Today, young public discourse seems to be centered on a lack of progression, the stagnation of change, and as fuel to the discussion – the outraged cries of those who oppose signs of forward shift. Let’s face it, the future looks grim. Gridlocked. We are constantly remained of Hobbesian theory, that human nature is inherently evil – that amidst the myriad of problems and atrocities, states and individuals are only concerned with furthering their own interests whether on a micro materialistic level or a macro debate on power and strength. It is so easy to adopt a pessimistic approach and attitude towards our ability as global citizens to create substantial change in the Anthropocene. However, by submitting to this attitude we discredit many historical triumphs. It is with retrospective alarm that we realize that only a century ago slavery was in common practice, a half century ago that institutionalized segregation was accepted, and a few decades ago that nuclear weapons were predicted to be equal to and as accessible to conventional weaponry and pre-millennial expansion of international humanitarian intervention beyond the protection of Caucasian Christian Europeans. Looking into our past, we see immense normative shifts, purported by NGOs, IOs and other rights groups. When we look to our past, we see moral triumphs – we highlight the intrinsic good in human nature. We have made great progress. Then why does instituting change within the international system seem so daunting? It seems as though it is all how we view rates of cause and effect. Our generation longs for an immediate response – to make the stereotypical comparison – just as the convenience of a direct message or online connection. But even then, yes, international norms shift, but only if these norms coincide with the interests of major powers. Is that so? Many argue that we have an international sphere dominated by the economic interests of the global north. We question how a global environmental agreement will operate without binding agreements from highly developed nations such as the US and China. However, we have seen international normative shifts occur in the past despite the opposition of super-powers like the United States (e.g. Eisenhower’s opposition to nuclear deterrence). And taking a step back, outside of our current time period, international acknowledgement of environmental issues has grown tenfold. Although I could flesh out my thoughts on this topic, this article found on Grist addresses continued normative leaps through their observation on international recognition of climate change and how many organizations and individuals have moved to combat apathy towards the subject: http://grist.org/climate-energy/how-to-make-people-care-about-climate-change-tell-it-one-story-at-a-time/. In short, it is with added weight that we as a global citizenry maintain a sense of hope and optimism when delving into the Anthropocene as a powerful catalyzing tool, rather than shrouding in pessimism and indifference.
