Navigating the Anthropocene: A Post-Humanist Perspective on Our Future

International Relations are forever evolving and adapting to the ever-changing environment that humans create and respond to. As we learn to navigate the Anthropocene, an era coined by Paul Crutzen in the late 1980s, characterised by somewhat abstruse human-caused changes to the earth's ecosystems and climate since the 1950s Industrial Revolution, it becomes instrumentally important to evaluate, adapt and make significant changes to the way that we as a civilisation approach governance, and global diplomacy (Harrington, 2016). Post-humanism, characterised by its exploration of the blurred lines and interconnectedness among environment, technology and humans and its transition from anthropocentrism, the traditional approach to current International Relations, presents a compelling intellectual avenue, and an excellent essay topic to attack (Chandler et al., 2021). This essay endeavours to address the question of whether it is appropriate to use post-humanism as a foundational framework for navigating international relations in the Anthropocene era. This era we are dwelling in currently demands a change of established paradigms that have been the foundation of International Relations, due to the fundamental environmental and ethical challenges it poses. This essay attempts to provide a comprehensive investigation of post-humanism, although difficult in nature to do so with such a vast topic, by conducting an evaluation of two of its strengths and weaknesses in the context of international relations. By undertaking this exploration, this essay aims to highlight the potential limitations and indulge in how it can improve international relation’s current theory through the lens of the Anthropocene era.

To investigate the first argument for integrating post-humanism into international relations, it is paramount to establish a foundational understanding of this complex and multilayered concept. Posthumanism is an ‘umbrella’ term that encompasses a variety of approaches and schools of thought, further, it calls for a re-evaluation of traditional views, of humans being the centre of the universe, but rather decentre the human and to demonstrate that all matter such as technology and the environment are interlinked and mutually dependent and coevolving. When one of these categories evolves, it instrumentally impacts the other (Nayar, 2023). This perspective goes beyond the narrow focus on state-centric interests in international relations and recognises the vital role of non-human actors in shaping global dynamics (Cudworth et al., 2021).

Post-humanism encourages a holistic and inclusive perspective in international relations which therefore would allow for future international norms and policies to be more effective and reactive to real-time global issues. For example, traditional international relations theories often focus on state interests and power dynamics, leaving little room for the ethical and ecological considerations posed by emerging technologies such as Artificial Intelligence (AI) (Creutzig et al., 2022). Alternatively, post-humanism encourages a broader perspective, it acknowledges that technological advancements, such as AI, impact not only human societies but also ecosystems, non-human entities, and the very fabric of the global environment. For example, the development of AI-driven systems raises ethical questions about transparency, accountability, and bias in decision-making processes, affecting both human and non–human stakeholders (Creutzig et al., 2022). An alternate example could also be, that the development of agricultural technologies such as pesticides, herbicides and fertilisers can be far-reaching. The widespread use of pesticides has raised concerns about the impact on non-human organisms, such as bees and aquatic ecosystems (Lou, 2023). The detrimental effects on biodiversity and ecosystem health highlight the need to shift a solely human-centred view to a more holistic perspective that considers the interconnectedness of all life forms (Lou, 2023).

Considering these examples, by adopting a post-humanist lens, international relations can engage in more inclusive dialogues and negotiations about the responsible development and implementation of emerging technologies such as AI and the dangers of agricultural technology. This approach emphasises the importance of addressing ecological and ethical concerns alongside political and economic interests. It calls for a shift in perspective to consider the global ecosystem (Ferrando, 2016). Through post-humanism, international relations can navigate the complex terrain of technology and AI and agricultural technology in a way that respects the interconnectedness of all entities, fosters ethical innovation, and works toward sustainable technology advancements. This holistic perspective ensures the alignment of international efforts with the reality of the Anthropocene.

The Anthropocene era has come into effect in recent history which is marked by profound global challenges that extend beyond the confines of individual sovereign nations. These challenges, but not limited to climate change, pandemics, cyber threats, lack of access to education, and resource scarcity, highlight the limitations of the conventional approach to international relations grounded in nationalism (Storey, 2023). Post-humanism offers an alternative perspective, it advocates for moving beyond nationalism, but instead fostering transnational cooperation.

As mentioned earlier, a core principle of post-humanism is the acknowledgement of the interdependence between humans and the environment. In the Anthropocene, where human activities exert substantial impacts on the planet, this perspective gains increasing validity. Climate change, a paramount global challenge, disregards borders. Its consequences, such as rising temperatures, extreme weather events, and ocean levels rising, affect communities worldwide (Bandh, 2022). Therefore, addressing climate change and attempting to fix the wrongdoings is only possible by engaging in a global pursuit. Post-humanism wants to tell nations to understand that their well-being is intricately linked to the health of the planet and the welfare of other species. Consequently, pursuing isolated national interests becomes increasingly impractical in this context. For example, Australia a first-world country that built its wealth on the positive effects of the industrial revolution, therefore they can invest in renewable energy options as it has the national funding to back this pursuit, but countries in the third world such as Indonesia, which haven’t accessed the benefits of the industrial revolution but are still significantly negatively committing to climate change don’t have the desire or capability to engage in helping this global issue (Abeygunawardena et al., 2003). Therefore, as this is a global issue, if Australia and other first-world nations aren’t willing to think and act globally by helping these countries become eco-friendly then they will still be negatively implicated by climate change (Sommer, 2021).

Post-humanism compels nations to understand that their well-being is intricately linked to the health of the planet and the welfare of other species. Likewise, the recent experience with global pandemics, like COVID-19, underscores the inadequacy of nationalistic approaches. The rapid spread of infectious diseases underscores the importance of collaborative international responses, including sharing information, coordinated research endeavours, and the equitable distribution of vaccines and resources (Isaiah Omodan, 2022). A post-humanist approach encourages nations to consider the common good, recognising that a global health crisis ultimately affects all individuals.

In summary, the philosophy of post-humanism presents a persuasive case for moving past nationalism in international relations, particularly in the context of the Anthropocene. It calls upon nations to acknowledge that if we wish to reap the benefits of functioning in a globalised society, then we need to disregard national borders and embrace the positive elements of post-humanism and its ability to address complex and interconnected issues.

Now, to be the devil’s advocate. It can be reasonable to be concerned about the practicality of post-humanism as a solid theory for the foundation of international relations in the Anthropocene era. A central argument against post-humanism revolves around practicality. In a world primarily driven by the interests and structures of nation-states and geopolitics, the holistic and interconnected approach of post-humanism can face immense challenges. The dominant international landscape prioritises the sovereignty and self-interest of individual nations (Cox, 2021). These nations often centre their policies on human-centric concerns like security, territorial integrity, and economic growth and leave the integration of post-humanist principles that emphasise a broader ethical framework, including the environmental and non-human entities to international bodies such as the United Nations to pursue (Perrez, 2021). One of the primary critiques pertains to the practical implementation of post-humanism’s ideals. While post-humanism encourages a more comprehensive perspective that considers not only human interests but also the well-being of the environment and non-human entities, the mechanisms for achieving this integration on a global scale remain uncertain. The established systems of governance, diplomacy, and policymaking within the nation–states are deeply rooted in human–centric paradigms, making it challenging to incorporate post-humanist principles effectively (Sahinkuye, 2012).

Furthermore, the diverse nature of international relations is a significant hurdle. The global arena comprises nations with varying levels of development, cultural traditions, and geopolitical interests. Reaching a consensus on a comprehensive post-humanist agenda amidst this diversity can be complicated and may encounter resistance from states that prioritise their national interests (Mehmood Khan, 2022). Moreover, the existing global political order is firmly grounded in the sovereignty of nation-states and the pursuit of self-interest. Powerful states, such as the United States of America or The Republic of China exert substantial influence over international policies such as China becoming South America’s largest trading partner in 2023, with their intention to grow their soft power within the region through further investing in Education and strengthening cultural ties, therefore, growing political power in their own self-interest to be able to have more influence on the world stage (Roy, 2023). This example demonstrates that this positive – human-centred relationship between these two powerhouses, is not with the intention to fulfil the post-humanist political agenda, but to further self-interest. Further, in this context, the adoption of post-humanist perspectives that call for a shift away from such narrow national interests to embrace broader global concerns can face immense scepticism and opposition from those seeking to maintain their dominant positions, why would a powerhouse such as The United States of America relinquish their power that they have invested an unfathomable number of resources into obtaining (Andre & Velasquez, 2007). In summary, critics emphasise that practicality is a primary concern, that the sheer nature of post-humanism could be somewhat mystical – or labelled as a ‘nice thought’ to shift international relations in the Anthropocene era towards. That integrating that school of thought into the practicality of the world stage that is built based on national interest, and geopolitics would be ideal, but somewhat impractical pursuit.

Finally, there is a relevant argument against the suitability of post-humanism as a basis for international relations in the Anthropocene, focusing on the perceived lack of clear implementation strategies. Post-humanism, with its emphasis on holistic and interconnected perspectives, advocates for a more inclusive approach that considers not only human interests but also the well-being of the environment and non-human entities. While this philosophy offers a profound, idealistic philosophical framework, its practicality in addressing complex global issues, particularly in the Anthropocene era, has quite a scope to apply scrutiny to (Osborne & Rose, 2023). For example, in the context of environmental policy, post-humanism’s emphasis on interconnectedness might not provide practical guidelines for implementation strategies for issues like marine conservation, such as the multiple attempts -failure to pass the Global Ocean Protection Treaty due to governments not agreeing on terms spanning over nearly two decades, with only just coming to an agreement this year, there is still yet to be any tangible implementation occurring (Stanway, 2022). While post-humanism underscores the importance of ecosystems and non-human entities, it may not offer concrete strategies for protecting these said entities such as, threatened marine species or coral reefs effectively (Stanway, 2022). Alternatively, in the realm of global health, when dealing with a global health crisis like antimicrobial resistance, post-humanism’s holistic approach may lack detailed strategies for controlling the spread of resistant pathogens or regulating the use of antibiotics (Aslam et al., 2018). In institutions where precise, science-based measures are required, post-humanism’s philosophical framework appears to be quite inadequate. In conclusion, the criticism surrounding the lack of clear implementation strategies is a valid argument against post-humanism’s suitability as a basis for international relations in the Anthropocene. While post-humanism promotes holistic thinking and emphasises the interconnectedness of all entities, it may face practical challenges in providing specific guidance on how to address complex global challenges effectively. To be considered a sound basis for international relations in the Anthropocene, post-humanism may need to develop more concrete and actionable strategies that can navigate the ever-evolving, ever-complex, ever-intricate landscape of contemporary international diplomacy and policymaking.

In conclusion, the Anthropocene era has brought about an interesting and significant need for transformations in the international relations framework, promoting a closer examination of the current structure of policies, we as a global market, engaging in. Whilst post-humanism offers an extremely intriguing, holistic, and optimistic foundational framework to address this era’s current complex challenges, such as putting a strong emphasis on the importance of considering all elements of this planet, rather than taking on a human-centric view. Or, it’s the call for the need for transnational activism to be at the forefront of global political issues, for cooperation and the highlight of the importance of sovereign states working as a team to face these unavoidable transnational issues. These are all valid arguments that post-humanism puts forward. The issue lies in its current framework having a lack of practicality and strategic plan in the implementation to make these ideas and notions come to fruition. To navigate the complex landscape of contemporary global diplomacy and policymaking effectively, post-humanism must evolve and provide actionable approaches. The ongoing debate regarding the merits and limitations of post-humanism in international relations will persist as the theory grapples with the multifaceted challenges of the Anthropocene.

References:

Abeygunawardena, P., YVyas, Y. and Knill, P. (2003) Poverty and climate change - OECD, Poverty and Climate Change. Available at: https://www.oecd.org/env/cc/2502872.pdf.

Andre, C. and Velasquez, M. (2007) ‘The Common Good’, Santa Clara University. Santa Clara University . Available at: https://www.scu.edu/mcae/publications/iie/v5n1/common.html.

Aslam, B. et al. (2018) ‘Antibiotic resistance: A rundown of a global crisis’, Infection and Drug Resistance, Volume 11, pp. 1645–1658. doi:10.2147/idr.s173867.

Bandh, S.A. (2022) Climate change the social and scientific construct. Cham: Springer International Publishing. Available at: https://eds.s.ebscohost.com/eds/detail/detail?vid=1&sid=55d38656-464b-4118-88e5-ad758b1d342d%40redis&bdata=JnNpdGU9ZWRzLWxpdmUmc2NvcGU9c2l0ZQ%3d%3d#AN=deakin.b5040130&db=cat00097a.

Chandler, D., Müller, F. and Rothe, D. (2021) International Relations in the Anthropocene: New Agendas, New Agencies and New Approaches. 1st edn. Basingstoke: Springer International Publishing AG.

Cox, L. (2021) Nationalism: Themes, theories, and controversies. Singapore: Palgrave Macmillan. Available at: https://eds.s.ebscohost.com/eds/detail/detail?vid=4&sid=847674c9-adaa-4caa-9b1c-2d17857d8d44%40redis&bdata=JnNpdGU9ZWRzLWxpdmUmc2NvcGU9c2l0ZQ%3d%3d#AN=deakin.b5075760&db=cat00097a.

Creutzig, F., Acemoglu, A. and Xuemei Bai, B. (2022) Digitalization and the Anthropocene | Annual Review of Environment and ..., Digitalization and the Anthropocene. Available at: https://www.annualreviews.org/doi/10.1146/annurev-environ-120920-100056 .

Erika Cudworth and Stephen Hobden, ‘Posthuman international relations: complexity, ecology and global politics’, in Chandler, D., Müller, F., and Rothe, D. (eds.), International Relations in the Anthropocene: New Agendas, New Agencies and New Approaches, Palgrave Macmillan, Cham, Switzerland, 2021, pp. 233-249. <https://ebookcentral-proquest-com.ezproxy-f.deakin.edu.au/lib/deakin/reader.action?docID=6564237&ppg=244>

Ferrando, F. (2016) ‘The Party of the Anthropocene: Post-humanism, environmentalism and the post-anthropocentric paradigm shift’, Relations, (4.2), pp. 159–173. doi:10.7358/rela-2016-002-ferr.

Harrington, C. (2016) ‘The ends of the World: International Relations and the anthropocene’, Millennium: Journal of International Studies, 44(3), pp. 478–498. doi:10.1177/0305829816638745.

Isaiah Omodan, B. (2022) The Connectedness of Posthumanism as a tool for Sustainable Post-COVID-19 Era, pp. 449–455.

Lou, L. (2023) Global analysis shows how pesticides leach into the environment, The University of Sydney. Available at: https://www.sydney.edu.au/news-opinion/news/2023/07/13/global-analysis-shows-how-pesticides-leach-into-the-environment.html.

Mehmood Khan, E. (2022) ‘National Interest: Perspectives and practices’, Journal of Contemporary Studies, 11(1), pp. 17–33. doi:10.54690/jcs.v11i1.210.

Nayar, P.K. (2023) ‘Posthumanism’, Literary and Critical Theory [Preprint]. doi:10.1093/obo/9780190221911-0122.

Osborne, T. and Rose, N. (2023) ‘Against posthumanism: Notes towards an ethopolitics of personhood’, Theory, Culture &amp;amp; Society [Preprint]. doi:10.1177/02632764231178472.

Roy, D. (2023) China’s growing influence in Latin America, Council on Foreign Relations. Available at: https://www.cfr.org/backgrounder/china-influence-latin-america-argentina-brazil-venezuela-security-energy-bri.

Sahinkuye, M.G. 2012, ‘Legal and Philosophical Thinking in Current International Relations’, Tuma Law Review, vol. 1, pp. 237–270. <https://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=edshol&AN=edshol.hein.journals.tuma1.14&site=eds-live&scope=site>.

Sommer, L.S. (2021) ‘Developing nations say they’re owed for climate damage. Richer nations aren’t budging’, NPR. NPR, 11 November. Available at: https://www.npr.org/2021/11/11/1054809644/climate-change-cop26-loss-and-damage.

Stanway, D. (2022) Dozens of nations to sign U.N. ocean treaty but implementation still awaits. Reuters. Available at: https://eds.s.ebscohost.com/eds/detail/detail?vid=1&amp;sid=814411c6-31ce-441f-ad79-0fae4ecee755%40redis&amp;bdata=JnNpdGU9ZWRzLWxpdmUmc2NvcGU9c2l0ZQ%3d%3d#AN=edsinc.A715560295&amp;db=edsinc (Accessed: 21 September 2023).

Storey, L. (2023) Humanism and Nationalism, CAHS. Available at: https://www.humanist.org.au/new-page-3.