1. Steven Nadler, Spinoza: A Life (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2001), 220.
2. See my âAn Era of Pandemics? What Is Global and What Is Planetary about COVID-19,â In the Moment (blog), Critical Inquiry, October 16, 2020, https://critinq.wordpress.com/2020/10/16/an-era-of-pandemics-what-is-global-and-what-is-planetary-about-covid-19/.
3. Ken Ruthven, ed., Beyond the Disciplines: The New Humanities (Canberra: The Australian Academy of the Humanities, 1992).
4. For two recent stimulating discussions on this theme, see Sebastian Conrad, What Is Global History? (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 2016), and Sumathi Ramaswamy, Terrestrial Lessons: The Conquest of the World as Globe (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2017).
5. Jan Zalasiewicz et al., âA General Introduction to the Anthropocene,â in The Anthropocene as a Geological Time Unit: A Guide to the Scientific Evidence and Current Debate, ed. Jan Zalasiewicz, Colin Neil Waters, Mark Williams, and Colin Summerhayes (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2019), 2â11. Four other very important introductions to the problem of the Anthropocene, discussed from the point of view of the humanities and the social sciences, are Simon Lewis and Mark Maslin, The Human Planet: How We Created the Anthropocene (London: Penguin Random House, 2018); Jeremy Davies, The Birth of the Anthropocene (Berkeley: University of California Press, 2018); Eva Horn and Hannes Bergthaller, The Anthropocene: Key Issues for the Humanities (London: Routledge, 2020); and Carolyn Merchant, The Anthropocene and the Humanities: From Climate Change to a New Age of Sustainability (New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 2020).
6. Some of these debates are recounted in my âThe Human Significance of the Anthropocene,â in Modernity Reset!, ed. Bruno Latour (Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 2016).
7. Zalasiewicz et al., The Anthropocene, 31â40, for arguments regarding the utility of the formalization of the term.
8. Cited in Andrew S. Goudie and Heather A. Viles, Geomorphology in the Anthropocene (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2016), 28. See also the larger discussion in J. R. McNeill and Peter Engelke, The Great Acceleration: An Environmental History of the Anthropocene since 1945 (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 2014).
9. Peter Haff, âTechnology as a Geological Phenomenon: Implications for Human Well-Being,â in A Stratigraphical Basis for the Anthropocene, ed. C. N. Waters et al. (London: Geological Society, Special Publications, 2014), 301â2.
11. For a critique of Haffâs concept of the technosphere, see Jonathan F. Donges et al., âThe Technosphere in Earth System Analysis: A Coevolutionary Perspective,â Anthropocene Review 4, no. 1 (2017): 23â33.
12. Carl Schmitt, Dialogues on Power and Space, ed. Andreas Kalyvas and Frederico Finchelstein, trans. and with an introduction by Samuel Garrett Zeitlin (Cambridge: Polity, 2015; first published in German, 1958), 72, 73â74.
13. Peter Haff, âThe Technosphere and Its Relation to the Anthropocene,â in Zalasiewicz et al., Anthropocene as a Geological Time Unit, 143.
14. Jan Zalasiewicz et al., âScale and Diversity of the Physical Technosphere: A Geological Perspective,â Anthropocene Review 4, no. 1 (2017): 16.
15. University of Leicester, âEarthâs âTechnosphereâ Now Weighs 30 Trillion Tons, Research Finds,â Phys.org, November 30, 2016, https://phys.org/news/2016-11-earth-technosphere-trillion-tons.html. The basis for the calculations are presented in Zalasiewicz et al., âScale and Diversity of the Physical Technosphere," 9â22.
16. Zalasiewicz et al., Anthropocene as a Geological Time Unit, 105.
17. Goudie and Viles, Geomorphology in the Anthropocene, 33.
18. Zalasiewicz et al., Anthropocene as a Geological Time Unit, 71.
19. I am in fundamental agreement with Jeremy Daviesâs point that the humanitiesâ uptake of the discussion on climate change and the Anthropocene involves the question of what to doâin writing human history or politicsâwith deep time. Davis, Birth of the Anthropocene.
20. Naomi Oreskes, âScaling Up Our Vision,â Isis 105 (2014): 388. On the question of extinctions and why they pose a problem for human existence, see the discussion in Peter F. Sale, Our Dying Planet: An Ecologistâs View of the Crisis We Face (Berkeley: University of California Press, 2011), 102, 148â49, 203â21, 233. See also Elizabeth Kolbert, The Sixth Extinction: An Unnatural History (New York: Henry Holt, 2014).
21. Frédéric Worms, Pour un humanism vital: Lettres sur la vie, la mort, le moment present (Paris: Odile Jacob, 2019).
22. Here I registerâwith respect and admirationâa small conceptual disagreement with some of the propositions Daniel Lord Smail has put forward in his thought-provoking book On Deep History and the Brain (Berkeley: University of California Press, 2008). The book opens with the statement âIf humanity is the proper subject of history, as Linnaeus might well have counseled, then it stands to reason that the Paleolithic era, that long stretch of the Stone Age before the turn to agriculture, is part of our historyâ (2). I agree, but then Smail goes on to say, with regard to the genes (âof considerable antiquityâ) that are âresponsible for building the autonomic nervous system,â that âthis history is also world history since the equipment is shared by all humans though it is built, manipulated, and tweaked in different ways by different culturesâ (201). True, but the physical feature of the autonomic nervous system is something humans share with many other animals, so this could not quite be a world history of humans alone. We should perhaps move toward writing these histories shared between different species, but that is a separate discussion. However, philosopher Catherine Malabouâs speculations based on the history of the human brain and its plasticity are highly relevant and, if borne out by future developments, may indee...