The dilemma of the Anthropocene is one of entropy, according to Stiegler, also leading him

to recast the geological age as that of the” Entropocene”. Stiegler reads negentropy in the

Derridean sense as différance and postulates in our societies, thought, decision-making, and

desire are now increasingly controlled by algorithms. With the emergence of the digital

economy, it is no longer just goods that are reduced to market popularity, but also our

spiritual lives. Knowledge is now automated and we exist in an era of non-Knowledge and

we have lost our noetic souls, and argues that in order to survive the Anthropocene, it is

precisely our noetic abilities that we should treasure again. Steigler’s Neganthropocene

reveals his depoliticization of the planetary crisis today. Instead of calling on political

leaders’ accountability towards capitalism, a certain praise for thinking itself takes central

stage in Steiglers own philosophy a privilege that not many can afford. On the other hand

Deborah Danowski’s Ends of the worlds beyond the modernist view, presents views on the

end of the world including those for whom the world has already ended, by means of colonial

exploitation. The debate is no longer about just climate change but about the war of the

worlds, Moderns of Latour against Others/Terrans, Gaia wars one that could decide the fate

of this planet. In their sense, the real problem of the Anthropocene may lie in the fact that

Terrans could build a new world and inherit the planet, like Latour did, but there is no

guarantee that they would consider Moderns, the destroyers of the world they inherited,

worthy of salvation. It’s commendable that Danowski and Viveiros de Castro try to give a

voice to Others, offering the Amerindian philosophy as a solution to the Anthropocene,

however multiple references they make remain western-centric implying that Others tend to

be the world's last-minute saviours rather than the main focus of the whole story.