster of the Anthropocene’, The Sociological Review, 62:S1 (2014), pp. 19–37 (p. 32)CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

12 Harrington, Cameron and Shearing, Clifford, Security in the Anthropocene: Reflections on Safety and Care (Bielefeld: Transcript Press, 2017), p. 13CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

13 Yusoff, Kathryn, ‘Anthropogenesis: Origins and endings in the Anthropocene’, Theory, Culture & Society, 33:2 (2016), pp. 3–28CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

14 Hamilton, Clive, Defiant Earth: The Fate of Humans in the Anthropocene (Cambridge: Polity Press, 2017), p. viiGoogle Scholar.

15 Burke et al., ‘Planet politics’, p. 500.

16 C. Hamilton, Defiant Earth, p. 99.

17 Ibid., p. 141.

18 Hamilton, Clive, ‘The Anthropocene as rupture’, The Anthropocene Review, 3:2 (2016), pp. 93–106 (p. 93)CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

19 It is important to note that, as Dreyfus (Dreyfus, Hubert I., ‘Heidegger on the connection between nihilism, art, technology, and politics’, in Guigon, Charles B. (ed.), The Cambridge Companion to Heidegger (2nd edn, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2006), pp. 345–72 (p. 367)CrossRefGoogle Scholar) points out, both Heidegger's support for Germany's Nazi party in 1933 and ‘his decisive break’ from the Nazis between 1935–8, came from his changing understanding of the relationship between technology and politics. Thus, ‘Heidegger's mistake’ should illustrate the absolute necessity today of critiquing and questioning the philosophical basis of every political claim and the technological guidelines underpinning it (Ibid., p. 371).

20 See Luke, Timothy W., ‘Reconstructing social theory and the Anthropocene’, European Journal of Social Theory, 20:1 (2016), pp. 80–94CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Lepori, Matthew, ‘There is no Anthropocene: Climate change, species-talk, and political economy’, Telos, 172 (2015), pp. 103–24CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Andreas Malm, ‘The Anthropocene myth’, Jacobin Magazine (2015), available at: {https://www.jacobinmag.com/2015/03/anthropocene-capitalism-climate-change/} accessed 2 August 2018.

21 Heidegger, Martin, The Question Concerning Technology and Other Essays (New York: Harper Perennial, 1977)Google Scholar; Heidegger, Contributions to Philosophy.

22 Chakrabarty, Dipesh, ‘The climate of history: Four theses’, Critical Inquiry, 35 (2009), pp. 197–222CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

23 C. Hamilton, ‘Getting the Anthropocene so wrong’; C. Hamilton, Defiant Earth.

24 Sen, Amartya, Identity and Violence: The Illusion of Destiny (London: W.W. Norton & Company, 2006), p. xviGoogle Scholar.

25 Simon Dalby, ‘Firepower: Geopolitical cultures in the Anthropocene’, Geopolitics (2017), pp. 1–26.

26 Amy Chua, ‘How America's identity politics went from inclusion to division’, The Guardian (1 March 2018), available at: {https://www.theguardian.com/society/2018/mar/01/how-americas-identity-politics-went-from-inclusion-to-division}.

27 Crutzen, P. J. and Stoermer, E. F., ‘The “Anthropocene”’, Global Change Newsletter, 41 (2000), p. 17Google Scholar.

28 Luke, ‘Reconstructing social theory and the Anthropocene’, p. 83.

29 The Earth's 4.5 billion-year age is increasingly subdivided by the Geological Time Scale (GTS) into segments. Ranging from largest to smallest, these are: eons, eras, periods, epochs, and ages. Each segment is determined by the International Commission on Stratigraphy (ICS), which declares itself to be ‘setting global standards for the fundamental scale for expressing the history of the Earth’. International Commission on Stratigraphy, available at: {http://www.stratigraphy.org} accessed 20 March 2018.

30 Harrington, ‘The ends of the world’; Hamilton, The measure of all things?’.

31 Lövbrand, Eva, Beck, Silke, Chilvers, Jason, Forsyth, Tim, Hedren, Johan, Hulme, Mike, Lidskog, Rolf, Vasileiadou, Eleftheria, ‘Who speaks for the future of Earth? How critical social science can extend the conversation of the Anthropocene’, Global Environmental Change, 32 (2015), pp. 211–18CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

32 Ibid., p. 212.

33 See Hamilton, Clive, Bonneuil, Christophe, and Gemenne, François (eds), The Anthropocene and the Global Environmental Crisis (London: Routledge, 2015), p. 1CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

34 See Moore, Jason (ed.), Anthropocene or Capitalocene? Nature, History, and the Crisis of Capitalism (Oakland: PM Press, 2016)Google Scholar.

35 Kate Raworth, ‘Must the Anthropocene be a Manthropocene?’, The Guardian (20 October 2014), available at: {www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/oct/20/anthropocene-working-group-science-gender-bias} accessed 5 October 2018.

36 François Gemenne, ‘The Anthropocene and its victims’, in Hamilton, Bonneuil, and Gemenne (eds), The Anthropocene and the Global Environmental Crisis.

37 Lövbrand et al., ‘Who speaks for the future of Earth?’, p. 212.

38 See Dalby, Simon, ‘Rethinking geopolitics: Climate security in the Anthropocene’, Global Policy, 5:1 (2014), pp. 1–9CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Hamilton, Scott, ‘Securing ourselves from ourselves? The paradox of “entanglement” in the Anthropocene’, Crime, Law and Social Change, 68:5 (2017), pp. 579–95CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

39 Malm, ‘The Anthropocene myth’.

40 Rosol, Christoph, Nelson, Sara, and Renn, Jurgen, ‘In the machine room of the Anthropocene’, The Anthropocene Review, 4:1 (2017), pp. 2–8 (p. 2)CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

41 Burke et al., ‘Planet politics’, p. 500.

42 Turner, David P., The Green Marble: Earth System Science and Global Sustainability (New York: Columbia University Press, 2018), p. 1CrossRefGoogle Scholar, emphasis added.

43 This tendency should not be conflated with the concept of ‘speciesism’, which pertains to the contentious attribution of moral, legal, social, etc. rights or privileges of the human species over other beings. See Singer, Peter, Animal Liberation (New York: Random House Inc., 1990)Google Scholar.

44 Sachs, Jeffrey D., Common Wealth: Economics for a Crowded Planet (New York: The Penguin Press, 2008)Google Scholar.

45 Chakrabarty, ‘The climate of history’.

46 C. Hamilton, ‘Getting the Anthropocene so wrong’.

47 Sachs, Common Wealth, p. xii.

48 Chakrabarty, ‘The climate of history’, p. 206.

49 C. Hamilton, Defiant Earth, p. 96.

50 Lepori, ‘There is no Anthropocene’, p. 104.

51 See also Moore (ed.), Anthropocene or Capitalocene?

52 Luke, ‘Reconstructing social theory and the Anthropocene’, p. 88.

53 Lepori, ‘There is no Anthropocene’, p. 118.

54 Malm, ‘The Anthropocene myth’; Malm, Andreas and Hornborg, Alf, ‘The geology of mankind? A critique of the Anthropocene narrative’, The Anthropocene Review, 1:1 (2014), pp. 62–9CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

55 Heidegger, Contributions of Philosophy, p. 39; Polt, Richard, ‘Metaphysical liberalism in Heidegger's Beitrage zur Philosophie’, Political Theory, 25:5 (1997), pp. 655–79CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

56 Heidegger, Contributions of Philosophy, p. 43.

57 Polt, ‘Metaphysical liberalism in Heidegger's Beitrage zur Philosophie’.

58 Ibid., p. 666.

59 See Steffen, W. et al. , ‘Stratigraphic and Earth System approaches to defining the Anthropocene’, Earth's Future, 4:8 (2016), pp. 324–45CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

60 Maslin and Lewis, ‘Anthropocene’.

61 C. Hamilton, Defiant Earth, p. 9; C. Hamilton, ‘Getting the Anthropocene so wrong’.

62 Steffen, et al. , Global Change and the Earth System: A Planet Under Pressure (Berlin: Springer, 2005), p. 1Google Scholar.

63 Steffen et al., ‘Stratigraphic and Earth System approaches to defining the Anthropocene’, p. 325.

64 Steffen et al., Global Change and the Earth System, p. 3.

65 Steffen et al., ‘Stratigraphic and Earth System approaches to defining the Anthropocene’, p. 340.

66 Ibid., p. 334.

67 See Crutzen and Stoermer, ‘The “Anthropocene”’.

68 Delanty, Gerard and Mota, Aurea, ‘Governing the Anthropocene: Agency, governance, knowledge’, European Journal of Social Theory, 20:1 (2017), pp. 9–38 (p. 16)CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

69 W. Steffen, A. Sanderson, P. D. Tyson et al., ‘Global Change and the Earth System: A Planet Under Pressure’, International Geosphere-Biosphere Programme (2001), p. 5, available at: {http://www.igbp.net/download/18.1b8ae20512db692f2a680007761/1376383137895/IGBP_ExecSummary_eng.pdf}.

70 C. Hamilton, Defiant Earth, p. 77.

71 See Dahan, Amy, ‘Putting the Earth into a numerical box? The evolution from climate modeling toward global change’, Studies in History and Philosophy of Modern Physics, 41 (2010), pp. 282–92CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

72 Morton, Timothy, Hyperobjects: Philosophy and Ecology at the End of the World (Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, 2013)Google Scholar.

73 C. Hamilton, ‘The Anthropocene as rupture’, p. 93; Hamilton, Clive and Grinevald, Jacques, ‘Was the Anthropocene anticipated?’, The Anthropocene Review, 2:1 (2015), pp. 59–72CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

74 Pemberton, Jo-Anne, Global Metaphors: Modernity and the Quest for One World (London: Pluto Press, 2001), p. 6Google Scholar.

75 Wells, H. G., Anticipations of the Reaction of Mechanical and Scientific Progress Upon Human Life and Thought (New York: Harper & Brothers, 1902), p. 270Google Scholar.

76 Ibid., p. 268. For more on Wells, see Bell, Duncan, ‘Pragmatism and prophecy: H. G. Wells and the metaphysics of socialism’, American Political Science Review, 112:2 (2018), pp. 409–22CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

77 Masters, Dexter and Way, Katherine (eds), One World or None: A Report to the Public on the Full Meaning of the Atomic Bomb (New York: Whittlesey House, 1946)Google Scholar.

78 See Vernadsky, V. I., Scientific Thought as a Planetary Phenomenon (Moscow: Russian Academy of Sciences, 1997Google Scholar [orig. pub. 1938]).

79 C. Hamilton and Grinevald, ‘Was the Anthropocene anticipated?’.

80 Ibid., p. 62.

81 Vernadksy, V. I., ‘The biosphere and the noosphere’, American Scientist, 33:1 (1945), pp. 1–12 (p. 9)Google Scholar, emphasis in original.

82 Ibid., p. 9.

83 C. Hamilton, Defiant Earth, p. 142.

84 C. Hamilton and Grinevald, ‘Was the Anthropocene anticipated?’, pp. 59, 60–1.

85 See van Munster, Rens and Sylvest, Casper, The Politics of Globality since 1945: Assembling the Planet (London: Routledge, 2016)CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

86 Vernadksy, ‘The biosphere and the noosphere’, p. 4.

87 Chakrabarty, ‘The climate of history’, p. 222.

88 Malm, ‘The Anthropocene myth’.

89 Ibid.

90 Verburg, Peter H. et al. , ‘Methods and approaches to modelling the Anthropocene’, Global Environmental Change, 39 (2016), pp. 328–40CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

91 Angus, Ian, Facing the Anthropocene: Fossil Capitalism and the Crisis of the Earth System (New York: Monthly Review Press, 2016), p. 29Google Scholar.

92 Edwards, Paul N., ‘Global climate science, uncertainty, and politics: Data-laden models, model-filtered data’, Science as Culture, 8:4 (1999), pp. 437–72CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Edwards, Paul N., A Vast Machine: Computer Models, Climate Data, and the Politics of Global Warming (Cambridge: The MIT Press, 2010)Google Scholar.

93 Angus, Facing the Anthropocene, pp. 30, 32.

94 Haff, Peter, ‘Humans and technology in the Anthropocene: Six rules’, The Anthropocene Review, 1:2 (2014), pp. 126–36CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

95 Edwards, Paul N., ‘Knowledge infrastructures for the Anthropocene’, The Anthropocene Review, 4:1 (2017), pp. 34–43 (p. 36)CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

96 Edwards, A Vast Machine; Edwards, ‘Knowledge infrastructures for the Anthropocene’.

97 This process of reducing every cognisable referent to data has recently been described as ‘datafication’ (see Sarah Pink and Debora Lanzeni, ‘Future anthropology ethics and datafication: Temporality and responsibility in research’, Social Media + Society (April to June 2018), pp. 1–9), while the integration of data with the large-scale material technologies and knowledge infrastructures of the Anthropocene has been argued by Haff in ‘Humans and technology in the Anthropocene’ to be an entirely new ‘sphere’ of the Earth, known as the ‘technosphere’.

98 Donges, Jonathan F., Lucht, Wolfgang, Muller-Hansen, Finn, and Steffen, Will, ‘The technosphere in Earth System analysis: a coevolutionary perspective’, The Anthropocene Review, 4:1 (2017), pp. 23–33CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

99 Verburg et al., ‘Methods and approaches to modelling the Anthropocene’, p. 328. It must be noted that this inherent uncertainty that is built into every single model is why ‘climate change denialists’ can use them so effectively as red herrings to deny the evidence for Anthropogenic climate change. The (frustrating) irony here is that no model can ever be ‘100% certain’ because it is an analogue to reality; it can never be as ‘real’ as reality itself. Hence why the climate denialist argument that ‘the science is still murky!’, or ‘the models are unsure!’, etc., still remains today after many decades: it is a powerful rhetorical play on everyday (mis)assumptions of how all models function, rather than any attempt to grasp the actual workings of general circulation (GCM) or ESS models. As such, this denialism will never disappear from climate politics. (For an excellent overview, see Edwards, ‘Global climate science, uncertainty, and politics’).

100 See Spencer Weart, ‘The development of general circulation models of climate’, Studies in History and Philosophy of Modern Physics (2010), pp. 208–17 (p. 213).

101 Rockström, Johan, Steffen, Will, Noone, Kevin J. et al. , ‘Planetary boundaries: Exploring the safe operating space for humanity’, Ecology and Society, 14:2 (2009), pp. 1–33 (p. 31)CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

102 See S. Hamilton, ‘Securing ourselves from ourselves?’.

103 Burke et al., ‘Planet politics, p. 502.

104 See, for instance, Wendt, Alexander, Quantum Mind and Social Science: Unifying Physical and Social Ontology (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2015), p. 119CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

105 Heidegger, The Question Concerning Technology and Other Essays, p. 115. This grasp of metaphysics is actually similar to a Foucauldian ‘game’ or regime of truth (Foucault, Michel, ‘The ethics of the concern of the self as a practice of freedom’, in Rabinow, P. (ed.), Ethics: The Essential Works of Foucault, 1954–1984 (London: Penguin Books: 2000), pp. 281–302Google Scholar), where subjects constitute themselves through historically unique practices and power relations.

106 Ruggie, John Gerard, ‘Territoriality and beyond: Problematizing modernity in International Relations’, International Organization, 47:1 (1993), pp. 139–74CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

107 Dreyfus, ‘Heidegger on the connection’, p. 354.

108 Heidegger, The Question Concerning Technology and Other Essays; Polt, ‘Metaphysical liberalism in Heidegger's Beitrage zur Philosophie’.

109 Polt, ‘Metaphysical liberalism in Heidegger's Beitrage zur Philosophie’, p. 657.

110 Polt, ‘Metaphysical liberalism in Heidegger's Beitrage zur Philosophie’; Heidegger, The Question Concerning Technology and Other Essays. In IR, see Michels, Torsten, ‘Pigs can't fly, or can they? Ontology, scientific realism and the metaphysics of presence in international relations’, Review of International Studies, 35:2 (2009), pp. 397–419CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Michels, Torsten, ‘Under Heidegger's shadow: a phenomenological critique of Critical Realism’, Review of International Studies 38:1 (2012), pp. 209–22CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

111 Martin Heidegger, ‘The age of the world picture’, in The Question Concerning Technology and Other Essays, pp. 115–54 (p. 128).

112 Ibid., p. 148

113 Ibid., p. 150.

114 Ibid., p. 128.

115 Ibid., p. 148.

116 Heidegger, Martin, Nietzsche, Volume IV: Nihilism (San Francisco: Harper & Row, Publishers, 1982), p. 100Google Scholar.

117 Heidegger, ‘The age of the world picture’, p. 127.

118 As Heidegger (ibid., p. 150) writes, in his typically abstruse way: ‘The subiectum, the fundamental certainty, is the being-represented-together-with – made secure at any time – of representing man together with the entity represented, whether something human or non-human, i.e., together with the objective.’

119 Ibid., p. 151.

120 Heidegger, The Question Concerning Technology and Other Essays.

121 Heidegger, ‘The age of the world picture’, p. 129.

122 Ibid.

123 Heidegger, The Question Concerning Technology and Other Essays, p. 23.

124 Heidegger, ‘The age of the world picture’, p. 132.

125 Ibid., p. 129.

126 Ibid., p. 135.

127 Ibid., p. 152.

128 Ibid.

129 C. Hamilton, ‘Getting the Anthropocene so wrong’, p. 94.

130 C. Hamilton, Defiant Earth, p. 77.

131 Chakrabarty, ‘The climate of history’, p. 197.

132 Ibid., p. 220.

133 Heidegger, ‘The age of the world picture’, p. 152.

134 C. Hamilton, Defiant Earth, p. 101.

135 Burke et al., ‘Planet politics’, p. 502.

136 See Chua, ‘How America's identity politics went from inclusion to division’.

137 Strydom, Piet, ‘The sociocultural self-creation of a natural category: Social-theoretical reflections on human agency under the temporal conditions of the Anthropocene’, European Journal of Social Theory, 20:1 (2017), pp. 61–79 (p. 70)CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

138 Ruggie, ‘Territoriality and beyond’.

139 Heidegger, ‘The age of the world picture’, p. 152.

140 Sen, Identity and Violence, p. xvi.

141 Ibid., p. xv.

142 See Chua, ‘How America's identity politics went from inclusion to division’. Ironically, “tribalism” is exactly what some portended the rise of global technological infrastructures would foster, by creating a ‘global village’ of sorts. See McLuhan, Marshall, The Gutenberg Galaxy: The Making of Typographic Man (Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 1962)Google Scholar.

143 Sen, Identity and Violence, p. 16.

144 Heidegger, ‘The age of the world picture’, p. 135.

145 Ibid.

146 Heidegger, Martin, ‘Modern science, metaphysics, and mathematics’, in Krell, David Farrell (ed.), Martin Heidegger: Basic Writings (New York: Harper Collins, 1993), p. 244Google Scholar.

147 Polt, ‘Metaphysical liberalism in Heidegger's Beitrage zur Philosophie’, p. 663.

148 Heidegger, ‘Modern science, metaphysics, and mathematics’, p. 244.

149 Polt, ‘Metaphysical liberalism in Heidegger's Beitrage zur Philosophie’.

150 See Paterson, Matthew and Stripple, Johannes, ‘My space: Governing individuals’ carbon emissions’, Environment and Planning D: Society and Space, 28:2 (2010), pp. 341–62CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

151 Heidegger, The Question Concerning Technology and Other Essays.