4.7 Article

Bright spots: seeds of a good Anthropocene

期刊

FRONTIERS IN ECOLOGY AND THE ENVIRONMENT
卷 14, 期 8, 页码 441-448

出版社

WILEY
DOI: 10.1002/fee.1309

关键词

-

资金

  1. Future Earth
  2. Swedish Research Council Formas, Stockholm Resilience Centre, Sweden
  3. Program on Ecosystem Change and Society, ecoSERVICES
  4. Sida
  5. Natural Environment Research Council [NE/J015075/1] Funding Source: researchfish
  6. NERC [NE/J015075/1] Funding Source: UKRI
  7. Direct For Social, Behav & Economic Scie
  8. Division Of Behavioral and Cognitive Sci [1444755] Funding Source: National Science Foundation
  9. Division Of Earth Sciences
  10. Directorate For Geosciences [1038759] Funding Source: National Science Foundation

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The scale, rate, and intensity of humans' environmental impact has engendered broad discussion about how to find plausible pathways of development that hold the most promise for fostering a better future in the Anthropocene. However, the dominance of dystopian visions of irreversible environmental degradation and societal collapse, along with overly optimistic utopias and business-as-usual scenarios that lack insight and innovation, frustrate progress. Here, we present a novel approach to thinking about the future that builds on experiences drawn from a diversity of practices, worldviews, values, and regions that could accelerate the adoption of pathways to transformative change (change that goes beyond incremental improvements). Using an analysis of 100 initiatives, or seeds of a good Anthropocene, we find that emphasizing hopeful elements of existing practice offers the opportunity to: (1) understand the values and features that constitute a good Anthropocene, (2) determine the processes that lead to the emergence and growth of initiatives that fundamentally change human-environmental relationships, and (3) generate creative, bottom-up scenarios that feature well-articulated pathways toward a more positive future.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据