The
Anthropocene
and
its
Aesthetic
Implications



 In
2000,
Crutzen
and
Stoermer
claimed
that
a
new
geological
era
needed
to

be
considered:
the
Anthropocene.
My
aim
is
considering
this
hypothesis
to
reflect

on
the
implications
it
would
have
for
aesthetic
questions.



The
first
would
be
the
put
into
question
of
the
positive
aesthetics
accounts.
For
if

the
whole
earth
has
been
affected
by
human
action,
there
is
no
possibility
for
there

being
wild
nature.
Would
it
undermine
the
scientific
cognitivism
on
the
aesthetic

appreciation
 of
 nature?
 Notwithstanding,
 given
 that
 the
 effects
 of
 human
 actions

are
 not
 always
 aesthetically
 perceptible,
 there
 still
 will
 be
 places
 that
 could
 be

appreciated
 as
 wild
 ones.
 But
 then,
 are
 we
 compelled
 to
 aesthetically
 appreciate

nature
 as
 a
 mixed
 organism?
 And,
 are
 we
 aesthetically
 responsible
 for
 what

sometimes
cannot
be
perceived?



 Other
 voices
 defend
 that,
 despite
 our
 overall
 footprint
 on
 earth,
 nature
 is

not
 dead
 but
 the
 modern
 dichotomy
 built
 upon
 man
 and
 nature.
 According
 with

them,
we
are
part
of
nature
and
our
objects
and
productions
need
to
be
thought
of

from
within
the
very
idea
of
nature.
In
this
general
hybrid
condition
of
objects
and

environments,
how
should
they
be
aesthetically
evaluated?


It
is
true
that
the
action
of
man
is
seriously
threating
nature’s
health
and
beauty.

But
it
is
not
less
true
than
also
our
interventions
could
improve
them.
But
how
are

“health”
and
beauty
aesthetically
related?
Does
beauty
require
health?
I
would
like

to
 put
 foward
 the
 case
 of
 wind‐turbines
 seen
 as
 environmental
 health
 providers

and
also
as
an
aesthetic
means
for
appreciating
nature.