Where nature used to be, megacities are growing today, entire areas are concreted, glaciers are disappearing, rainforests are shrinking, and some deserts are on the rise. Man has fundamentally changed the face of the planet. So much so that many scientists are pleading for the proclamation of a new geological epoch: the Anthropocene. The Museum für Naturkunde Berlin and the Muséum national d'Histoire naturelle in Paris want to involve citizens in the debate about what constitutes a new Earth age of man. They call for filling a virtual collection with personal items, experiences or thoughts about changing the environment. The project "Nature of Things" has been running for several weeks. To date, there are around 80 "exhibits" in the virtual exhibition on the online platform. Thomas Krumenacker spoke about the project with Elisabeth Heyne, the head of the interdisciplinary research team on the German side.
Ms. Heyne, please briefly explain the concept of your Citizen Science project: How does your collection work and who can participate?
The project is open to everyone. All interested parties can upload an object of their choice to our online platform, which for them symbolizes a man-made change in the natural environment. These can be photos, short videos or sound files: a bird song that no longer exists, or one accompanied by street noises. But also a personal memory like a landscape photo: a lot is conceivable. As in a scientific collection, the participants then describe the object using given categories. Your text will then be automatically translated into French and English. So we invite everyone to become collectors.
A scientific collection usually includes selecting, arranging and classifying the objects. Are you curating the objects uploaded by citizens?
There are three criteria: there should be objects that come from the past, to which there is a personal connection and that tell something about the changes in our environment.
Nevertheless, there is no editorial exam whether an object becomes part of the collection or not, because we want to map as many perspectives as possible and do not make any specifications.
We are concerned with putting the topic up for discussion.
If there is something that we do not agree with, it should remain aware as long as it does not violate our Code of Conduct so that you can discuss it.
What is a typical exhibition piece of the Anthropocene?
As a scientist behind the project, we do not know what makes an anthropocene object, but we ask about it. We assume that the anthropocene is something that looks different depending on the social belonging, place of residence and depending on the cultural context. If you live in a country of the global south, you are affected by the consequences of man -made changes differently than in Germany. We believe that there are many unmistaked stories about environmental changes that we want to hear in order to be able to react to the challenges in the anthropocene. That is why we do not want to curate at first and thus make preliminary decisions.
Natural history museums are windows into the past of the Earth's history. Fossils, specimens and skeletons of dinosaurs fascinate generations of visitors. This works precisely because they are built around the opposite pair of man and nature. What does it mean for the museums if the entire planet is so strongly shaped by humans that a nature beyond it practically no longer exists?
If we accept the basic idea of the anthropocene, according to which nature is almost always and everywhere shaped by human intervention, a very far -reaching question arises for us: What do the natural history museums actually collect? That was also one of the initial questions for our project of the virtual citizens' collection.
And what is the answer?
There are a lot of questions before the answer. When we talk about the age of man, what kind of person do we actually mean? There are drivers of this development such as colonialism or industrialization, but there are also those affected. Or: Who actually collects the pieces that represent the Anthropocene and thus also define it? It is a central idea of our experiment that we do not specify the answers as scientists, but hand over this sovereignty to the participants. The proclamation of a new epoch is an occasion for us to reflect on who actually has the knowledge for the new age and how society and science should interact.
One of the exhibits uploaded by citizens shows a crumpled plastic bag as the epitome of sophisticated and pollution of resources, through which future generations could only shake their heads. Do we also see plastic bags instead of stuffed animals in the exhibitions of the Natural History Museums?
I cannot come up with a finished vision for the future of the natural history museums. But I think the direction is clear: we have to become even more places of exchange, discussion forums that offer space to exchange ideas about the basic challenges for us humans and to discuss very different opinions, or try out new forms of knowledge production. To do this, we have to open up. We should dismantle the awe of the "Holy Halls" museum and reduce power accordingly. Our project is an experiment in this direction and the digital form supports this experimental character. Our project is a collection and exhibition at the same time.
That's a good keyword. We are talking here in a meeting room just a few meters away from the exhibition hall, where the skeleton of the world-famous and just returned "Berliner" T. rex is shown. Do you think it is conceivable that your virtual collection will one day stand here as a physical exhibition?
A form of physical presence Sooner or later is certainly important, as always that it will be designed. The physical object still has a great power. It creates other emotional relationships when you stand in front of a physical object than if you look at it virtually. In the museums we notice very strongly how important the materiality of objects is still today. We see very conflict in ethnological discussions. We therefore do not initially want to collect physically in our project, precisely so that the possession ratio remains. The collection of collection also belongs to the contributors. Collecting is a highly political activity, so we want to open it.
Most of us are looking at the Anthropocene with great concern in the face of species extinction and climate change. Do you also notice something like a positive view of environmental changes among the already set objects of the online collection?
Yes, we can definitely sign that there are many different perspectives on the topic. Some very hopeful developments are also described. Many of us, legitimate, have a rather apocalyptic perspective on the anthropocene, but there are also many other perceptions.
Do you have any examples of this?
There are people who have brought examples of successful renaturation projects. In the test phase, one participant contributed two photos, each showing the same view of their grandparents' living room: one from their childhood days on which two large chimneys of a coal -fired power plant can be seen, and another that leads the clear view after their demolition shows a few years. This woman has lost her childhood perspective, but also documents a positive change towards more sustainable renewable energies. It was a strong contribution because Deingustrialized regions such as the Ruhr area or Lusatia are strongly struggling with social change are located for us where the anthropocene can be very comprehensible.
Will there be a scientific evaluation?
Researchers of various departments and a scientific advisory board are already accompanying the project. There are biologists, cultural scientists, artists and many more. We have ahead that they all write something like an online exhibition catalog together in a future version of our collection from their respective perspective and always in dialogue with people who contribute objects. And of course we will take a scientific balance ourselves.
Which scientific questions do you pursue?
We are a very interdisciplinary team, for example I come from literature and cultural studies, but we also have ecologists, anthropologists or digital experts among us.
We all interest the question of how collective or individual memories shape today's natural and environmental relationships and how we can generate new knowledge for dealing with the anthropocene.
However, our claim is that we can clarify our scientific questions in the process of dealing with people who contribute objects.
It is striking that, on the one hand, they are setting up a collection of the Anthropocene for the first time in Europe, but they use the term itself extremely sparingly. In the German project name it is in the subtitle, in the French version it is missing completely and is replaced by "environmental changes". Do you shy away from the term?
In Paris, they decided not to use the term for the time being. This is understandable, because in France it is not yet so much in public discourse and in everyday life. That is why environmental changes have been spoken there so far. At the same time, the term anthropocene - although it is already more common with us and in the English -speaking world - is bulky. However, we have decided here to put him in the subtitle and at the same time try to describe him. Everyone sees what happens around us, you can give the whole thing a name without overwhelming people.
The concept of anthropocene is not uncontroversial politically. There is accusation that all of humanity is very blurred over a comb and that colonial and industrial history are back into the background, which ultimately are roots of the ecological devastation of our planet.
We do not want to leave the concept of anthropocene uncritically. We use it, but we do not believe that there is a uniform humanity whose work has led to what we are now. There are different contributions, and we want to show that about multi -perspectiveness. A long history is linked to the first consequences of the crises of the anthropocene, which we see today socially and with regard to our environment. Colonialism, the beginning of European travel and expansion struts and global trade, all of this is part of it. We would like to make these historical interference visible. We use the term because it has a certain strength, also an explosive force.
Only three percent of the planet is still considered ecologically intact. The use of the term Anthropocene is ultimately nothing more than the admission that humans have run down the Earth so much that this will still be visible in 10,000 years. How can this insight develop an explosive force?
In view of the location of our planet, we are in an apocalyptic mode and at the same time long for the fact that there is something like untouched nature. Rooms in which we can enter into an immediate relationship with nature in which nature can also exist for themselves. The question of science is: What could we do, so that nature - and thus the basis of human life - continues? In the best case, the term anthropocene could lead us to practice in humility: people are part of the earth and should stop being given a special position.
Science in Berlin and its museum are closely linked to the research and collections of Alexander von Humboldt. What would he say about your project?
Humboldt managed to make connections very early on and describe the changes in nature. His knowledge "Everything is interaction" stands for it. We also go in this direction. In the best case, Humboldt would be good for our project. He would participate and would have many great individual objects. An important difference is that Humboldt collected as a classic collector and scientist, as an individual and against a colonial background. We, on the other hand, open the collecting for very different actors and diverse forms of knowledge. We are particularly interested in the connection between cultural knowledge and an ecological view of the developments. Humboldt also distinguished this. We fit together quite well.
