Anthropocosmism: an Eastern humanist approach to the Anthropocene

Abstract This paper addresses the discussion on the Anthropocene in environmental education research. It aims to enrich and widen the debate about the appropriateness of humanist approaches to environmental education and sustainability. In response to criticism about anthropocentric responses to human-made environmental destruction, the authors introduce a version of Eastern humanism: Tu Weiming’s ‘Anthropocosmism’. This idea of a non-anthropocentric humanism embedded in the cosmic order is strikingly different from the anthropocentric separatism typical of Western humanism. Moving beyond a blanket condemnation of humanism, this paper explores what a specific, non-Western form of humanism may have to offer in response to anthropogenic ecological crises. The argument is developed that Anthropocosmism can help us fully recognize humans’ exceptional ethical responsibility in light of these crises without falling into the mistake of Western humanism’s dominant discourse that connects this exceptionalism to forms of human superiority over and domination of other-than-human nature.


Introduction
This paper addresses the discussion on the Anthropocene in environmental education research.Criticism has been raised about humanist approaches to environmental education and sustainability by authors who question the appropriateness of what they consider to be an anthropocentric response to human-made environmental destruction (Kopnina 2012;Taylor 2017;Mannion 2020;Bonnett 2023).The goal of our paper is to enrich and widen this debate by introducing a version of Eastern humanism into the conversation: Tu Weiming's (2010) 'Anthropocosmism' , an expression of New Confucian humanism wherein 'the human is embedded in the cosmic order, rather than an anthropocentric worldview, in which the human is alienated, either by choice or by default, from the natural world' (244).The idea of a non-anthropocentric humanism embedded in the cosmic order is strikingly different from the anthropocentric separatism typical of Western humanism.
We will introduce Anthropocosmism by positioning it in current debates regarding how to best respond to the Anthropocene.By doing so, we respond to Affifi's (2020) invitation to move beyond 'blanket condemnations and recommendations ' (1435).Like Affifi, we focus on the ambivalence of anthropocentrism and pursue a both/and instead of an either/or approach to the topic.We aim to move beyond a blanket condemnation of humanism by exploring what a specific, non-Western form of humanism may have to offer in response to anthropogenic ecological crises.As we will explain, this version of Eastern humanism can help us to fully recognize humans' exceptional ethical responsibility in light of these crises without falling into the mistake of Western humanism's dominant discourse that connects this exceptionalism to forms of human superiority over and domination of other-than-human nature.
Although influenced by Western humanism, anthropocosmic humanism is distinct from it in many ways, including the rejection of anthropocentrism.It acknowledges an intimate relationship not only with other species but with the entire planetary environment and the greater cosmos.Nonetheless, Anthropocosmism recognizes a sense of human exceptionalism and centeredness without the Western sense of detachment from or domination of nature.
Responses to the Anthropocene have largely assumed an exclusive either/or logic: either one accepts humanism, or one rejects it.Anthropocosmism opens up a more inclusive both/and sensibility that preserves the best of humanism by both acknowledging that there is something exceptional about human beings, including their technosciences, and rejecting anthropocentrism.
We begin by presenting the basics of Anthropocosmism as an Eastern humanism distinct from Western humanism even though it is influenced by Western modernity.The next section examines the very idea of the Anthropocene before discussing it from a Western humanist perspective.We will also begin developing a paradox or dilemma for those who accept the idea of the Anthropocene while also rejecting anthropocentrism.
The third section introduces the paradox or dilemma of the Anthropocene as portrayed by Taylor (2017).We pick Taylor for three reasons.First, we think she somewhat mislocates the paradox.We will restate this paradox and begin showing ways non-anthropocentric New Confucian humanism goes between the horns of the dilemma.Second, her non-anthropocentric 'more-than-human agency' resembles Anthropocosmism.Third, Taylor mentions posthumanism and discusses Haraway, among others, which provides us a segue into a more extended discussion of Haraway. Haraway (2016) often uses the phrase 'human and other-than-human beings' (20, 151, 167, and elsewhere).Human, more-than-human, and other-than-human responses are all proximate to Anthropocosmism.Although they are anti-humanists, Taylor and Haraway allow us to position Anthropocosmism close to them in the Anthropocene conversation while preserving a modest, responsible, and chastened sense of humanism.We conclude by reviewing some of the traits of Anthropocosmism that offer unique responses to both the paradox of the Anthropocene and its implications for environmental, climatic, and sustainability education.

Anthropocosmism: New Confucian humanism
Tu is perhaps the most influential New Confucian of his generation.New Confucianism started in the 1920s as Chinese culture was absorbing Western learning.In Tu and Ikeda (2011), he explains: Confucian humanism, through internal critique, became thoroughly Westernized and modernized ….Systematic attempts were made to incorporate Enlightenment values -such as liberty, equality, human rights, science, and democracy -into Confucian humanism.At the same time, by adapting to seemingly alien ideas, the Confucian tradition went through this unprecedented process of self-reflection and self-examination.This critical self-consciousness enabled the tradition to undergo a profound creative transformation unprecedented in Chinese history and rare among the major civilizations of the world.(83-84) The West colonized China economically and, somewhat, intellectually.Colonialism is a reciprocally transformative encounter with 'the other' .While, initially, the colonized have been the most, often violently, transformed by the transaction, we want to turn our gaze to a potential transformative effect of post-colonialism on the former colonizers.Having done much hard work, New Confucian humanism may provide the West a form of humanism fit for the Anthropocene by introducing a sense of humility regarding the extent to which salvation from the sustainability crises can be expected from the anthropocentrism of modern Western humanism.
Anthropocosmism approaches Humanity as entirely integrated into a dynamic cosmic order instead of alienated from the natural world.Tu (2001) observes that New Confucian thinkers in Mainland China, Hong Kong, and Taiwan have 'concluded that the most significant contribution the Confucian tradition can offer the global community is the idea of the 'unity of Heaven and Humanity' (tianrenheyi), a unity that Confucians believe also embraces Earth' (243). 1 One must not understand 'Heaven' as a place apart from nature as it is conceived in the Abrahamic monotheistic tradition.Rather, the 'transcendence of Heaven is immanent in the communal and critical self-consciousness of human beings as a whole' (244).The plentitude of continuously co-evolving human and other-than-human beings demonstrates the existence of a greater generative force.Heaven is the conceptualization of that force.It is 'the generative force that has created all modalities of being' (2010,7306).It is in and through Heaven that the cosmos evolves and, therefore, the cosmos 'is never a static structure but rather is a dynamic process.In its constant unfolding, it always generates new realities by creatively transforming the existing order' (7307).Transcendence is always in earthly immanence.
Thus, the generative force for Confucians is neither supernatural nor something entirely manageable by humans alone as it would be in anthropocentric Western humanism.Instead, Heaven, Humanity, and Earth exist in codependent unity. 2 Humans do not originate the generative force; they are part of it along with all other modalities of being.The generative unity of Heaven and Humanity recognizes Earth will forever continue to evolve a plentitude of modalities without a creator God.Heaven's generative creativity is the day-to-day cocreativity of the myriad modalities.Tu (2010) indicates there 'is nothing in the world that is not a demonstration of Heaven's creativity.Human beings, other animals, grass, and plants are obvious examples.Even rocks and soil are no exception.All modalities of being are interconnected in this ceaseless evolution' (7305).Human beings live in a vast, transactionally interdependent world.In such a world, creation is continuous, with all modalities making their contribution.Every particular way something exists is experienced or expressed-is a continuously evolving result of the ongoing cocreativity of human and other-than-human beings.Just think of the modalities involved in the carbon cycle.Tu (2018) declares, 'Heaven is creativity in itself, but the advent of the human has made a difference.The human as a cocreator imitates but also participates in Heaven's creativity' ( 14).The generative force of Heaven is vigorous and metamorphic.It is only by participating as a cocreator amongst the myriad modalities that one becomes human.Therefore, 'Learning to be human in the cosmic sense is to learn to emulate Heaven's creativity, which is open, dynamic, transformative, and unceasing' (14).Human creativity is part of cosmic creativity.Humanity's cocreative activity with the other modalities of being is the anthropocosmic unity of Heaven and Humanity with the Earth.Tu (2001) observes that 'this New Confucian idea of cosmic unity marks an ecological turn of profound importance for China and the world' (244).According to Tu, 'The human in this worldview is an active participant in the cosmic process with the responsibility of care for the environment' (249).Anthropocosmism is participatory; it approaches human nature as integrated into the rest of nature and obviates ecological codependences while eviscerating excessively anthropocentric worldviews.
Humanity achieves transcendence in immanence by recognizing its interconnectedness with the generative, life-giving creative force of Heaven and Earth.Tu (2001) argues, 'We do not become 'spiritual' by departing from or transcending above our earth, body, family, and community, but by working through them' (245).Socially, politically, and economically, this work is ecological; one could speak of an ecological spirituality.Tu believes such a stance has 'profound implications for the sustainable future of the global community' (261).It is also personal: 'This holistic vision of a peaceful world rests on a carefully integrated program of personal self-cultivation, harmonized family life, and well-ordered states.At the heart of this vision is a sense that 'home ' [oikos] implies not only the human community, but also the natural world and the larger cosmos' (248).As such, Anthropocosmism also has implications for environment, climate, and ecology education and sustainability.
Confucian humanism envisions the self as a unique center of action in a way that is paradoxical to Western humanism: The paradox we face here is the reconciliation of sociality (human relations) and individuality (inner self ) in Confucian humanism.My preliminary attempt to deal with this predicament is to envision the self as a center of relationships ….As a center, the self is unique and irreducible to its sociality, no matter how broadly it is encompassed, and as relationships, the self must be located in a network of social roles and it can never be hermetically sealed from the world.(Tu, 2008, 6) 3   Here Tu considers human relations, but later in the same paper he affirms 'the continuity of being' wherein 'the human is connected with all modalities of being: minerals, plants, and animals' (12).The individual in Confucian humanism is a relational center, not a detached atomistic center somehow alienated from nature.
The Confucian self is integrated into nature and codependent upon others.unlike Western humanism, for anthropocosmic humanism, 'It seems counterintuitive that we must choose between 'center' and 'relations.'Our everyday experience tells us that far from being a private matter, our self-awareness is the result of constant interaction with the other.The existence of the other is necessary and desirable for our self-awareness' (6).Confucian self-cultivation and self-awareness requires otherness and difference.
We learn our place in the cosmos, we learn to be human, by recognizing and cultivating our relations with other modalities of being.Tu (2010) states, '[S]elf-cultivation, a form of spiritual exercise, emulates Heaven's creativity ….Heaven's creativity that is embodied in the human as well as Heaven's creativity in itself is open, dynamic, transformative, and unceasing' (7307).Self-cultivation secures personal growth by allowing us to become ever-more-expansive cocreators with other modalities of being.
Learning to be human is nonteleological: 'The Confucian emphasis on learning to be human is a dynamic, integrated, and open process' (Tu and Ikeda 2011, 55).Learning our place in the cosmos does not mean discovering a predetermined, fixed, and final place.Tu (1984) declares: The Confucian belief in the perfectibility of human nature is predicated on the assumption that learning to be human involves a lifelong commitment to and a continuous process of self-education.Indeed, it is not the idealized state of being perfect but the result of concrete steps by which one becomes constantly renewed and invigorated toward a higher horizon of perfection that motivates the Confucian to forge ahead in the task of self-realization.(379) However, such self-realization is relational, not self-centered: Implicit in this anthropocosmic outlook is the sensitivity of the human mind-and-heart (hsinw) to relate empathetically to all modalities of being in the universe.Self-cultivation, in this connection, involves a conscientious attempt to open oneself up to the universe as a whole by extending one's horizon of feeling as well as knowing.(285) Self-transcendence requires cocreating relationships with others that draw us out of ourselves.
Tu mentions that the great Confucian 'Mencius proposes that we locate the source of our self-transcendence in sensitivity and feeling' (382).Transcendence in immanence is more affective than cognitive.We become human by being sensitive, responsive, and responsible due to our feelings of sympathy for other humans: By analogy, we become members of the animal kingdom because of our 'inability to bear the pitiful cries and frightened appearance of birds and animals about to be slaughtered' , we become part of the rest of the animate world because of a feeling of pity for the destruction of forest vegetation; and we become organismically harmonized with the whole logical system because of a feeling of regret when we see 'tiles and shattered and crushed. (386) 4 As participants in the affairs of Heaven and Earth, humans (the modality of being calling themselves Homo sapiens) creatively transform-and are simultaneously and reciprocally creatively transformed by-the other modalities.It is a dynamic, generative process through which Heaven (Cosmos), Humanity (Anthropos), and Earth (Gaia) cocreatively coevolve in continuous transcendence.unlike the Western self, the Confucian self is never fixed or final.
Humans are connected to all modalities of being, 'including minerals, plants, and animals ….But the uniqueness of being human is qualitatively different from all other modalities of being' (Tu, 2008, 12).Most prominently, human beings have exceptional ethical capacities.Although they have inorganic and organic aspects that render them continuous with other modes of being, humans also have 'civility (a sense of appropriateness)' ( 10), a normative 'sense of rightness' (12), and most importantly an exceptional 'responsibility in the maintenance of universal order' (15).If properly cultivated, 'these innate capacities will enlarge the heart/mind in the body to incorporate all forms of otherness into its sensitivity' (10).Sensitivity and feeling are more significant to an ethical life than abstract, and culturally variant, cognitive principles and norms, yet the latter are substantial.For humans, 'caring for the other is essential for our existence' (4).Because of human continuity with other modalities of being and the necessity of these other modalities to our expansive growth, it is 'unlikely that reductionist definitions, such as the human being as a rational animal, tool user, or endowed with linguistic ability, will capture the full measure of the way of being human' (13).Further, this exceptional ethical capacity 'must be conceived in cosmological as well anthropological terms.The full manifestation of humanity must transcend anthropocentrism' (13).It emerges in the entanglement with other modalities of being.Above all, one becomes increasingly human by cultivating rich ethical relationships with all other modalities.
Humans appear unique in controlling group behavior using abstract, statable ethical norms of action; however, their primary relation to other modalities of being is affective. 5This exceptional ethical capacity places upon human beings exceptional moral obligations and duties to other organic and inorganic beings within the cosmic framework.These other modalities may draw out human beings toward an as yet unachieved more abundant Humanity.Anthropocosmism offers a vision where Humanity's cognitive and cocreative powers are subordinate to an exceptional moral responsibility within the web of cosmos.
Finally, 'The 'anthropocosmic' idea' , Tu further elaborates, 'is predicated on a holistic and integrated humanism, substantially different from secular humanism' (13).While not anthropocentric, there is a dynamic, ever-changing center to unique individual human beings: 'Self as a center of relationships establishes its identity by interacting with community variously understood, from the family to the global village and beyond ' (2001, 253).As a moving, ever-transforming center of relations, Humanity must cooperate creatively with all other modalities of being that continuously constitute and sustain its being and, transactionally, whose being Humanity is responsible to continuously constitute and sustain.Of course, the other modalities are also centers with their own unique creative capacities.Hence, all creation is ultimately cocreation.

The Anthropocene and modern Western humanism
The paper establishing the term 'Anthropocene' is Crutzen and Stoermer (2000): Considering these and many other major and still growing impacts of human activities on earth and atmosphere, and at all, including global, scales, it seems to us more than appropriate to emphasize the central role of mankind in geology and ecology by proposing to use the term 'Anthropocene' for the current geological epoch.The impacts of current human activities will continue over long periods.( 17) Although we believe this claim is correct, it is worth mentioning that as of this writing neither the International union of Geological Sciences (IuGS) nor the International Commission on Stratigraphy (ICS) has recognized the term.
The word 'Anthropocene' was not inserted into the Oxford English Dictionary (OED) until 2014, where it was defined as: 'Relating to or denoting the current geological age, viewed as the period during which human activity has been the dominant influence on climate and the environment' .Here is the 2023 definition: 'The epoch of geological time during which human activity is considered to be the dominant influence on the environment, climate, and ecology of the earth, a formal chrono-stratigraphic unit with a base which has been tentatively defined as the mid-twentieth century' .The word is now officially in our lexicon and part of scientific, popular, and educational debate.
To accept the hypothesis of the Anthropocene-either its original formulation in 2000, its initial OED definition in 2014, or its current OED definition-is to accept 'the central role' of 'human activity' as having the exceptional capacity to dramatically impact the geological and environment existence (op.cit.).This statement does not imply that further affirming human activity is necessarily the best ethical response to the Anthropocene.Our both/and stance is that sometimes humans should actively intervene and emerge as centers and at other times they should not.It all depends on the specific situation.
Humanism has a 2,500-year history in the West.In sustainability and environmentalism, the term is usually associated with modern humanism.Enlightenment humanism typically assumes human nature and Humanity have eternal and immutable metaphysical essences.'Rationality' is an especially popular candidate, which accounts for the widely held assumption that 'rationality' is the goal of human development (e.g.Piaget) and is, therefore, the aim of education.There is also an assumption of permanent progress, frequently assumed as relying upon continuous technoscientific progress.
Western humanism asserts individuals are entirely autonomous from their environment physically, biologically, and socially.Each individual is an atomistic center of consciousness and intentional action (e.g.free will).Humanists assume human beings are exceptional in the affairs of nature-being dramatically different from, superior to, and uniquely valuable above all other modalities-and, therefore, have the right to dominate nature, or even destroy it, if useful for their purposes.
Western humanism is anthropocentric.Here is the current OED entry for 'anthropocentrism': 'Primary or exclusive focus on humanity; the view or belief that humanity is the central or most important element of existence, esp.as opposed to God or the natural world' .An anthropocentric stance has an advantage in responding to the Anthropocene.This is because the Anthropocene assumes human activities are, in fact, the central source of geological and ecological change.Humanistic anthropocentrism need not struggle with the centrality of human activity.They merely need to affirm it.Having done so, the only question remaining is whether human beings have asserted their exceptional agency 'rationally' or not.
However, what it means to be rational is elusive.In the context of political-economy, it usually means utilitarian calculation (e.g.cost-benefit analysis).Rather than narrow forms of rationality, we prefer the term 'intelligence' .Intelligence is social, cocreated, and mutually transformative, not atomistic and detached.Our intelligence is a product of other modalities' transactional responses.Etymologically, 'intelligence' derives from the Latin 'intelligentia' , meaning understanding, knowledge, art, skill, taste, discernment, and appreciation.Inter refers to 'between' and legere to 'choose, pick out, collect, and gather' .Anthropocosmism prioritizes ethical intelligence.
Humanist rationalistic responses are certainly attractive to many.Humanism offers an obvious and straightforward set of responses to the Anthropocene: If we have the power to disturb the world so disastrously, then we must surely have the power to ameliorate it.Crutzen and Stoermer (2000) themselves declare that an 'exciting, but also difficult and daunting task lies ahead of the global research and engineering community to guide mankind towards global, sustainable, environmental management' (18).A both/and approach does not reject such a response, but it does find it precariously one sided.
Tu ( 2001) is worried about the dangers of Western humanism capturing New Confucianism: Only by fully incorporating the religious and naturalist dimensions into New Confucianism can the Confucian worldview avoid the danger of legitimating social engineering, instrumental rationality, linear progression, economic development, and technocratic management at the expense of a holistic, anthropocosmic vision.Indeed, the best way for the Confucians to attain the new is to reanimate the old, so that the digression to secular humanism, under the influence of the modern West, is not a permanent diversion.(254-255) That Tu wants to incorporate the naturalist as well as the religious into his holistic Anthropocosmism is a reminder that he is not thinking in the Abrahamic tradition.
Anthropocosmism has a sense of reverence for all the creations of Heaven while finding that humans have an exceptional ethical capacity to attend to and cocreate with all the other exceptional things Heaven has created.Such cocreation might include management and the technosciences but need not privilege them.A strict either/or logic would exclude either 'the religious and naturalistic' and 'holistic' or environmental systems engineering, rationality, development, and management.In our assessment, a more fruitful both/and approach would, instead, integrate them.Lindgren and Öhman (2019) insist 'humanism has other values that we may not want to abandon, e.g.education and political action for the oppressed' (1201).Western humanism has its virtues as well as its vices.It is worth recalling some of the beneficial virtues of humanism that can be retained in a both/and response to the Anthropocene.
First, Western humanism stresses the inherent dignity of human beings, which supports such liberal values as democracy, freedom, equality, human rights, social justice, and social policies stressing human education and welfare.Second, the emphasis on agency, along with the emergence of the technosciences, helps free humankind from the control of theocentrism and those that purport to have the special powers necessary to propitiate supernatural demands.Third, the achievements of the technosciences are meaningful and valuable. 6Fourth, that humankind has the capacity to secure ameliorative progress is important.Fifth, without a delineated sense of the human, how are humans to be held responsible for their power to harm the environment?
Earlier we found that Anthropocosmism embraces all the humanistic values just mentioned, including a less pretentious role for the technosciences.Citing 'The Earth Charter' , Tu (2001) asserts the following: After all, 'eradicating poverty as an ethical, social, and environmental imperative' and promoting human flourishing as well as material progress are both socialist and Confucian ideals.Although 'upholding the right of all, without discrimination, to a natural and social environment supportive of human dignity, bodily health, and spiritual well-being' may appear to be a lofty goal, it is compatible with the Chinese notion of realizing the whole person.Furthermore, 'affirming gender equality and equity as prerequisites to sustainable development' and 'ensuring universal access to education, health care, and economic opportunity' are clearly recognized modern Chinese aspirations.(252) However, Anthropocosmism rejects anthropocentrism along with the notion humans are environmentally autonomous or dramatically exceptional from other modalities of being in having the right to dominate or even exterminate other modalities of being for human purposes.Instead, all modalities are understood to have unique exceptional capacities that must be cocreatively integrated to secure mutual well-being and perhaps even material progress.

Anthropocene paradoxes and dilemma's: positioning anthropocosmism in the Anthropocene debate
Following Affifi's (2020) call to avoid dichotomist, overgeneralized condemnations and recommendations, this section discusses Anthropocosmism's potential to enrich the Anthropocene debate.Taylor's (2017) paper 'Beyond stewardship: Common world pedagogies for the Anthropocene' is perfect for positioning Anthropocosmism within current debates in environmental education literature.Although we believe she mislocates the paradox of the Anthropocene, Taylor's non-anthropocentric 'more-than-human' approach involving 'more-than-human agency' , 'pursuing more-than-human collective modes of thought' , and learning collectively with a 'more-than-human world' resembles Anthropocosmism's embrace of cocreativity among all modalities of being despite entirely rejecting humanism (1449).Rae (2014) argues that Heidegger, who rejected humanism and anthropocentrism in his famous Letter on Humanism, realized 'destruction always leaves a remainder of that destructed, a 'trace' … of that which is destructed' (55). 7Whatever is constructed next is partially created from the debris of destruction.Inspired by Affifi (2020) who has shown that all available conceptions seeking to de-anthropocentrize our worldview are in some way both anthropocentric and nonanthropocentric, we will identify the trace of humanistic debris in the writings of Taylor (2017) and Haraway (2016)-upon whom Taylor draws-along with places where dialectical negation leads them to unnecessarily exclude humanism when engaging the Anthropocene.
The first section of Taylor's (2017) paper is titled 'Anthropocene paradoxes and dilemmas' .She recognizes that the Anthropocene is a contested term, that not everyone agrees about the most appropriate response, and that the paradoxes are the focus of debate.She mentions that feminists 'have been quick to point out that one of the greatest dilemmas is that the adoption of this name risks validating human exceptionalism by reifying the "reign of Man"' (1449).This reign 'leads to the ultimate paradox, in which heroic techno-rescue and salvation responses, such as the scramble to find grandiose geo-engineering fixes, simply rehearse the same kinds of triumphalist anthropogenic interventions that disrupted the earth's systems in the first place' (1449). 8Perhaps this is a paradox, but it is not the ultimate paradox.
The second definition of 'paradox' in the 2023 OED reads: 'An apparently absurd or self-contradictory statement or proposition, or a strongly counter-intuitive one, which investigation, analysis, or explanation may nevertheless prove to be well-founded or true' .The ultimate paradox is the apparent contradiction involved in claiming that human beings are the cause of the Anthropocene while responding to the Anthropocene by rejecting human exceptionalism and agency.This rejection seems counterintuitive, which is why Western humanists seem to have an advantage.
Many paradoxes can be eliminated by thinking inclusively in terms of both/and instead of exclusively in terms of either/or.The residual humanism of nonanthropocentric Anthropocosmism enables both/and thinking.The Anthropocosmic relational self both seeks 'the full manifestation' of its 'humanity' , including its unique capacities, and 'must transcend anthropocentrism' (op.cit.).Such self-cultivating, nonbinary human activity seeks self-transcendence in immanence by recognizing and cocreating harmonious, or at least ameliorative, relationships with other modalities, thereby transcending anthropocentrism.
In Embracing Contraries, Elbow (1986) observes, 'A person who can live with contradiction and exploit it-who can use conflicting models-can simply see and think more' (241).Exploring the ultimate paradox of the Anthropocene by adding Anthropocosmism to the conflicting models of humanism, antihumanism, posthumanism, and-as we will soon find-Haraway's composted 'oddkin' allows one to see and think more comprehensively.Once we identify the traces of humanism, while eliminating dialectical negation, in Taylor and Haraway it will be surprisingly easy to position both of them close to Anthropocosmism in the contemporary Anthropocene conversation.
In her section on the 'Anthropocene paradoxes and dilemmas' , Taylor (2017) expresses concern that the Anthropocene provides 'overdue recognition of 'Man's' exceptional powers, and as an excuse to redouble efforts to become "better" at managing the environment, in order to establish what is being referring to as the 'Good Anthropocene' (for instance Ellis, cited in Hamilton 2015)' ( 1449).Here is an example of the kind of thing from Ellis (2013) that distresses Taylor and Hamilton: Recognition of human's huge and sustained influence is now leading to a wholesale rethinking of ecological science and conservation that moves away from humans as recent destroyers of a pristine nature and towards humanity's role as sustained and permanent stewards of the biosphere.( 32) Hamilton (2015) comments that people like Ellis 'do not see the Anthropocene as demanding more humility and caution towards the Earth' ( 25).Anthropocosmism requires Humanity to show humility toward all the modalities of Earth. 9 Taylor (2017) concludes, 'Many regard the 'Good Anthropocene' proposition as the most worrying response of all' (1449).Perhaps. 10 However, the very fact of the Anthropocene's existence provides strong evidence of the exceptional, and sometimes appalling, capacities Humanity possesses.Anthropocosmism's creative ethics demands Humanity recognize its contradictory capacities, take full responsibility for them, and apply them appropriately in cooperation with the capacities of other modalities to cocreate a better Earth. 11It requires humility, care, attentiveness, and wisdom.
When Taylor (2017) turns to Haraway, she comes even closer to Anthropocosmism: When read as an irrefutable sign of the inseparability of cultural and natural worlds, the figure of Anthropocene can lead us to humility rather than grandiosity.When approached as a figure of natureculture entanglement … rather than one that confirms human supremacy, it reaffirms the inextricable enmeshment of human and natural worlds, and signals that it is no longer plausible to perpetuate the nature-culture divide that structures western knowledge systems and underpins humanism.( 1450) Anthropocosmic Eastern humanism rejects the natureculture dualism while humbly asserting the enmeshment of humankind's exceptional capacities.According to Taylor, the Anthropocene 'requires us to radically rethink our agency in the world, to understand that we are just one agentic species amongst many, albeit a formidable and potentially destructive one' (1450).It also requires us 'to refocus upon our mutually productive relations with others in this world … and to recognize that a precarious and vulnerable environment simultaneously implicates our precarity and vulnerability as a species' (1450).Both of these observations closely track Anthropocosmism in part because one can detect the trace of humanism in the phrase 'rethink our agency' , which is acknowledged as being 'formidable' .If Taylor concedes human agency is formidable enough to bring on the Anthropocene, then she should relocate the ultimate paradox.If human agency is potentially destructive, there is no motive, besides dialectical negation, to not also find it potentially constructive.
Taylor concludes her paradoxes and dilemmas section by claiming the following: [T]he Anthropocene, as a threshold crossing event, ultimately testifies to the abject failure of sustainable human 'development' , and throws up all sorts of pressing epistemological and ontological challenges to modern humanist 'progress' and 'development' discourses, the education for sustainable development policy focus that captured the mainstream of environmental education scholarship during these times, effectively cordoned it off and buffered it from these substantial challenges.( 1450) Referring to this passage later in her paper, Tayler asserts: 'As I have already mentioned, education for sustainability has been critiqued for marginalizing the environment and re-centring the human through its privileging of social justice agendas' (1451).This is a dialectical either/ or overgeneralization.Why sustainable development must fail is far from clear, nor is it obvious that modern humanist technoscience cannot intrinsically create progress in ameliorating the Anthropocene.Why discard Enlightenment humanism's attention to human welfare?Should not economically disadvantaged nations demand social justice, wealth redistribution, and even material progress?
One of the many virtues of Taylor's (2017) paper is that she examines multiple non-anthropocentric alternatives to the anthropocentrism of Western humanism, including 'Anthropocene-attuned posthumanist philosophies' (1451).Among these philosophies, she includes Haraway's explicit rejection of posthumanism.Haraway occupies a place especially close to Anthropocosmism.Taylor declares: 'Definitely not a fan of humanism and its heroic conceits, Haraway nevertheless vehemently denounces the label of posthumanist.As she puts it, with a characteristically earthy turn of phrase: 'I am a compost-ist, not a posthuman-ist: we are all compost, not posthuman' (Haraway 2015, 161)' (1454).Taylor (2017) further remarks: For Haraway (2008, 25) becoming with is literally 'a dance of relating' with a whole host of different entities and beings, not all of them human.'If we appreciate the foolishness of human exceptionalism' , she says, 'then we know that becoming is always becoming with, in a contact zone where the outcome, where who is in the world, is at stake' (1454; Haraway 2008, 244).Taylor (2017) herself emphasizes a 'more-than-human relational ontology' and 'our entangled relations with the more-than-human world' (1448 and1458).Again, referring to Haraway, Taylor states: It is the possibility of 'renewed flourishing' for all species that she envisions in this collective more-thanhuman response.As she puts it 'Who and whatever we are, we need to make-with-become-with, compose-with-the earth-bound' (Haraway 2015, 160-161).Haraway's insistence on the 'with' or the 'com' of 'companion' species and 're-composing' within an already entangled naturescultures world displaces the singular and ultimately binary humanist vision of human agency, caretakership or stewardship on behalf of the environment.(1454) Haraway does indeed focus on both human and more/other-than-human collaborations among other species and other modalities of being.
For Haraway (2016), 'Staying with the trouble requires making oddkin; we require each other in unexpected collaborations and combinations, in hot compost piles.We become-with each other or not at all' (4).Staying with the trouble raises many vexing questions, such as, 'What must be cut and what must be tied if multispecies flourishing on Earth, including human and other-than-human beings in kinship, are to have a chance' (2). 12Her book focuses on specific interspecies collaborations.However, there are many things in her hot compost pile, including technologies.Pigeons are one of her examples of other-than-human 'critters' that have a long history of 'becoming-with human beings' (15).For example, Haraway discusses pigeon-human-technology collaboration (21ff.).Let us explore Haraway further.
Even though Haraway accentuates 'caretakership' , it is certainly not of the Western humanist binary exceptionalist kind.Haraway announces, 'Here and throughout the book, the sustaining creativity of people who care and act animates the action' (5). 13The words 'care' and 'caring' occur several dozen times throughout the text.Examples include, 'care and welfare of the horses involved in the production of an estrogen replacement medication ' (113).Other examples include caring for pigs and cows (128), camels and people (131), connections (140), the earth (169), the soil (170), and more.Haraway also speaks of 'Aboriginal traditional owners of the land responsible for taking care of country' , which surely implies some degree of stewardship, although one considerably more collaborative than the settler colonialism that replaced it (27).Property ownership is a trace of liberal humanism.Haraway provides for humble human agency in human and other-than-human configurations of caretaking, stewardship, and even technology that Anthropocosmism also appreciates.
Let us consider some of the key words Haraway uses to express her reticular thinking.One of them is 'critters' .For her, the word 'refers promiscuously to microbes, plants, animals, humans and nonhumans, and sometimes even to machines' (169 fn. 1).Oddkin, indeed!As with Anthropocosmism, Haraway often uses the words 'generative' and 'generate' .For instance, 'I want to stay with the trouble, and the only way I know to do that is in generative joy, terror, and collective thinking' (31).She also speaks of 'opportunistic, dangerous, and generative sympoiesis' (168).Her work accentuates cocreative connective action expressed by the neologism 'sympoiesis' .
The word 'poiesis' derives from the classical Greek meaning 'to make, a thing made, making, a maker concerned with making' (urmson 1990). 14'Sym' is a classical Greek word-forming root that connotes together and with.Haraway groups 'sympoiesis' with 'symbiosis' and 'symbiogenesis' and uses it as the title of her third chapter (49).
For Haraway, 'sympoiesis' means 'making-with' (5).The emphasis is not on creation, but cocreation.She also uses 'sympoiesis' to express not just thinking, but 'thinking with' , and presumably learning with (34).She credits M. Beth Dempster for originating the word.She refers to Dempster's definition: '[C]ollectively-producing systems that do not have self-defined spatial or temporal boundaries.Information and control are distributed among components.The systems are evolutionary and have the potential for surprising change' (33).Again, citing Demster, Haraway contrasts sympoiesis with autopoietic systems that are '"self-producing" autonomous units "with self defined spatial or temporal boundaries that tend to be centrally controlled, homeostatic, and predictable"' (33; see also fn.13).Therefore, 'Sympoiesis enfolds autopoiesis and generatively unfurls and extends it' (58). 15Sympoiesis seeks cocreativity and thinking-with; therefore, it even welcomes thinking-with and word-forming particles such as 'auto' , meaning self, one's own, by oneself, and of oneself.Staying with the trouble is a complex cocreative, generative process that integrates the human with the more/other than human.
Sympoiesis appears to clash with the idea of the Anthropocene as much as it does with autopoiesis because it rejects fixed centers of exceptional self-creative action: 'Bounded (or neoliberal) individualism amended by autopoiesis is not good enough figurally or scientifically; it misleads us down deadly paths' (33).Haraway rejects 'human exceptionalism and bounded [i.e. atomistic] individualism' (30), 'preexisting units in competition relations' (49), and 'possessive individualism' (60).However, she is willing to engage 'quasi-individuality' (60), 'complex "individuality"' (61), and 'quasi-collective/quasi-individual partners in constitutive relations' (64).In her last chapter, 'The Camille Stories: Children of Compost' , we encounter such phrases as, 'Human babies born through individual reproductive choice' (140), 'A treasured power of individual freedom for the new child is to choose a gender-or not-and if the patterns of living and dying evoke that desire' (140), and such.All this individual freedom of choice is a trace of Enlightenment humanism.
Haraway is offended by the idea of human beings as such exceptional centers of action as to be uniquely valued and exceeding nature, therefore having the right to subdue, consume, and even ravage it should they desire.However, the following is an overstatement: 'The story of Species Man as the agent of the Anthropocene is an almost laughable rerun of the great phallic humanizing and modernizing Adventure, where man, made in the image of a vanished god, takes on superpowers in his secular-sacred ascent, only to end in tragic detumescence, once again ' (47-48).Such adjectives trap Haraway in dialectical negation wherein she cannot even imagine 'Species Man' (Homo sapiens) as able to ameliorate what they have caused to the point of, perhaps, 'promoting human flourishing as well as material progress' (op.cit.).
Haraway complains, 'Anthropocene is a term most easily meaningful and usable by intellectuals in wealthy classes and regions; it is not an idiomatic term for climate, weather, land, care of country, or much else in great swathes of the world, especially but not only among indigenous peoples' (49).However correct, the complaint is beside the issue.Recall the 2023 OED definition of 'Anthropocene': 'The epoch of geological time during which human activity is considered to be the dominant influence on the environment, climate, and ecology of the earth' .Is the species 'Homo sapiens' the dominant influence on the environment, climate, and ecology of earth?If the answer is yes, then it remains 'appropriate to emphasize the central role of mankind … by proposing to use the term "Anthropocene" for the current geological epoch' (op.cit.). 16Haraway often subsequently recovers what she earlier dismisses: 'I know that we will continue to need the term Anthropocene' (47).
Haraway depicts sympoietic caring wherein both human and more/other-than human 'generative oddkin' participate in a dynamic dance of relating in a world without sharp boundaries.Sympoiesis is strikingly similar to Anthropocosmism wherein Humanity has a unity with the 'generative force' of Heaven that creates all modalities of being on Earth, which in turn cocreate each other in an ever-changing compost of relations.Tu's Anthropocosmism can be positioned in the Anthropocene conversation in close proximity to Haraway with one conspicuous disparity-humanism.
Neither Haraway, the post-humanist, nor anti-humanist ever formulates the following ethical question: Once we decenter and entangle the human with the more/other than human, where does moral responsibility reside?A range of possible answers could significantly reduce human responsibility for the Anthropocene and distribute it more or less among the other modalities.
Anthropocosmism offers another answer.It presents a relational, co-dependent human centeredness and a diffident, humbled, and cocreative ethical exceptionalism.Meanwhile, the antihumanist, the posthumanist, or even the compost-ist cannot conceive a relational humanism.
For New Confucian humanism, Humanity has is a center of distinctive ethical obligations.Through self-cultivation, Humanity learns to become ever more human.However, such learning is only achieved by collaborating cocreatively with all the other modalities of being on Earth that also participate in Heaven's creativity.Only in this way Humanity can execute their distinctive ethical obligations. 17

Conclusion: anthropocosmism and the Anthropocene
It appears humans are an exceptional center impacting earth's environment.This fact is a paradox or dilemma for those who accept the Anthropocene yet reject anthropocentrism.Anthropocosmism overcomes the dilemma by rejecting Western humanism's atomistic sense of exceptionalism and centeredness while articulating a relational sense of human centeredness and exceptionality.Instead of imparting the privilege to exploit nature, New Confucian humanism teaches an exceptional responsibility to cocreatively care for the myriad modalities.Meanwhile, the other modalities (e.g.rocks, crushed tiles, soil, plants, and other animals) are also exceptional in having their own unique capacities that may relate cocreatively to Humanity.
Because it affirms a relational sense of self as a unique and irreducible center of dynamic ever-changing, codependent cocreating dance of relating with other modalities of being, anthropocosmism can preserve the best of Western humanism, including such liberal values as democracy, freedom, equality, rights, and social justice.Anthropocosmism's sense of human agency, including a humbled role for the technosciences, makes Humanity less vulnerable to the control of theocentric dogmas and may, when properly employed, contribute to ameliorative progress.unfortunately, Enlightenment humanism replaced theocentrism with anthropocentrism in the form of atomistic individuality and exceptional entitlement that alienated humankind not only from the divine but nature as well, which is why anti-humanist critiques are so often correct.
For the environmental and sustainability educator, the most exciting idea is nonteleological Confucian self-cultivation.Learning to be fully human is an endless, nonteleological process of sympoietic becoming with, and learning from, other modalities.It emphasizes expanding one's horizons through sympathetic feeling and sensitive knowing-including both nonscientific and technoscientific knowing-as well as the creative expression of appropriately examined ethical norms.
Self-cultivation is social, not selfish.It seeks spiritual self-transcendence in naturalistic immanence by continuously extending Humanity's horizons of inclusiveness in a universe that in its continuous 'unfolding' constantly 'generates new realities' (op.cit.).There is no telos because there is always something new under Heaven.Anthropocosmism includes a reverent sense of awe and wonder at the creations of Heaven upon Earth of which Humanity is but one.Such nonsecular reverence is spiritual, but not dogmatically religious.Such naturalistic spirituality induces sensitivity to other modalities of being, thereby imparting a participatory ethics of care and responsibility.Stressing reverence, spirituality, sensitivity, participation, and cocreativity, and colearning adds dimensions often missing from environmental and sustainability education.
One might think of Earth as Gaia.2. Affifi (2017) adds an interesting dimension to this codependent unity.He considers how simple living beings like bacteria learn from their environment, including humans, and how humans may learn from their environment, including bacteria.The idea is that organism/environment interactions imply that 'ecological communities' are transactional learning communities.This relation is one attractive way to envision human cooperation with other modalities of being in addressing the Anthropocene.

3.
One of the reviewers of our manuscript found 'obvious connections' between Tu Weiming and John Dewey and wondered if we had recognized such connections 'and if so what?' We have indeed recognized many connections and will mention two of them in our paper.Here is the first: 'Neither self nor world, neither soul nor nature (in the sense of something isolated and finished in its isolation) is the centre, any more than either earth or sun is the absolute centre of a single universal and necessary frame of reference.
There is a moving whole of interacting parts; a centre emerges wherever there is effort to change them in a particular direction' (Dewey, 1929(Dewey, /1984, 232), 232).Any modality of being may, individually or collectively, serve as a transient emergent center.Humans are only rarely in the center and when they are it is best they respectfully collaborate with other modalities of being.For the second connection between Tu Weiming and John Dewey, we refer to note 6. 4.
Franz de Waal (2006) has compiled extensive research data, along with a great deal of anecdotal evidence, that primates, along with other social species (e.g.dolphins and elephants), display 'empathy and reciprocity, but also retribution, conflict resolution, and a sense of fairness' .(167).His studies show primates can distinguish acceptable and unacceptable social behavior.However, de Waal concedes he knows of 'no parallels in animals for moral reasoning' and that the 'desire for an internally consistent moral framework is uniquely human' (174).He concludes that humans lift 'moral behavior to a level of abstraction and self-reflection unheard of before our species entered the evolutionary scene' (175).Nonetheless, de Waal argues that the primordial notions of sympathy and fairness remain more basic and more important even in human moral conduct.Given Darwinian continuity, this is plausible.Finally, he argues, 'The circle of morality reaches out farther and farther only if the health and survival of the innermost circles are secure' (165).Through self-cultivation, one recognizes their codependency upon other people, animals, plants, and rocks; and by caring for these other modalities, one widens their circle and, nonteleologically, enriches their Humanity.6.
The Mesozoic era terminated with the abrupt end of the Cretaceous period approximately 66 million years ago with the mass extinction of 75 percent of earth's species.This was the fifth and last great extinction.It marked the beginning of the Paleogene period of the Cenozoic era.Currently, we are in the third period of the Cenozoic (the Quaternary).The ICS refers to the present second epoch of the Quaternary as the Holocene.The Cretaceous mass extinction resulted from the impact of an asteroid about 10-15 kilometers wide.Although the asteroid Dimorphos is only 177 meters wide, NASA's Double Asteroid Redirection Test (DART) was able to adjust its orbit enough to demonstrate the feasibility of asteroid deflection.Someday, this kind of modernist technoscience could, perhaps, save earth from another asteroid impact.Some think we have entered the sixth great extinction, often called the Holocene extinction.Others call it the Anthropocene extinction.If technoscience could have saved Earth from the fifth great extinction, then in principle it might be able to do so for the sixth.Alternatively, it could hasten the devastation.Of course, both scientific and nonscientific forms of knowledge are meaningful and valuable.