“To the dismay of those who first proposed it, the Anthropocene is being reframed as an event to be celebrated rather than lamented and feared. Instead of final proof of the damage done by techno-industrial hubris, the ‘ecomodernists’ welcome the new epoch as a sign of man’s ability to transform and control nature. Although the ecomoderns write as humanists, they construe the new epoch in a way that is structurally a theodicy, that is, a theological argument that aims to prove the ultimate benevolence of God. The ‘good Anthropocene’ argument is founded on a belief in the ultimate benevolence of the whole, a goodness that in the end transcends and defeats the structural obstacles, sufferings and moral lapses that seem to threaten it. …”
pdf @ http://clivehamilton.com/the-theodicy-of-the-good-anthropocene/
synthetic zerØ 
Clive Hamilton – Paris
Directed by Olivier Taieb (Black Blue Productions) and led by Patrick Degeorges, “Big talks” offers interviews conducted with major figures of environmental humanities. https://vimeo.com/album/2923430
The view of the ‘good Anthropocene’ speaks to the idea that there are good and bad forces which pull from every direction. In this context of ‘good’ and ‘bad,’ which we already know are relative, perhaps we will inevitably be pulled from our own self-destruction into a world as close to idyllic as possible. The development of the good Anthropocene will be the end game of our star dust landing on Earth. I have seen death. It doesn’t last forever. Life, unlike death, lasts forever. I would rather be on the side of life, the side of good, according to my experiences. Because we can live undead; this is not life. Life is when you see the beauty of the light inside you. Which is easy to lose sight of in our world of corruption, violence, and destruction.
these folks certainly would like to cast themselves as the Jedi knights Templar of the anthropocene, as a close reader of Derrida I would think that you might have some reservations about such claims of certainty/purity/dichotomies/mastery
I do have ‘reservations about such claims of certainty/purity/dichotomies/mastery’ as you have said. I felt like one of the key concepts I was trying to bring this exact point out with is that ‘good’ and ‘bad’ are relative …
What I was trying to do in my post was to stay on topic, because I could’ve left the building, so to speak, on the good/bad dichotomy by itself, let alone the argument that goodness will overcome ‘the structural obstacles, sufferings and moral lapses that seem to threaten it. …’
Although I do have a hopelessly romantic side that pops up from time to time, telling me that all doom and gloom can be harnessed and retracted, if only we had a perspective with which to see it that way. I am leaning more toward the idea that without darkness, we have no light. I hate to be metaphorical in a post like this, but I’m trying to truncate my main point, which is that what’s good is good, and what’s bad is bad, but who says anybody always already replaced the one with the other in a way that is beneficial for all?
gotcha, while i suffer from my own glimmers of (baseless really) hope afraid i can’t get on board with the need the dark/bad when it comes to ethics, my sense is more do the best we can with what we have at hand and hopefully be in a place to be response-able for whatever comes after, fear&trembling in such leaps of faith but so it goes for human-beings…
you may find this worth a read:
https://syntheticzero.net/2014/01/07/assembling-ethics-in-an-ecology-of-ignorance-paul-rabinow/