St. Romain et al.: Anthropocene, Capitalocene, or Occidentalocene?
I. Introduction The climate crisis originates from the maladjusted relationship between humanity and the environment; it is around the contemporary discussions regarding the origins of the climate crisis that this article unfolds. Over the past decade, accompanying the severe impacts of frequent environmental disasters and extreme weather events on human and faunal communities, the reality of irreversible global climate change has become generally accepted. However, once this reality is acknowledged, it opens a debate over which theoretical narrative best explains the climate crisis. This article will first explore the Anthropocene narrative of the climate crisis, as it has gained discursive hegemony in this debate.
The flaw of the Anthropocene narrative lies in its theoretical approach underpinned by the fallacy of universalization. Through speciesist abstraction, it obscures the diversity, complexity, and class nature of human groups, ultimately attributing responsibility for the climate crisis indiscriminately to all of humanity. Subsequently, this article will explore the Capitalocene theoretical narrative, which critiques the Anthropocene discourse. The Capitalocene is the most credible theoretical narrative to replace the Anthropocene. The Capitalocene narrative argues that the capitalist system's appropriation of nature and the capital-led mode of negative scientific and technological research and development are the causes of the climate crisis, thereby avoiding the fallacy of abstract humanism committed by the Anthropocene. Capitalocene theory proposes that capitalism is a creation generated by a mixture of ideological and material components; it is precisely because nature is subjected to the joint manipulation of ideology and scientific-technical means that it becomes subject to the rule of capital accumulation. Finally, this article points out that if capitalism depends on the concept of an "external nature" and the ideological ideas of science and technology that existed prior to its birth, then Capitalocene theory can be corrected and expanded. This is because the artificially constructed concept of external nature and the ideological ideas of science and technology not only existed before the birth of capitalism but ultimately evolved into the source of Western civilization. If, as Capitalocene theory emphasizes, the material changes of the climate crisis can be traced back to 1492—when capitalism just began to encroach upon the global natural environment—then its spiritual changes began in the 5th century BCE in ancient Greece, the cradle of Western civilization. At that time, a turning point occurred in the Greek view of nature, and nature consequently began to suffer human conquest and was gradually stripped of its vital energy. Therefore, regarding the Capitalocene as the Westocene will aid further exploration of the contemporary ecological crisis.
II. The Anthropocene Narrative Framework and Its Debates In the 1980s, Eugene F. Stoermer coined the term "Anthropocene," but it was not until the early 21st century that Nobel laureate Paul Crutzen popularized the concept. Anthropocene theory argues that the massive environmental distortions caused by human activity have caused the Earth to enter a new epoch. This new epoch is characterized by the fact that humanity has now developed into a massive geological force capable of independently altering the Earth's climate. Therefore, we are not currently in the Holocene epoch as determined by geological scientists, but rather in the Anthropocene—a new geological period driven by human activity. Despite the many controversies surrounding Anthropocene theory, it has established a new narrative of Earth's history, providing a transformative opportunity for humanity to take timely action to reverse the climate crisis. Crutzen also believes that another advantage of the Anthropocene narrative is that it provides an open theoretical framework for in-depth discussion.
Two major camps have formed around the Anthropocene narrative. The first is the Anthropocene proponents, who support the concept and continuously refine its theoretical structure; the second is known as the Anthropocene critics, who tend to break the Anthropocene narrative framework to construct alternative theories, believing these alternatives can better reflect the reality of the global ecology.
Christophe Bonneuil and Jean-Baptiste Fressoz argue that although the Anthropocene proponents bring together various perspectives, they also exhibit many common characteristics. First, proponents all construct historical narratives around the origin, fundamental events, and developmental stages of the Anthropocene. Second, any Anthropocene proponent is ecocentric, viewing the Earth as a complex ecosystem. Finally, they view humanity both as a biological entity and as a geological subject.
These three major characteristics of the Anthropocene set the agenda for debates across three dimensions: the scope, dimension, and characteristics of the Anthropocene narrative framework.
First, the primary disagreement regarding the Anthropocene narrative often lies in its starting point. Crutzen set the start of the Anthropocene in 1782, on the grounds that it was both the symbolic year of the steam engine's birth and a period when glacial records showed a significant increase in the emissions of greenhouse gases such as carbon dioxide, methane, and nitrous oxide. Many scholars, however, believe the Anthropocene started much earlier. Timothy Morton argues that the Anthropocene period began with the rise of human agriculture, as this was the first major anthropocentric transformation of the natural environment; from then on, humans gradually imposed their will on nature, which is what has caused climate change up to the present. Others such as Simon Lewis, Mark Maslin, and Jason Moore argue that the start of the Anthropocene was 1492, which marked the prelude to the European conquest of the Americas and the beginning of the era of the "Columbian Exchange" of crops and livestock species between Eurasia and the Americas.
Second, the second debate concerning the Anthropocene narrative is about whether to view the Earth as a complex ecosystem. There are two viewpoints here, mainly reflected in differences in the understanding of the Earth’s characteristics and the role of humanity. One view tends to see the Earth as a systemic organism or a complex machine; Anthropocene "mechanists" believe humans play the role of "forcing" the inert Earth-machine to operate, exerting an external mediating effect, while Anthropocene "organicists" believe humans are internal saboteurs of the planetary organism, whose actions are constantly causing harm to the Earth-mother. The other view applies General Systems Theory, treating the Earth as a systemic whole composed of multiple parts, understanding the system as a whole through individual and interactive analysis of the relationships between parts. General Systems Theory understands the relationship between humans and the Earth based on the hierarchy assigned to humans by the theoretical framework. A low hierarchy views humans as a special element independent of and superior to nature, while a high hierarchy views humans as essential elements that can determine the overall functioning of the Earth on a planetary scale. Bonneuil and Fressoz call this discourse promoting the special status and role of humans "human exceptionalism."
Finally, the third debate regarding the Anthropocene narrative is whether to view humanity as a biological entity and a geological subject. This debate often unfolds around the question of who is responsible for the Anthropocene. Is all of humanity responsible? Based on a framework of abstract universalism, Crutzen views humanity as an abstract collective, believing that it is humanity as a whole that has led to the current ecological crisis; therefore, everyone should be responsible for the Anthropocene. Other scholars advocate for "common but differentiated" global environmental justice, arguing that industrialized countries at the global center should bear more responsibility than those on the global periphery, and that contemporary generations bear a greater responsibility than future ones, as they are responsible for the ecological reality that their descendants will experience.
In short, the Anthropocene narrative contains many debates, which also demonstrates the complexity of its narrative framework. The next section will discuss the Capitalocene theory's critique of the Anthropocene.
III. The Capitalocene Theory Critiquing the Hegemony of Climate Crisis Narratives Despite the rich existing discussions around the Anthropocene narrative framework, many scholars believe it is erroneous. The Anthropocene critics include all schools of thought positioned against the Anthropocene. Although various oppositional perspectives exist, few have developed into theoretical systems sufficient to rival the hegemonic Anthropocene framework. This confirms the conviction of this article that Jason Moore’s Capitalocene theory is the only mature theory worthy of in-depth study.
The Capitalocene narrative launches its critique from two fundamental premises of the Anthropocene framework: first, the reproduction of Cartesian dualism in the Anthropocene narrative; and second, the attribution of the causes of the climate crisis to an abstract "all of humanity." The Capitalocene narrative framework is built upon two premises: first, that humans and nature inhabit the same planetary matrix; and second, that global capitalism, rather than all of humanity, is the true cause of climate change. The conclusion derived from these two premises is that the geological period in which humanity currently finds itself is not the Anthropocene but the Capitalocene—it is not that humans changed the Earth's climate, but that capitalism is the driving force behind the ecological crisis.
The first layer of the Capitalocene's critique of the Anthropocene aims to deconstruct so-called philosophical dualism or Cartesian dualism. Both labels imply the same assumption: that the Enlightenment separated humanity from nature, making them two distinct material existences. This assumption holds that since the modern European Enlightenment, human scientific thought has been built upon this implicit consensus: the entire world can be divided into the human world and the natural world; the human world represents rationality, reflection, civilization, and progress, while the natural world represents a tangible, inanimate, and amoral space filled with barbarism. The division between human civilization and barbaric nature implies that humans, possessing reason, are superior because they have the capacity to think about their environment and transform nature through reason, thereby achieving continuous progress. Nature is a passive space, nothing more than a collection of resources available for human appropriation. It is precisely through the continuous conquest and appropriation of nature that humanity has succeeded in carving out a path of development.
What the Capitalocene critiques is this artificial separation between humanity and nature, as this separation clearly does not square with the reality that all life on Earth is interconnected. By constructing nature as a cheap and easily manipulated material existence, Cartesian dualism plausibly transforms nature into a resource solely for human use, thereby legitimizing the capitalist process of appropriating nature. Ecofeminist and decolonial schools of thought have also respectively pointed out that this Cartesian dualism places women and colonies on the side of "nature," thereby providing a cloak of legitimacy for capitalism to exploit them in the name of pursuing growth.
The theoretical (and potential practical) consequences of Cartesian dualism stem from viewing nature as a cheap resource that can be appropriated at will, and from using the appropriation of natural resources as an effective strategy to promote the process of capitalist accumulation. Therefore, this dualism is the origin of the capitalist system, serving the appropriation of surplus value from human labor and the exploitation of nature. The difference between the exploitation of surplus value and the exploitation of nature is that the exploitation and appropriation of proletarian surplus value still provides the proletariat with the minimum subsistence for social reproduction (slaves excepted); however, the exploitation of nature does not take into account the replenishment and renewal of natural resources. This is what Immanuel Wallerstein calls "the dirty secret of capitalism," referring to the inherent tendency of capitalist accumulation to never consider the long-term consequences of exhausting the Earth's resources. Moore points out that this means the capitalist transformation of nature focuses on immediate interests, ignoring the long-term consequences of generating "negative value." Capitalism not only destroys the original natural environment but also continues to create natural environments unfavorable to capital accumulation through the severe impacts of the climate crisis. This self-destructive tendency is what James O’Connor calls the "second contradiction of capitalism." Marx exposed the first contradiction of capitalism—that the exploitation of the proletariat by the bourgeoisie would prompt the proletariat to organize and engage in violent struggle, overthrowing the capitalist system through revolution. Simultaneously, the exploitation of nature will also ultimately lead to the self-destruction of the capitalist system.
The second critique of the Anthropocene by the Capitalocene is that the Anthropocene treats all of humanity as an undifferentiated, abstract collective, thereby erasing the class nature and complexity of human societies. The basis of the Capitalocene's critique lies in the fact that, although countries on the periphery [7] of the world ecological system are more severely affected by the global ecological crisis, the Earth's ecological environment has been primarily destroyed by the core capitalist nations. Furthermore, within these core capitalist nations, only a small number of people benefit from this destruction. Therefore, Capitalocene theory argues that there is no such thing as "abstract humanity"; rather, both nature and humanity are subjected to exploitation by the capitalist system. Moreover, the responsibility humans bear for the climate crisis is not equal, as only 1% of the world's population are the beneficiaries of the capitalist system. By ignoring vast disparities and distinct class characteristics, the Anthropocene treats all of humanity as an undifferentiated, abstract totality, disregarding the distinction between the wealthy privileged class and the broad masses of ordinary people. In doing so, it reproduces Cartesian dualism [8] and obscures the reality that the vast majority of humanity and nature are currently suffering under capitalist exploitation.
While the Capitalocene constitutes the most powerful theoretical framework for understanding the current geological epoch, it is not the only critical theory. For instance, ecofeminism has also formed a powerful theoretical current. Despite ongoing debates over the use of "Anthropocene" versus "Capitalocene," this theory insists on using the gendered concept of the "Manthropocene." Ecofeminists argue that this concept helps demonstrate that capitalist ecological reproduction depends on the appropriation of nature, while social reproduction depends on patriarchy. Although these concepts were created to critique the narrative framework of the Anthropocene, they have not yet developed into a systematic theory.
Therefore, following the reflective path opened by Jason W. Moore, this article attempts to adopt a world-ecology perspective while correcting the bias in this research perspective regarding the role played by modern science and technology. In this way, it seeks to broaden the theoretical horizon of the Capitalocene narrative by situating the origins of the Capitalocene in the historical period preceding the emergence of capitalism—namely, the historical period when human concepts of nature began to form a material force that ultimately transformed the ecological environment.
IV. The Relationship Between Capitalism and Technology
The Capitalocene appears to be the most comprehensive and accurate description of the root causes of climate change and the Earth's transition to a new geological epoch. This is because the model of infinite capital accumulation that drives capitalist development functions precisely due to the supply of "cheap nature," which in turn stems from the absolute concept of humans understanding nature as an external entity independent of humanity. In the centuries preceding capitalist expansion, the revolution in science and technology consistently drove the "practice of external nature." Moore argues that the revolution in science and technology represents the symbolic moment of the rise of primitive accumulation, as it facilitated the manipulation and appropriation of nature on a broader scale. To successfully appropriate and manipulate nature, one must view nature as an entity with no symbiotic relationship to humanity, thereby allowing nature to be artificially constructed as an existence external to humans. Consequently, by interpreting the process through which capitalism constrained the development of science and technology, the Capitalocene narrative reveals the entire historical process of capitalism shaping a "new concept of nature." Descartes' dualism of humanity and nature divided the two into independent spheres, establishing the prerequisite assumption of humans as thinking entities and nature as a material entity manipulable by humans. All capitalist reflection, action, and planning are built upon this assumption. Moore asserts that Cartesian dualism is merely an inherent abstraction produced by the development of capitalism.
Francis Bacon’s famous maxim "knowledge is power" is well-known, and it led Descartes to firmly believe that by understanding the forces and actions of all matter, humans could utilize them for the benefit of human society, thereby making humans the "masters and possessors of nature." The research paradigm adopted by Bacon, which combined scientific methods with mechanical technology, not only became the model for modern scientific research but also gave birth to a new research system combining knowledge with material force. In this way, when facing nature as an external entity, technology possesses the power to defeat, conquer, and shake the very foundations of nature. From Bacon's time onward, scientists confronted nature in the posture of a judge, employing the science, technology, and tools at their disposal to interrogate and conquer nature, revealing its hidden secrets for the sake of human dominion. As Bacon stated, "the secrets of nature reveal themselves more readily under the vexations of art [technology] than when they go their own way," and these secrets would allow "the human race to recover 그 right over nature which belongs to it by divine bequest." This hostile attitude toward nature was solidified into research methods and institutionalized in Bacon’s scientific utopia, "Salomon’s House." Bacon’s vision for Salomon’s House was the establishment of laboratories where scientific experiments would be conducted with the help of natural forces and artificial devices to study nature in depth. Nature was conceived as a machine whose parts could not only be understood individually but also appropriately manipulated through science and technology. Science thus created a nature of liberalism and industrial manipulation—an economic world tailored for its industrious capitalist master. Consequently, science provided the pretext for the imperialist actions of capitalist expansion.
Today, although both supporters and opponents of the Anthropocene agree that nature has clearly not fully delivered the beautiful vision promised by science over the past few centuries, the belief remains—whether from the hegemonic discourse of the Anthropocene or the perspective of the Marxist theory of metabolism [9]—that the capacity to transform nature through scientific and technological knowledge remains humanity's only safeguard against the climate change crisis. Whether this idea originated in the 17th-century "Salomon’s House" or the 20th-century rivalry between the US and the USSR, capitalism remains the unavoidable core. Capitalism acts as the architect of the natural world; nature is an entity for human appropriation, and scientists create the power and privilege to rule nature through tools, knowledge, and technology. The geopolitical conflicts and environmental crises existing globally have greatly compressed and limited the space for society and individuals to play a role; "technological power" has become the sole guide for understanding geological history. If geo-engineering is the only solution to climate change, or if human genes can even be altered through ergonomics to adapt to the natural environment, then those who possess this scientific and technological knowledge hold absolute sovereign power. As Carolyn Merchant has argued, Bacon’s utopian dream would thus become a reality, as it allows scientists "not only to look but to act like priests, with the power to dispel all human suffering through science." Therefore, capitalism not only sanctifies the separation between humanity and nature through Cartesian dualism but also continually widens the gap between the highly educated/elite groups and the general public. Thus, capitalism becomes the originator of the current rule of technological power, ceaselessly pursuing the infinite accumulation of capital; this is why the Capitalocene is also a "Technocene."
The process of global capitalist expansion helps explain the complexity of the current climate crisis. The capitalist system itself, and the relationship between capitalism and science and technology, can in turn be explained as the objectification of the process of global capitalist expansion, which began as early as the age of Columbus. If we can invert this judgment and maintain that it was not only the capitalist model of infinite accumulation that stimulated the development of techno-science (thereby forming the Capitalocene), but that the governing project of science and technology also opened up the possibilities of capitalism, then we will better understand why the current human world is not governed solely by the principle of economic rationality. Only through this reversal of perspective can we eliminate the optimistic illusions held toward the contemporary technological world and understand the rise of "negative value" [10] brought about by technological development. This shift in narrative begins with Moore’s research: the concept of "cheap nature" preceded both capitalism and Descartes himself. Long before colonizing and developing the American continent, Europeans already viewed nature as a cheap resource to be taken at will, surveying the natural world through a rationalist lens. In their eyes, the world was a terra nullius [11] waiting to be developed by humans through science and technology. Therefore, in their view, capital accumulation first required the dominance of science and technology; the success of capital accumulation depended on the mode of scientific and technological governance.
V. The Capitalocene as the Westocene
Bacon asserted that the development of modern science would unite human knowledge and power into one. The evolution of history has manifested this power in different ways, with imperialism being the quintessential representative. Utilizing technology to achieve total dominance over everything from the natural environment to human society is the result of the dominance of Western thought and culture; this is a worldview formed at the very birth of Western culture. As Moore argues, ideas are incredibly important in the history of capitalist development; only by focusing on the dominant Western thought and culture can we truly understand how humanity stepped through the gateway of the new climatic era. Therefore, we must recognize that capitalism also relies on the shaping of human concepts of nature and on the cultural-ideological visions projected onto human society. Just as a human precedes the things he creates, he must also pre-imagine the object he intends to create before creating it. Marx noted:
A bee puts to shame many an architect in the construction of her cells. But what distinguishes the worst architect from the best of bees is this, that the architect raises his structure in imagination before he erects it in reality.
Consequently, capitalism is the objectification of Western concepts of nature realized through scientific and technological means; Cartesian dualism is merely a modern version of the original Western concept of nature. This implies that while we are currently in the Capitalocene, the Capitalocene is actually a product of Western cultural hegemony; that is to say, we are truly in the "Westocene."
Pierre Hadot argued that the metaphor of "nature’s secrets," used by Bacon to elucidate the practice of the scientific method, appeared as early as Ancient Greece—roughly a millennium before Bacon’s Novum Organum in the 17th century. This metaphor has dominated human study of nature, physics, and natural science for nearly two thousand years. The metaphor originates first from Heraclitus’s famous saying: "Nature loves to hide." This phrase elucidated the Western way of viewing and thinking about nature at that time, and it also hinted at a turning point in the Western world’s concept of nature—the gradual transition from viewing nature as an organic living process to a worldview attempting to "disenchant" [12] and objectify nature. In fact, the pre-Socratic concept of "nature" referred to natural processes—that is, the process of the web of life formed by the interdependence of Earth’s flora and fauna, which arises and develops independently of human intervention. This is the meaning contained in the Latin root of nature, nasci, which refers to events that arise and appear naturally without any human intervention. Under the influence of Plato’s and Aristotle’s philosophies, the concept of nature evolved from a natural process to an anthropomorphic existence. For Greek philosophers, the core of all things in nature was no longer determined solely by its own essence as revealed through life, but by a rational essence that prescribed how it should exist. Because of this, humans ultimately sought to explain the processes of nature’s operation by replicating the operations of human rational thought. For Plato and Aristotle, the development of nature was far from a blind and spontaneous process; it was a process in which reason and technology operated in a manner replete with Greek wisdom. Thus, another Western precondition regarding nature was established: Aristotle’s idea of "natural law"—that is, nature does nothing in vain, but acts like a clever craftsman and operates in a rational manner. As Plato argued in the Timaeus, the universe "came into being... in very truth a living creature with soul and reason... created according to the pattern of that which is unchanging." This passage reveals the primary influence of Western Prometheanism—the world is depicted as an object assembled from various parts according to mathematical principles, strict geometric proportions, and the imitation of mechanical models. This led to the entire world being imagined as a precise and complex machine. Merchant argues that this is a mechanistic view of nature, which was neither imposed on human society from the outside nor emerged only during the early modern capitalist period; rather, it was a millennial project that began fermenting in Ancient Greece and only reached final maturity in the 16th century.
Therefore, nature lost its vitality from the very beginning. It no longer appeared as a process occurring spontaneously, but was reified into an incarnation of Greek rationalism. Just as in the Baconian method, there is an unbreakable link between mechanical technology and theoretical knowledge; thus, the connection between theoretical knowledge and mechanical technology is not a privilege of modern science, but a privilege of Greek culture. Long before Bacon recognized the dominant potential of technology, the 5th-century BCE philosopher Antiphon asserted: "Through technology, we master what we are defeated by in nature." Antiphon also preceded Descartes by centuries in proposing that an inevitable, war-like separation exists between humanity and the natural environment. Regarding mechanics, Greek creativity was focused from the outset on mastering the diversity of nature. As Hadot [13] explained: Among the Greeks, mechanics first appeared as a technique for practicing ruses and tricks upon nature, forcing nature to do what it could not do itself through actions that violate nature, all thanks to tools manufactured by humans. These ruses and tricks [14] against the forces of nature are the very life of the machine. Therefore, it is no accident that the Greek word used to describe ingenuity, wonder, and efficiency is mechané. Through the substantial emphasis placed on ancient Greek mathematical and geometrical theoretical knowledge by the Platonic and Aristotelian schools, and the connection between this knowledge and modern industrial machinery, it can be seen that Greek culture is the true source of capitalism's attempt to realize a comprehensive technization of the world. Salomon’s House [15] was merely a particular projection of the Greek management of knowledge and planning of production represented by the Library of Alexandria. The Library of Alexandria was a project established by the Ptolemaic dynasty to commemorate Alexander the Great, the royal disciple of Aristotle. As the nerve center of scientific and technological knowledge in the ancient world, Greece gave birth to scientists like Aristarchus and Archimedes, pioneers who inspired Copernicus and Galileo. Ultimately, Greek mechanics marked the birth of technology. The Greeks' technocratic vision and the idea of the externalization of nature were already so evident as early as the Socratic era that philosophers could intuitively recognize the possibilities for geoengineering opened up by this worldview.
Contemporary climate engineering may originate neither from Bacon's techno-utopian vision nor as a product of the arms race during the US-Soviet Cold War, but perhaps from Socratic philosophical inquiry. Xenophon, in his work Memorabilia, noted that as early as 2,500 years ago, Socrates pondered that "those who study divine things, once they know the necessary laws by which all things arise, hope to be able to apply these laws to the wind, water, seasons, and anything they need." Technology became not only the fulcrum for the dream of ruling all things with the power bestowed by knowledge of divine matters and the secrets of nature, but also permanently altered human society and the Earth's morphology at a geological level. If the natural concepts and technological visions of these Greek philosophers were forged into the religious dogmas of the West, they could not only give rise to Christianity—the second cradle of Western thought—but also ultimately justify capitalist globalization.
If it is logical to deduce modern science from Greek science, then, as Lynn White Jr. stated, "modern science is an extrapolation of natural theology," and modern technology is, to some extent, "the realization of the Western voluntarist Christian doctrine of human transcendence over and mastery of nature." The Christian doctrine to "replenish the earth, and subdue it" could only be truly realized through the Greek technocratic vision. This deduction interprets Bacon's scientific fantasy: humanity should restore the right to conquer nature given by God. Once humans place themselves at the core of all things created by God and set themselves as the supreme goal, then all things in heaven and earth are at their disposal. At this point, nature transforms from a purely external existence into private property that can be manipulated by technology and explored by capitalism. The combination of the Christian anthropocentric cosmology and the ancient Greek scientific-technological concept of conquering nature constitutes a fundamental pillar of capital accumulation. Therefore, the history of human climate change is not only the history of the formation and development of capitalism as a world-ecology but, moreover, the current transition of the Earth into a new geological period represents the pinnacle of the evolution of Western history since its birth. Thus, it can be asserted: the Capitalocene is the Westocene.
VI. Conclusion
This article reflects on the ontological problems existing within the anthropocentric framework and points out that the Capitalocene narrative is better suited for understanding the climate crisis. In this way, it is not an abstract "humanity" as a whole that should be responsible for climate change, but rather the capitalist system as a world-ecology, because its appropriation of humanity and nature is the root cause of the Earth's climate crisis.
Cartesian dualism artificially separated humanity from nature, subsequently subjecting nature to human dominance and manipulation. The Capitalocene narrative framework implies breaking Western Cartesian dualism and raising questions about the true root causes and internal dynamics of the current climate crisis. However, if the starting point of the Capitalocene is fixed in the period of primitive capitalism in the 16th century, it actually obscures the importance of the Greek techno-rationalist worldview and Christianity in explaining the rise of capitalism and global expansion. This is because capitalism and its globalization began at this historical moment: nature was viewed by humans as an external world and subsequently as private property that could be manipulated and appropriated by humans. Therefore, rather than saying the West is capitalist, it is better to say that capitalism is Western. Since capitalism is Western-centric, the Capitalocene is naturally the Westocene.
Capitalist globalization as a historical event has brought about profound historical consequences in the form of a crisis of world civilization, triggered by Western culture's continuous conquest of nature and its elimination of world cultural diversity. The "West" does not merely signify a global geographic region; its ideological culture is the true reason for the West becoming the West. The idea of external nature viewed as human private property, the technological rationality of transforming nature, and the scientific thought of conquering nature are the true foundations upon which the West was established; globalization has merely continuously reinforced Western thought scattered in every corner of the globe. These ideas were neither generated by capitalism nor invented by Descartes; on the contrary, capitalism is built precisely upon the foundation of Western ideological culture. In short, capitalism is neither "scientific" nor "technological," but "Westernized." It is only with the passage of time that Western science and technology were capitalized, just as they were Nazified during the Third Reich. Therefore, capitalism, as a world-ecology, is the result of ideas long nurtured by Western civilization. This is why the Capitalocene is the Westocene.
(Author Bios: Álvaro San Román: Department of Philosophy, National University of Distance Education, Spain; Yoan Molinero-Gerbeau: Institute for Migration Studies, Comillas Pontifical University, Spain; Xiao Yufei: Institute of Marxism Studies, Fudan University)
Online Editor: Tong Xin Source: Foreign Theoretical Trends [16], Issue 2, 2024. This article was originally published in Capitalism Nature Socialism, Vol. 34, Issue 2, 2023. The translation has been abridged.