Who is the Other in the age of the Anthropocene? Introducing the Unknown Other in climate justice discourse
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This paper contributes to advancing the research agenda on ethics in the Anthropocene (Schmidt JJ, Brown PG and Orr CJ (2016) Ethics in the Anthropocene: A research agenda. The Anthropocene Review 3(3): 188–200). Specifically, it responds to the call to explore ‘the new human condition’ (Palsson G, Szerszynski B, Sörlin S et al. (2013) Reconceptualizing the ‘Anthropos’ in the Anthropocene: Integrating the social sciences and humanities in global environmental change research. Environmental Science & Policy 28: 8) in the age of the Anthropocene by rethinking the relational ontology within the context of climate change. I propose that given the global and long-term implications of climate change, climate justice discourse should go beyond the Self–Other binary and incorporate the notion of the Unknown Other. By drawing on the moral philosophy of Emmanuel Levinas and moral sentimentalism scholarship, I theorize the ethical relationship with the Unknown Other. I propose that the encounter with the ‘face’ (identity, experience, voice) of the Unknown Other is conditioned by the Self’s contribution to climate change. Therefore, the encounter with the Unknown Other is not physical and corporeal but ethical, and thus triggers a moral engagement that has a dual base – responsibility and emotion. The former is expressed in the form of asymmetrical responsibility and the latter in the form of empathy.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.007 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it