Anthropocene, Capitalocene, or Occidentalocene?

I. Introduction

一、引言

The climate crisis originates from a dysfunctional relationship between humanity and the environment, and this article unfolds precisely around contemporary debates on the origins of the climate crisis. Over the past decade, accompanied by the severe impacts of frequent environmental disasters and extreme climate events on human and animal communities, the irreversible reality of global climate change has been widely accepted. However, once this reality is acknowledged, a debate opens over which theoretical narrative best explains the climate crisis. This article first examines the Anthropocene narrative of the climate crisis, as it has achieved discursive hegemony in this debate.

气候危机起源于人类与环境之间的失调关系，本文正是围绕着当代关于气候危机起源的讨论所展开的。在过去的10年里，伴随着频繁的环境灾难与极端的气候事件对人类和动物群落所产生的严重影响，人们普遍接受了全球气候变化不可逆转的现实。然而，一旦承认这一现实，也就开启了哪种理论叙事最能解释气候危机的争论。本文首先将探讨关于气候危机的人类世叙事，因为它在这场争论中获得了话语霸权。

The flaw in the Anthropocene narrative lies in its theoretical approach, which is underpinned by a fallacy of universalization. Through a speciesist abstraction, it obscures the diversity, complexity, and class character of human groups, ultimately attributing responsibility for the climate crisis indiscriminately to all of humanity. Subsequently, this article explores the Capitalocene theoretical narrative that critiques Anthropocene discourse. The Capitalocene is the most reliable theoretical alternative to the Anthropocene. The Capitalocene narrative holds that the capitalist system’s appropriation of nature and the capital-dominated negative model of scientific and technological research and development are the causes of the climate crisis, thereby avoiding the abstract humanist fallacy committed by the Anthropocene. Capitalocene theory proposes that capitalism is a creation generated by a mixture of ideological and material components, and that nature is subordinated to the rule of capital accumulation precisely because it is subjected to the combined manipulation of ideology and scientific-technological means. Finally, this article points out that if capitalism relies on the concept of external nature and the ideological notion of science and technology that existed before its birth, then Capitalocene theory can be corrected and expanded. Because the artificially constructed concept of external nature and the ideological notion 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 began to encroach upon the global natural environment, then its spiritual changes began in the 5th century BCE, in the cradle of Western civilization, ancient Greece, where the Greek view of nature was undergoing a turning point, and nature consequently began to suffer human conquest and was gradually stripped of its vitality. Therefore, viewing the Capitalocene as the Occidentalocene will contribute to further discussion of the contemporary ecological crisis.

人类世叙事的缺陷在于，它是一种以普遍化谬误支撑的理论路径，通过物种主义的抽象掩盖了人类群体的多样性、复杂性和阶级性，最终将气候危机的责任不加区分地归咎于全体人类。随后，本文将对批判人类世话语的资本世理论叙事进行探讨。资本世是替代人类世最可靠的理论叙事，资本世叙事认为，资本主义制度对自然的占有和资本主导的负面科学技术研发模式是引发气候危机的原因，从而避免了人类世所犯的抽象人类主义谬误。资本世理论提出，资本主义是由意识形态部分和物质部分所混合生成的创造物，大自然正是由于受到意识形态和科学技术手段的联合操纵，所以才服从于资本积累的统治。本文最后指出，如果资本主义依赖它诞生之前就已存在的外部自然观念和科学技术的意识形态理念，那么资本世理论就可以得到纠偏和扩展。因为人为构建的外部自然观念和科学技术的意识形态理念不仅在资本主义诞生之前就已经存在，还最终演变成为西方文明的源头。如果像资本世理论所强调的那样，气候危机的物质变化可以追溯到1492年，那时资本主义刚刚开始侵占全球范围的自然环境，那么它的精神变化则开始于公元前5世纪，在西方文明的摇篮古希腊，当时希腊人的自然观正发生转折，自然也因此开始遭受人类的征服并被逐渐剥夺生命活力。因此，将资本世视为西方世将有助于对当代生态危机的进一步探讨。

II. The Anthropocene Narrative Framework and Its Debates

二、人类世叙事框架及其争论

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 holds that the massive environmental distortions caused by human activities have pushed the Earth into a new epoch. The characteristic of this new epoch is that humanity has now developed into a colossal geological force, capable of independently altering the Earth’s climate on its own. Therefore, we are currently not in the Holocene epoch, as determined by geological scientists, but in the Anthropocene epoch—a new geological period driven by human activity. Although Anthropocene theory is fraught with controversy, it establishes a new narrative about Earth’s history and provides an opportunity for transformation, enabling humanity to take timely action to reverse the climate crisis. Crutzen also believed that another advantage of the Anthropocene narrative is that it offers an open theoretical framework for in-depth exploration.

在1980年代，尤金·F. 斯托默（Eugene F.Stoermer）创造了“人类世”一词，但直到21世纪初，诺贝尔奖获得者保罗·克鲁岑（Paul Crutzen）才将这一概念普及化。人类世理论认为，人类活动造成的巨大环境扭曲已经使得地球进入了一个新时期。这一新时期的特点是人类现在已经发展成为一种巨大的地质力量，能够独立地自行改变地球气候。因此，我们当前并非处于地质科学家所断定的全新世（the Holocene）时代，而是处于人类世时代——一个由人类活动驱动的新地质时期。尽管人类世理论存在着很多争议，但它建立了关于地球历史的新叙事，为人类及时采取行动以扭转气候危机提供了变革机遇。克鲁岑还认为，人类世叙事的另一个优点是提供了一个可供深入探讨的开放性理论框架。

Two major factions have formed around the Anthropocene narrative. The first is the Anthropocene proponents, who support the concept of the Anthropocene and continuously refine its theoretical structure. The second is known as the Anthropocene critics, who tend to break down the Anthropocene narrative framework in order to construct alternative theories, because they believe alternative theories can better reflect the actual state of the global ecology.

围绕着人类世叙事已经形成了两大派别。其一是人类世支持派，他们支持人类世概念，不断完善人类世的理论结构；其二则被称为人类世批判派，他们倾向于打破人类世的叙事框架以构建替代理论，因为他们认为替代理论可以更好地反映全球生态的现实状况。

Christophe Bonneuil and Jean-Baptiste Fressoz argue that although the Anthropocene proponents bring together a variety of different viewpoints, they also exhibit many common features. First, all proponents engage in historical narration centered on the origins, fundamental events, and developmental stages of the Anthropocene. Second, any Anthropocene proponent is ecocentric, viewing the Earth as a complex ecosystem. Finally, Anthropocene proponents regard humans both as biological entities and as geological agents.

克里斯托夫·博纳伊（Christophe Bonneuil）和让-巴蒂斯特·弗雷索（Jean-Baptiste Fressoz）认为：人类世支持派中尽管汇聚了各种不同观点，但也呈现出许多共同特征。首先，支持派都围绕着人类世的起源、基本事件和发展阶段展开历史叙述。其次，任何人类世支持派都以生态为中心，将地球视为一个复杂的生态系统。最后，人类世支持派既将人类视为生物实体，也将人类视为地质主体。

These three characteristics of the Anthropocene set the agenda for debates on the scope, dimensions, and features of the Anthropocene narrative framework.

人类世的这三大特征设定了关于人类世叙事框架的范围、维度和特征这三个方面的争论议题。

First, a major point of divergence regarding the Anthropocene narrative often concerns the start date of the Anthropocene. Crutzen sets the beginning of the Anthropocene at 1782, on the grounds that it is both the symbolic year of the invention of the steam engine and a period when glacial fluctuations show a significant increase in emissions of greenhouse gases such as carbon dioxide, methane, and nitrous oxide. Many scholars argue for an earlier start date. Timothy Morton believes that the Anthropocene period began with the rise of human agriculture, because this was the first major human-centered transformation of the natural environment, from which point humanity gradually imposed its will upon nature, leading to the climate change seen to date. Simon Lewis, Mark Maslin, and Jason Moore, among others, argue that the Anthropocene period began in 1492, when Europe initiated its conquest of the Americas, an era that also saw the great exchange of crop and livestock species between Eurasia and the Americas.

首先，关于人类世叙事的主要分歧往往在于人类世的开始时间。克鲁岑将人类世的开始时间定在1782年，理由在于它既是蒸汽机诞生的象征性年份，这一时期的冰川变动情况也显示出二氧化碳、甲烷和氧化亚氮等温室气体的排放显著增加。许多学者则认为人类世的开始时间要更早。蒂莫西·莫顿（Timothy Morton）认为，人类世时期从人类农业的兴起开始，因为这是自然环境所发生的第一次以人类为中心的巨大转变，从此人类就逐渐将自身意志强加于自然，这就是迄今为止导致气候变化的原因。西蒙·路易斯（Simon Lewis）、马克·马斯林（Mark Maslin）和杰森·摩尔（Jason Moore）等人则认为，人类世时期的开始时间是欧洲开启征服美洲序幕的1492年，这也是欧亚大陆与美洲大陆之间开启农作物和牲畜物种大交换的时代。

Second, the second debate concerning the Anthropocene narrative revolves around whether to view the Earth as a complex ecosystem. There are two schools of thought on this, primarily reflected in differences in understanding the Earth’s characteristics and the role of humans. One school tends to view the Earth as a systemic organism or a complex machine. Anthropocene mechanists argue that humans play the role of “forcing” the inert Earth machine to operate, functioning as an external mediating agent; Anthropocene organicists argue that humans are internal saboteurs of the Earth organism, whose actions continuously harm the Earth mother. The other school employs general systems theory, viewing the Earth as a systemic whole composed of multiple parts, understanding the systemic whole by analyzing the relationships of the parts individually and interactively. General systems theory understands the relationship between humans and the Earth based on the level of hierarchy assigned to humans within the theoretical framework. A low hierarchy treats humans as special elements independent of and superior to nature; a high hierarchy treats humans as basic elements capable of determining the overall function of the Earth on a planetary scale. Bonneuil and Fressoz refer to this rhetoric that extols the special status and role of humans as “human exceptionalism.”

其次，有关人类世叙事的第二个争论是关于是否将地球视为一个复杂生态系统的争论。这方面有两派观点，主要体现为对地球特征和人类作用认识上的差异。一派观点倾向于将地球视为一个系统有机体或一部复杂机器，人类世机械论者认为人类扮演着“强迫”惰性地球机器运转的角色，发挥着外在的媒介作用；人类世有机论者则认为人类是地球有机体的内在破坏分子，人类的所作所为正不断对地球母体造成伤害。而另一派则运用通用系统理论，将地球视为一个由多个部分组成的系统整体，通过单独和交互分析各部分的关系去理解系统整体。通用系统理论依据理论框架所赋予人类等级的高低去理解人类与地球的关系。等级低则将人类视为独立于自然界并高于自然界的特殊元素，等级高则将人类视为可以从行星尺度上决定地球整体功能的基本元素。博纳伊和弗雷索将这种宣扬人类特殊地位和作用的论调称为“人类例外论”。

Finally, the third debate concerning the Anthropocene narrative revolves around whether to treat humans as biological entities and geological agents. This debate often centers on the question of who is responsible for the Anthropocene. Is all of humanity responsible for the Anthropocene? Based on an abstract universalist framework, Crutzen treats humanity as an abstract collective, arguing that it is precisely all of humanity that has caused the current ecological and environmental crisis of the Earth; therefore, everyone should be held responsible for the Anthropocene. Other scholars advocate for common but differentiated global environmental justice, arguing that industrialized countries at the center of the globe should bear more responsibility than countries on the global periphery, and that the contemporary generation also bears greater responsibility than future generations, because they are accountable for the ecological reality that their descendants will experience.

最后，有关人类世叙事的第三个争论是关于是否将人类视为生物实体和地质主体的争论。这一争论往往围绕着谁对人类世负责这个问题而展开。是整个人类都需要对人类世负责吗？克鲁岑基于抽象普遍主义框架将人类视为抽象的集体，认为正是整个人类导致了当前地球的生态环境危机，因此，所有人都应该为人类世负责。其他学者则主张共同但有区别的全球环境正义，认为处于全球中心地位的工业化国家应比全球边缘国家承担更多责任，当代人也肩负着比后人更大的责任，因为他们要对子孙后代将要经历的生态现实负责。

In short, the Anthropocene narrative contains numerous debates, which also indicates the complexity of the Anthropocene narrative framework. The next section will discuss the Capitalocene theory’s critique of the Anthropocene.

简而言之，人类世叙事中包含了诸多争论，这也表明了人类世叙事框架的复杂性。下一部分将讨论资本世理论对人类世的批判。

III. Capitalocene Theory Critiquing the Hegemony of the Climate Crisis Narrative

三、批判气候危机叙事霸权的资本世理论

Although the existing discussions surrounding the narrative framework of the Anthropocene are rich, many scholars believe that the narrative framework of the Anthropocene is mistaken. The Anthropocene critique encompasses all intellectual positions that oppose the Anthropocene as a stance. While there are various and diverse intellectual viewpoints opposing the Anthropocene, few theoretical perspectives have developed into a theoretical system capable of counterbalancing the hegemonic framework of the Anthropocene. This also convinces the present article: Moore’s theory of the Capitalocene is the only mature theory worthy of in-depth study.

尽管围绕人类世叙事框架的现有讨论很丰富，但许多学者认为人类世叙事框架是错误的。人类世批判派囊括了所有以反对人类世为立场的思想观点。虽然存在着形形色色的反对人类世的思想观点，却很少有理论观点发展成为足以抗衡人类世霸权框架的理论体系。这也使本文确信：摩尔的资本世理论是唯一值得深入研究的成熟理论。

The Capitalocene narrative critiques the narrative framework of the Anthropocene from the following two basic premises: first, the Anthropocene narrative’s reproduction of Cartesian dualism; second, the Anthropocene narrative’s attribution of the cause of the climate crisis to an abstract “humanity as a whole.” The narrative framework of the Capitalocene is built on the following two major premises: first, that humanity and nature share the same planetary matrix; second, that global capitalism, rather than humanity as a whole, is the true cause of climate change. The conclusion derived from these two premises is that the current geological period in which humanity finds itself is not the Anthropocene but the Capitalocene; it is not humanity that has altered the Earth’s climate, but capitalism that is the driving force behind the ecological crisis.

资本世叙事从人类世叙事框架的如下两个基本前提展开批判：一是人类世叙事对笛卡尔主义二元论的再现；二是人类世叙事将气候危机的原因归咎于抽象的全人类。资本世的叙事框架建立在如下两大前提之上：一是人类与自然同处一个地球母体；二是全球资本主义而非全人类才是导致气候变化的真正原因。这两大前提所推导出的结论就是：当前人类所处的地质时期不是人类世而是资本世，不是人类改变了地球气候，资本主义才是导致生态危机的驱动力。

The Capitalocene’s first critique of the Anthropocene aims to deconstruct so-called philosophical dualism or Cartesian dualism, both of which 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 on this implicit consensus: the entire world can be divided into the human world and the natural world. The human world represents reason, reflection, civilization, and progress; the natural world represents the tangible, the inanimate, and the amoral space, with savagery permeating nature. The division between human civilization and savage nature implies that humans, possessing reason, are superior, because humans have the capacity to think about their environment and transform nature through reason, thereby continuously achieving progress. Nature is a passive space, merely a collection of resources available for human appropriation. It is precisely through the constant conquest and appropriation of nature that humanity has successfully carved out a path of development.

资本世对人类世的第一重批判旨在解构所谓的哲学二元论或笛卡尔主义二元论，这两个标签都暗含着同样的假设：启蒙运动将人类与自然相分割，使得人类与自然成为两种截然不同的物质存在。这一假设认为，自近代欧洲启蒙运动以来，人类的科学思想就建立在这一隐含的共识之上：整个世界可分为人类世界和自然界，人类世界代表着理性、反思、文明和进步；而自然界代表着有形的、无生命的和不道德的空间，野蛮充斥在自然界之中。人类文明与野蛮自然之间的分割意味着拥有理性的人类是优越的，因为人类有能力思考他们所处的环境并通过理性来改造自然，从而不断取得进步。自然则是一个被动的空间，它不过是拥有一系列可供人类占有的资源而已。人类正是因为不断地征服和占有自然才成功地开辟出发展之路。

What the Capitalocene critiques is the artificial separation between humanity and nature, because this artificial separation clearly does not conform to the reality that all life on Earth is interconnected. Cartesian dualism, by constructing nature as a cheap and easily manipulated material existence, plausibly transforms nature into a resource solely for human use, thereby legitimizing the capitalist process of appropriating nature. Eco-feminist and decolonial schools have also pointed out, respectively, that this Cartesian dualism places women and colonies on the side of nature, thereby clothing the capitalist exploitation of women and colonies, under the pretext of pursuing growth, in a cloak of legitimacy.

资本世所批判的是人类与自然之间的人为区隔，因为这种人为区隔显然并不符合地球上所有生命都相互关联的现实。笛卡尔主义二元论通过将自然构建为廉价且容易操纵的物质存在，从而将自然看似合理地转化为仅供人类利用的资源，以此使资本主义对自然的占有过程合法化。生态女性主义和去殖民主义学派也分别指出，这种笛卡尔主义二元论还将妇女和殖民地置于自然一边，从而为资本主义借追求增长之名剥削妇女和殖民地披上了合法化的外衣。

The theoretical (and potential practical) consequences of Cartesian dualism stem from both treating nature as a cheap resource that can be freely appropriated and 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 lies in the fact that the exploitation and appropriation of the proletariat’s surplus value still grants the proletariat a minimum subsistence guarantee for social reproduction (except for slaves); however, the exploitation of nature does not take into account the replenishment and renewal of natural resources. This is what Immanuel Wallerstein called “capitalism’s dirty secret”; it refers to the inherent tendency of capitalist accumulation, namely, that capitalism never considers the long-term consequences of depleting the Earth’s resources. Moore points out that this means capitalism’s transformation of nature focuses on immediate interests, ignoring the long-term consequences of producing “negative value.” Capitalism not only destroys the original natural environment but also, through the adverse effects of the climate crisis, continuously creates a natural environment unfavorable to capital accumulation. This self-destructive tendency is what James O’Connor called “the second contradiction of capitalism.” Marx exposed the first contradiction of capitalism, namely, that the exploitation of the proletariat by the bourgeoisie will prompt the proletariat to organize and engage in violent struggle, overthrowing the capitalist system through revolution. At the same time, the exploitation of nature will also ultimately lead to the self-destruction of the capitalist system.

笛卡尔主义二元论的理论（及潜在实践）后果源自于既将自然看作可以随意占用的廉价资源，又将占用自然资源作为促进资本主义积累过程的有效策略。因此，这种二元论是资本主义制度的缘起，服务于从人类劳动中占有剩余价值和对自然的剥削。对剩余价值的剥削与对自然的剥削两者之间的区别在于，对无产阶级剩余价值的剥削和占有尚且还给予无产阶级维持社会再生产的最低生存保障（奴隶除外），然而对自然的剥削却没有考虑到自然资源的补充和更新。这就是伊曼纽尔·沃勒斯坦（Immanuel Wallerstein）所说的“资本主义的肮脏秘密”，它指的是资本主义积累的固有趋势，即资本主义从不考虑耗尽地球资源的长远后果。摩尔指出，这意味着资本主义改造自然的重点在于眼前利益，无视产生“负价值”的长期后果。资本主义不仅破坏了原初的自然环境，还通过气候危机的恶劣影响持续创造着不利于资本积累的自然环境。这种自我毁灭的倾向就是詹姆斯·奥康纳（James O’Connor）所说的“资本主义的第二重矛盾”。马克思揭露了资本主义的第一重矛盾，即资产阶级对无产阶级的剥削会促使无产阶级组织起来并进行暴力斗争，以革命的方式来推翻资本主义制度。与此同时，对自然的剥削也最终会导致资本主义制度的自我毁灭。

The Capitalocene’s second critique of the Anthropocene lies in the fact that the Anthropocene treats all of humanity as an undifferentiated abstract collective, erasing the class character and complexity of humanity. The basis of the Capitalocene’s critique is that, although the peripheral countries of the world ecosystem are more severely affected by the Earth’s ecological crisis, the Earth’s ecological environment is primarily destroyed by the central countries of capitalism, and even within these central capitalist countries, only a minority profits from it. Therefore, the Capitalocene theory holds that there is no abstract humanity; on the contrary, both nature and humanity suffer exploitation by the capitalist system. Furthermore, humanity’s responsibility for the climate crisis is not equal, because only 1% of the world’s population are beneficiaries of the capitalist system. By ignoring vast differences and distinct class character, the Anthropocene overlooks the distinction between the wealthy privileged stratum and the broad masses of ordinary people, treating all of humanity as an undifferentiated abstract totality, reproducing Cartesian dualism, and concealing the truth that the vast majority of humanity and nature are suffering exploitation by capitalism.

资本世对人类世的第二重批判在于：人类世将整个人类视为毫无差别的抽象集体，这抹杀了人类的阶级性和复杂性。资本世的批判依据在于：尽管世界生态系统的边缘国家受到地球生态危机的影响更为严重，然而地球生态环境却主要是被资本主义中心国家破坏的，并且资本主义中心国家中也只有少数人从中获利。因此，资本世理论认为：并不存在抽象的人类，相反，自然和人类都遭受着资本主义制度的剥削。此外，人类对气候危机所担负的责任也并不相等，因为只有1%的世界人口是资本主义制度的受益者。人类世通过无视巨大的差异性和鲜明的阶级性，忽略了富裕的特权阶层与广大的普通民众之间的区别，将整个人类都视为无差别的抽象总体，再现了笛卡尔主义二元论，遮掩了绝大多数人类和自然都正在遭受资本主义剥削的真相。

Although the Capitalocene constitutes the most powerful theoretical framework for understanding the current geological period, it is not the only critical theory. For example, eco-feminism has also formed a powerful theoretical current. Although there is still debate over using “Anthropocene” or “Capitalocene,” this theory insists on using the gendered concept of “Manthropocene,” because eco-feminists believe that this concept helps to show that capitalism’s ecological reproduction depends on the appropriation of nature, while social reproduction depends on patriarchy. Although concepts of this kind are all created to critique the narrative framework of the Anthropocene, they have not yet developed into systematic theories.

尽管资本世构成了理解当前地质时期最有力的理论框架，但它并不是唯一的批判理论。例如，生态女性主义也形成了强大的理论洪流，尽管关于使用“人类世”还是“资本世”尚存争论，但该理论还是坚持使用具有性别化色彩的“男人类世”（Manthropocene）概念，因为生态女性主义者认为，这一概念有助于表明资本主义的生态再生产取决于对自然的占有，而社会再生产则取决于父权制。尽管这类概念都是为批判人类世叙事框架所创造的，然而它们至今都尚未发展成为系统的理论。

Therefore, following the path of reflection opened by Moore, this article attempts to adopt a world-ecology perspective, while simultaneously correcting this research perspective’s cognitive deviation regarding the role played by modern science and technology. By doing so, it seeks to broaden the theoretical horizon of the Capitalocene narrative, tracing the origins of the Capitalocene back to the historical period before the emergence of capitalism—that is, the historical period when human conceptions of nature began to form material forces and ultimately changed the ecological environment.

因此，遵循摩尔开辟的反思路径，本文尝试采用世界生态学视角，同时修正这一研究视角对现代科学技术所发挥作用的认识偏差，通过这种方式来拓宽资本世叙事的理论视野，将资本世的起源置于资本主义产生前的历史时期，即人类自然观念开始形成物质力量并最终改变生态环境的历史时期。

IV. The Relationship between Capitalism and Technology

四、资本主义与技术的关系

The Capitalocene appears to be the most comprehensive and accurate description of the root causes of climate change and the transition of the Earth to a new geological epoch, because the mode of capital accumulation that drives capitalist development has been able to function normally precisely due to the supply of cheap nature, and the generation of cheap nature is in turn attributable to the absolute conception of nature as an external existence independent of humanity, as understood by humans. In the centuries preceding capitalist expansion, the scientific-technological revolution continuously propelled the “practice of external nature.” Moore argues that the revolution in science and technology represents the symbolic moment of the rise of primitive accumulation of capital, as it facilitated the manipulation and appropriation of nature on a larger scale. To successfully appropriate and manipulate nature, it was necessary to regard nature as an entity with no symbiotic relationship with humanity, thereby artificially constructing nature as an existence external to humans. Therefore, the Capitalocene narrative, by interpreting the process through which capitalism constrained the development of science and technology, reveals the entire historical process by which capitalism shaped a “new conception of nature.” The Cartesian dualism of humanity and nature independently demarcated humans and nature respectively, establishing the presupposition of humans as thinking entities and nature as a material entity manipulable by humans, and all capitalist reflection, action, and planning are built upon this presupposition. Moore asserts: Cartesian dualism of humanity and nature is merely an inherent abstract concept produced by the development of capitalism.

资本世似乎是对气候变化之根源和地球向新地质时期过渡的最全面、最准确的描述，因为驱动资本主义发展的资本无限积累模式正是由于廉价自然的供应而得以正常运转，而廉价自然的产生又归结于人类将自然理解为独立于人类的外部存在的绝对观念。在资本主义扩张前的几个世纪里，科学技术革命一直推动着“外部自然的实践”。摩尔认为，科学技术的革命代表着资本原始积累兴起的象征性时刻，因为这有助于操纵和占有更大范围的自然。而要想成功地占有和操纵自然，就必须将自然视为与人类没有共生关系的实体，从而可以人为地将自然构建为外在于人类的存在。因此，资本世叙事通过诠释资本主义制约科学技术发展的历程，揭示了资本主义塑造“新自然观念”的整个历史进程。笛卡尔的人类与自然二元论将人类和自然分别进行了独立划分，建立了人类作为思考实体和自然作为人类可操纵物质实体的前提假设，而所有资本主义的反思、行动和计划都建立在这个假设之上。摩尔断言：笛卡尔的人类与自然二元论只不过是资本主义发展所产生的固有抽象概念。

Francis Bacon’s famous saying “knowledge is power” is widely known, and it also led Descartes to firmly believe that, as long as one understood the forces and functions of all matter, humans could utilize them for the benefit of human society, thereby making humans the masters and proprietors of nature. The research paradigm combining Bacon’s scientific method with mechanical technology not only became the model for modern scientific research but also gave rise to a new research system integrating knowledge with material forces. In this way, technology, when confronting nature as an external entity, acquired the power to overcome, conquer, and shake the foundations of nature. From Bacon’s era onward, scientists have confronted nature in the posture of judges, using the science, technology, and tools at their disposal to interrogate and conquer nature, revealing its hidden secrets so that humans might rule over nature. As Bacon stated, “under the action of art (technology), the secrets of nature are more easily revealed than when following nature,” and these secrets will “enable the human race to recover its right over nature, a right bestowed by divine authority.” This hostile attitude toward nature became solidified as a research method and was institutionalized in Bacon’s scientific utopia, “Solomon’s House.” Bacon’s vision for “Solomon’s House” was to establish laboratories, using natural forces and artificial devices to conduct scientific experiments in order 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 liberal and industrially manipulated nature—an economic world tailored for its diligent capitalist masters. Consequently, science provided a pretext for the imperialist expansion of capitalism.

弗朗西斯·培根的名言“知识就是力量”广为人知，这也使得笛卡尔坚信，只要了解到所有物质的力量和作用，人类就可以利用它们为人类社会谋取利益，从而使人类成为自然的主人和私有者。培根所采用的科学方法与机械技术相结合的研究范式，不仅成为现代科学研究的典范，还催生出知识与物质力量相结合的新研究体系。如此一来，技术在面对作为外部实体的自然时，就具有了战胜自然、征服自然和动摇自然根基的力量。从培根的时代开始，科学家就以法官的姿态面对自然，运用其所掌握的科学、技术和工具来审问和征服自然，揭示自然不为人知的奥秘，以便于人类统治自然。正如培根所言，“在艺术（技术）的作用下，自然的秘密要比顺应自然时更容易揭示出来”，这些秘密将使“人类恢复行使对自然的权利，而这是神灵赋予人类的权利”。这种对自然的敌对态度固化为研究方法，并在培根的科学乌托邦“所罗门宫”中被制度化。培根关于“所罗门宫”的设想是建立实验室，借助自然力和人工装置进行科学实验，以便深入研究自然。自然被设想为一台机器，各个部分不仅可以单独认识，还可以通过科学技术进行适当操纵。科学因此创造出一种自由主义和工业操纵的自然——一个为其勤奋的资本主人量身定制的经济世界。因此，科学为资本主义扩张的帝国主义行径提供了借口。

Today, although both supporters and opponents of the Anthropocene agree that over the past few centuries nature has clearly not fully delivered the beautiful vision promised by science, people still believe that, whether from the hegemonic discourse of the Anthropocene or from the perspective of Marx’s theory of metabolic rift, the ability to transform nature through scientific and technological knowledge remains the sole guarantee for humanity to address the climate crisis. Whether this idea originated in the 17th-century “Solomon’s House” or in the 20th-century US-Soviet rivalry, capitalism is the unavoidable core. Capitalism seems to be the architect of the natural world; nature is an entity to be appropriated by humans, and scientists, through tools, knowledge, and technology, create the power and privilege to dominate nature. Geopolitical conflicts and environmental crises on a global scale have greatly compressed and limited the space for society and individuals to function, making “technological power” the sole guide for understanding geological history. If geoengineering is the only solution to the climate change problem, and if it is even possible to alter human genes through human engineering to adapt to the natural environment, then those who possess such scientific and technological knowledge would hold complete dominion. As Carolyn Merchant argues, Bacon’s utopian dream would thus become reality, because it would enable scientists “not only to appear, but to act like priests, capable of eliminating all human suffering through science.” Therefore, capitalism not only sanctifies the separation between humans and nature through Cartesian dualism but also continuously widens the gap between the highly educated elite and the general populace. In this way, capitalism becomes the originator of the current rule of technological power, ceaselessly pursuing the infinite accumulation of capital, which is precisely why the Capitalocene is also the Technocene.

今天，尽管人类世的支持派和反对派都认同，自然在过去几个世纪中显然没有完全提供科学所许诺的美好愿景。然而，人们仍然相信，不管是从人类世的霸权话语，还是从马克思主义的物质变换理论视角来看，通过科学技术知识改变自然的能力仍然是人类应对气候变化危机的唯一保障。无论这个想法是起源于17世纪的“所罗门宫”，还是源自于20世纪的美苏争霸，资本主义都是绕不开的核心所在。资本主义仿佛是自然世界的建筑师，自然是为了满足人类占有的实体，科学家通过工具、知识和技术创造统治自然的力量和特权。全球范围内存在的地缘冲突和环境危机，大大压缩和限制了社会和个人发挥作用的空间，“技术权力”成为理解地质历史的唯一指南。如果地球工程是解决气候变化问题的唯一方案，甚至还能通过人体工程改变人类基因以适应自然环境，那么拥有这些科学技术知识的人就完全掌握了统治权。正如卡洛琳·麦茜特（Carolyn Merchant）所言，培根的乌托邦主义梦想将会因此变为现实，因为它使得科学家“不仅看起来、而且表现得像牧师，有能力通过科学消除所有人类苦难”。因此，资本主义不仅用笛卡尔主义二元论将人类与自然之间的区隔神圣化，而且还不断拉大高知群体、精英群体与普通大众之间的区隔。这样，资本主义就成为当前技术权力统治的始作俑者，永不停息地进行着资本的无限积累，这也就是资本世之所以是技术世的原因。

The global expansion of capitalism helps explain the complexity of the current climate crisis, and the capitalist system itself, along with the relationship between capitalism and science and technology, can in turn be interpreted as the concretization of this global expansion process, which began as early as the age of Columbus. If we can reverse this judgment and insist that it is not only the mode of infinite accumulation of capital that stimulated the development of techno-science, thereby forming the Capitalocene, but also that the project of domination by science and technology opened up the possibilities for capitalism, then we will better understand why the contemporary human world is governed not solely by the principle of economic rationality. Only through this reversal of perspective can we eliminate the optimistic illusions that harbor the best expectations for the contemporary technological world, and also understand the rise of the “negative value” brought about by technological development. This shift in narrative begins with Moore’s research: the concept of “cheap” nature predates capitalism and Descartes himself. Europeans, even before colonizing and exploiting the American continent, had already regarded nature as a cheap resource to be taken at will, viewing the natural world through a rationalist lens; the world they saw was a terra nullius waiting to be developed by human science and technology. Therefore, in their view, capital accumulation first required the dominance of science and technology, and the success of capital accumulation depended on the mode of domination by science and technology.

资本主义的全球扩张进程有助于解释当前气候危机的复杂性，资本主义制度本身以及资本主义与科学技术的关系，反过来又可以被解释为资本主义全球扩张进程的具象化，这一扩张进程早在哥伦布时代就已开始。如果我们能够颠倒这一判断，坚持认为不只是无限积累的资本主义模式刺激了技术科学的发展，从而形成了资本世，科学技术的统治计划也开拓了资本主义的可能性，那么我们将能更好地理解为什么当下人类世界不仅仅只受经济理性原则的支配。只有通过这种视角的逆转，才能消除对当代技术世界抱有最优期待的乐观主义幻想，也才能理解技术发展所带来的“负价值”的兴起。这种叙事方式的转变始于摩尔的研究：“廉价”自然的观念先于资本主义以及笛卡尔本人。欧洲人早在殖民和开发美洲大陆之前，就已将自然视为人类可以予取予求的廉价资源，以理性主义眼光来考量自然世界，他们眼里的世界是一片等待人类利用科学技术开发的无主之地。因此，在他们看来，资本积累首先需要科学技术的主导，资本积累的成功与否取决于科学技术的统治方式。

V. The Capitalocene as the Occidentalocene

五、作为西方世的资本世

Bacon asserted that the development of modern science would unite human knowledge and power. Historical evolution has manifested this power in various ways, with imperialism being a typical example. The use of technology to achieve overall domination, from the natural environment to human society, is the result of the dominance of Western thought and culture, a worldview formed at the very birth of Western culture. As Moore argues: ideas are extremely important in the history of capitalist development; only by focusing on the dominant Western thought and culture can we truly understand how humanity entered the door of a new climatic era. Therefore, we must recognize that capitalism also depends on the shaping of human conceptions of nature, and on the cultural-ideological visions projected into human society. Just as humans precede the things they create, humans must also pre-imagine the objects they wish to create before creating them. Marx points out:

培根断言，现代科学的发展将会使人类的知识与力量合二为一。历史的演变则以不同的方式体现出这种力量，帝国主义就是典型代表。利用技术实现对从自然环境到人类社会的整体统治是西方思想文化主导的结果，这是在西方文化诞生之初就已形成的世界观。正如摩尔所言：思想在资本主义发展历史中无比重要，只有关注西方主导性的思想文化，我们才能真正理解人类是如何迈入新气候时代大门的。因此，我们必须认识到资本主义也依赖于人类自然观念的塑造，依赖于投射到人类社会中的文化意识形态愿景。正如人类先于他所创造的事物一样，人类在创造事物之前也必须预先想象出他想要创造的对象。马克思指出：

A spider conducts operations that resemble those of a weaver, and 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.

蜜蜂建筑蜂房的本领使人间的许多建筑师感到惭愧。但是,最蹩脚的建筑师从一开始就比最灵巧的蜜蜂高明的地方，是他在用蜂蜡建筑蜂房以前,已经在自己的头脑中把它建成了。

Therefore, capitalism is the concretization of the Western conception of nature through scientific and technological means; Cartesian dualism is merely a modern version of the original Western conception of nature. This means that, although we are currently in the Capitalocene, the Capitalocene is in fact a product of Western cultural hegemony—that is, what we truly inhabit is the Occidentalocene.

因此，资本主义是西方自然观念通过科学技术手段实现的具象化，笛卡尔主义二元论只是西方原初自然观念的现代翻版。这就意味着，虽然我们当下处于资本世，但资本世实际上是西方文化霸权的产物，也就是说，我们真正所处的是西方世。

Pierre Hadot argues that the metaphor of “the secrets of nature,” which Bacon used to elucidate the practice of scientific method, had already appeared in ancient Greece, roughly a millennium before Bacon’s *Novum Organum* in the 17th century. This metaphor has dominated humanity’s study of nature, physics, and natural science for nearly two thousand years. It originates first from Heraclitus’s famous saying: “Nature loves to hide herself.” This statement clarifies the way the West at that time viewed and thought about nature, and also implies a turning point in the Western world’s conception of nature: a shift from regarding nature as the process of existence of organic life toward a worldview that attempts to “disenchant” and reify nature. In fact, the ancient pre-Socratic concept of “nature” (*physis*) referred to natural processes—that is, the processes of the web of life formed by the interdependence of the earth’s plants and animals, which arise and develop independently of human intervention. This is the meaning contained in the Latin root of nature, *nasci*: that which is born and appears spontaneously, without any human interference. Under the philosophical influence of Plato and Aristotle, the concept of nature developed from natural processes to an anthropomorphized entity. For the Greek philosophers, the core of all natural things was no longer merely the manifestation of their essence of existence through life, but rather depended on the rational essence that prescribes how they themselves exist. Precisely because of this, humanity ultimately had to explain the operation of natural processes by replicating the operation of human rational thought. For Plato and Aristotle, the development of nature was far from a blind and spontaneous process; rather, it was a process in which reason and technology operated in a manner full of Greek wisdom. Thus, another Western preconception about nature was also established: Aristotle’s idea of “natural law,” namely that nature does nothing in vain, but acts like a clever craftsman and operates in a rational manner. As Plato states in the *Timaeus*, the cosmos “came into being, created according to reason and intelligence, and is unchangeable.” [4]4 Plato, *Timaeus*, 29a. [Translator’s note: The original Chinese text cites this passage; the English rendering follows standard translations of Plato.] This passage reveals the main influence of Western Prometheanism—the world is depicted as an object assembled from parts by imitating a mechanical model according to mathematical principles and strict geometric proportions, leading the entire world to be imagined as a precisely complex operating machine. Merchant [5]5 Carolyn Merchant, *The Death of Nature: Women, Ecology, and the Scientific Revolution* (San Francisco: Harper & Row, 1980). considers this a mechanistic view of nature, which was neither imposed on human society from the outside nor emerged only in the early modern capitalist period, but was a millennium-long project continuously fermenting since ancient Greece, only reaching maturity in the 16th century.

皮埃尔·阿多（Pierre Hadot）认为，培根用以阐明科学方法实践的“自然的秘密”的隐喻早在古希腊时代就已出现，大约比17世纪培根的“新工具论”早了一千年，这个隐喻主导了人类近两千年来对自然、物理学和自然科学的研究。这个隐喻首先源于赫拉克利特的名言：“自然喜欢隐藏自己。”这句话阐明了当时西方看待自然和思考自然的方式，也暗示着西方世界自然观念的转折，即从将自然作为有机生命的存在过程逐渐转变为企图将自然“去魅”和物化的世界观。事实上，古代前苏格拉底时期的“自然”概念意指自然过程，也就是说，地球动植物相互依存所形成的生命之网的过程都是脱离于人类干预而独自产生和发展的。这就是自然的拉丁语词根“nasci”所包含的涵义，它指自然而然产生和出现的事件，没有任何人为的干预。在柏拉图和亚里士多德的哲学影响下，自然概念从自然的过程发展到拟人化的存在。对于希腊哲学家来说，自然万物的核心不再是仅以生命彰显它自身的存在本质，而是取决于规定它自身如何存在的理性本质。正因为如此，人类最终要通过复制人的理性思维的运作来解释自然的运行过程。对于柏拉图和亚里士多德来说，自然的发展远非一个盲目和自发的过程，而是理性和技术以充满着希腊智慧的方式来运转的过程。因此，西方关于自然的又一个先入之见也就此成立，那就是亚里士多德的“自然法”思想，即自然不会徒劳地做任何事情，而是像聪明的工匠一样行事，并以理性的方式运行。正如柏拉图在《对话录·蒂迈欧篇》中所认为的，宇宙“是这样诞生的，是依据理性和智慧而创造出来的，并且是固定不变的”。这段文字揭示了西方普罗米修斯主义的主要影响——世界被描绘成一个依据数学原理、在严格的几何比例下、通过模仿机械模型而将各个部件组装而成的物体，这就导致整个世界被想象成一台精密复杂的运转机器。麦茜特认为这是一种机械主义自然观，它既不是从外部被强加于人类社会的，也不是在近代早期资本主义时期才出现的，而是一项从古希腊就开始不断发酵的千年工程，直到16世纪才最终成熟。

Therefore, nature from the outset lost its vitality, no longer appearing as a spontaneously occurring process, but rather concretized as an incarnation of Greek rationalism. Just as with Bacon’s method, there is an indissoluble link between mechanical technology and theoretical knowledge, so 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 nature defeats.” Antiphon also anticipated Descartes by several centuries in proposing an inevitable, war-like separation between humanity and the natural environment. Regarding mechanics, the creativity of the Greeks was from the outset placed on mastering the diversity of nature. As Hadot explains:

因此，自然从一开始就失去了活力，不再以自然而然发生的过程出现，而是具象化为希腊理性主义的化身。就像培根的方法一样，机械技术与理论知识之间有着牢不可破的联系，所以理论知识与机械技术之间的联系不是现代科学的特权，而是希腊文化的特权。早在培根认可技术的支配性潜能之前，公元前5世纪的哲学家安提丰就断言：“通过技术，我们掌握了被自然击败的东西。”安提丰还早于笛卡尔几个世纪提出，人类与自然环境之间存在着不可避免的、战争般的分离。对于力学，希腊人的创造力从一开始就放在掌握自然的多样性方面。正如阿多解释的那样：

Among the Greeks, mechanics first appeared as a technique for exercising cunning tricks against nature, forcing nature through actions contrary to its own to do what it could not do by itself, all thanks to tools made by humans.

在希腊人中，力学首先是作为一种对自然行使诡计花招的技术出现的，通过违背自然的行动来迫使自然做它自己无法做到的事情，这都要归功于人类制造的工具。

These cunning tricks against the forces of nature are the very life of machines. Therefore, it is no accident that the Greek word for cleverness, wonder, and efficiency is *mechané*. Through the substantive emphasis of the Platonic and Aristotelian schools on ancient Greek mathematical and geometric theoretical knowledge, and the connection between this knowledge and modern industrial machines, it can be seen: Greek culture is the true source of capitalism’s attempt to realize the comprehensive technologization of the world. Solomon’s House [6]6 Solomon’s House: A fictional research institute described in Francis Bacon’s utopian novel *New Atlantis* (1627), representing the ideal organization of scientific inquiry and technological mastery over nature. is merely a particular conception of the Greek knowledge management and production project represented by the Library of Alexandria. The Library of Alexandria was a project established by the Ptolemaic dynasty to commemorate Aristotle’s royal disciple, Alexander the Great. As the neural center of scientific and technological knowledge in the ancient world, Greece gave birth to scientists like Aristarchus and Archimedes, whose pioneering work inspired Copernicus and Galileo. Ultimately, Greek mechanics marks the birth of technology. The Greek technicist vision and the concept of the externalization of nature were already so evident in the time of Socrates that philosophers could intuitively recognize the possibility of geoengineering opened up by this worldview.

这些对抗自然之力的诡计花招，就是机器的生命所在。因此，希腊语中用来形容聪明、惊奇和效率的词就是“机械”（mechané），这绝非偶然。透过柏拉图学派和亚里士多德学派对古希腊数学和几何理论知识的实质性重视，以及这些知识与现代工业机器之间的联系，可以看出：希腊文化才是资本主义企图实现世界全面技术化设想的真正来源，所罗门宫只不过是亚历山大图书馆所代表的希腊知识管理和生产计划的特别设想。亚历山大图书馆是由托勒密王朝建立以纪念亚里士多德的皇家弟子亚历山大大帝的项目。作为古代世界科学技术知识的神经中枢，希腊诞生了像阿里斯塔克斯和阿基米德这样的科学家，这些先驱启示了哥白尼和伽利略。最终，希腊力学标志着技术的诞生。希腊人的技术主义愿景以及自然的外化理念早在苏格拉底时代就已经如此明显，以至于哲学家可以凭直觉认识到这种世界观所开辟的实现地球工程的可能性。

Contemporary climate engineering may originate neither from Bacon’s techno-utopian vision nor as a product of the arms race during the Cold War between the US and the Soviet Union, but may come from Socratic philosophical inquiry. Xenophon, in his *Memorabilia*, pointed out that Socrates, as early as 2,500 years ago, pondered “those who study divine things, once they know the necessary laws by which all things arise, hope to apply these laws to wind, water, seasons, and anything else they need.” Technology not only became the fulcrum of the dream of ruling everything with the power endowed by knowledge of divine things and the secrets of nature, but also permanently changed human society and the earth’s morphology at a geological level. If the natural concepts and technological visions of these Greek philosophers were thoroughly forged into Western religious dogma, this could not only give birth to Christianity—the second cradle of Western thought—but could ultimately justify the globalization of capitalism.

当代气候工程可能既不是源自于培根的技术乌托邦愿景，也不是诞生在美苏冷战时期军备竞赛的产物，而是可能来自于苏格拉底的哲学探究。色诺芬在其著作《回忆苏格拉底》中曾指出，苏格拉底早在两千五百年前就思索“那些研究神圣事物的人，一旦知道了万物产生的必然规律，就希望能够在风、水、四季和任何他们需要的东西上应用这些规律”。技术不仅成为用神圣事物的知识和自然的秘密所赋予的力量来统治一切的梦想的支点，还在地质层面上永久改变了人类社会和地球形态。如果将这些希腊哲学家的自然理念和技术愿景彻底打造成西方的宗教信条，那就不仅可以催生出基督教——西方的第二个思想摇篮，还可以最终论证出资本主义全球化的合理性。

If it is logical to deduce modern science from Greek science, then, as Lynn White Jr. said, “modern science is a deduction from natural theology,” and modern technology is to some extent “the realization of the Western voluntarist Christian doctrine of human transcendence over nature and dominion over it.” [7]7 Lynn White Jr., “The Historical Roots of Our Ecologic Crisis,” *Science* 155, no. 3767 (1967): 1203–1207. The Christian doctrine of “fill the earth and subdue it” can only be truly realized through the Greek technicist vision. This deduction interprets Bacon’s scientific fantasy: humanity should restore the right to conquer nature given by God. Once humanity places itself at the core of all things created by God and sets itself as the highest goal, then all things in heaven and earth are at humanity’s disposal. At this point, nature transforms from a purely external existence into private property manipulable by technology, and becomes private property exploitable by capitalism. The Christian anthropocentric cosmology, combined with the ancient Greek scientific-technological concept of conquering nature, constitutes the foundational 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 ecosystem, but the current transformation of the earth into a new geological epoch represents the culmination of the evolution of Western history since its birth. Hence, it can be asserted: the Capitalocene is the Occidentalocene.

如果从希腊科学推断出现代科学是合乎逻辑的，那么就如同林恩·怀特（Lynn White Jr.）所说，“现代科学是自然神学的推断”，现代技术一定程度上就是“西方唯意志主义对人类超越自然和掌控自然的基督教教义的实现”。“遍满地面，治理这地”的基督教教义只能通过希腊的技术主义愿景才能真正实现。这一推断诠释了培根的科学幻想：人类应该恢复上帝所给予的征服自然的权利。一旦人类将自己置于上帝所创造出来的天地万物的核心位置，并把自身设定为最高目标，那么天地万物都将任由人类摆布。此时，自然就从纯粹的外部性存在转变为可被技术操纵的私有财产，并成为可被资本主义剥削的私有财产。基督教的人类中心主义宇宙观与古希腊科学技术征服自然的理念相结合，构成了资本积累的基础支柱。因此，人类气候变化的历史，不仅是作为世界生态系统的资本主义形成发展的历史，而且当前地球向新地质时期的转变更是代表着西方历史自诞生以来发展演化的顶峰。因此，可以断言：资本世就是西方世。

VI. Conclusion

六、结论

This article reflects on the ontological problems inherent in the anthropocentric framework and points out that the Capitalocene narrative is more suitable for understanding the climate crisis. In this way, responsibility for climate change should not be attributed to abstract humanity as a whole, but to the capitalist system as a world ecosystem, because its appropriation of humans and nature is the root cause of the global climate crisis.

本文反思了人类中心主义框架存在的本体论问题，指出资本世叙事更适于理解气候危机。这样一来，应该为气候变化负责的就不是抽象的全体人类，而是作为世界生态系统的资本主义制度，因为它对人类和自然的占有是引发地球气候危机的根源。

Cartesian dualism artificially separates humanity from nature, thereby subjecting nature to human domination and manipulation. The narrative framework of the Capitalocene means breaking with Western Cartesian dualism and raising the question of the true root and internal dynamic of the current climate crisis. However, if the beginning of the Capitalocene is set in the 16th century, during the period of primitive capitalism, this actually obscures the importance of the Greek techno-rationalist worldview and Christianity in explaining the rise of capitalism and its global expansion. For capitalism and its globalization began at that historical moment when nature was regarded by humans as an external world, and consequently as private property that could be manipulated and possessed by humans. Therefore, rather than saying the West is capitalist, it is more accurate to say capitalism is Western. Since capitalism is Eurocentric, the Capitalocene is naturally the Westocene.

笛卡尔主义二元论人为地区隔了人类与自然，进而让自然受到人类的支配和操纵。资本世叙事框架意味着打破西方笛卡尔主义二元论，提出关于当前气候危机的真正根源和内在动力问题。不过，如果将资本世的开始时间确定在16世纪原始资本主义时期，实际上掩盖了希腊技术理性主义世界观及基督教对于解释资本主义兴起和全球化扩张的重要性。因为资本主义及其全球化始于这一历史时刻：自然被人类视为外在世界，进而被视为可以由人类操纵占有的私有财产。因此，与其说西方是资本主义的，不如说资本主义是西方的，既然资本主义是西方中心主义的，那么资本世自然就是西方世。

The globalization of capitalism as a historical event has brought about the far-reaching historical consequence of a world civilizational crisis, triggered by Western culture’s relentless conquest of nature and its eradication of global cultural diversity. The West means more than just a geographical region of the world; it is thought and culture that are the true reason why the West is what it is. The notion of external nature as human private property, the technological rationality that transforms nature, and the scientific thought that conquers nature are the true foundations upon which the West is established. Globalization has only continuously reinforced Western thought scattered across every corner of the globe. These ideas were neither generated by capitalism nor invented by Descartes; on the contrary, capitalism is precisely built on the foundation of Western thought and culture. In short, capitalism is neither “scientized” nor “technologized”; it is “Westernized.” It is only over time that Western science and technology have been 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.

作为历史事件的资本主义全球化带来了西方文化不断征服自然和消灭世界文化多样性所引发的世界文明危机这一深远的历史后果。西方不仅仅意味着一个世界地理区域，思想文化才是西方之所以成为西方的真正原因。被视为人类私有财产的外在自然理念、改造自然的技术理性和征服自然的科学思想是西方得以确立的真正根基，全球化只是不断强化了散布于全球各个角落的西方思想而已。这些思想既不是由资本主义生成的，也不是由笛卡尔发明的，恰恰相反，资本主义正是建立在西方思想文化的基础之上的。简而言之，资本主义既不是“科学化的”，也不是“技术化的”，而是“西方化的”。只是随着时间的推移，西方的科学技术被资本化了而已，就像在第三帝国时期它们被纳粹化了一样。因此，资本主义作为一种世界生态，是西方文明长期孕育的思想所产生的结果。这就是资本世之所以是西方世的原因。

(About the authors: Álvaro San Román: Department of Philosophy, National University of Distance Education, Spain; Yoan Molinero-Gerbeau: Institute of Migration, Comillas Pontifical University, Spain; Xiao Yufei: Institute of Marxism, Fudan University)

（作者简介：阿尔瓦罗·圣罗曼（lvaro San Román）：西班牙国立远程教育大学哲学系；约安·莫利内罗-热博（Yoan Molinero-Gerbeau）：西班牙卡米亚斯大学移民研究所；肖玉飞：复旦大学马克思主义研究院）

Online editor: Tongxin

网络编辑：同心