What do you think?
Rate this book
How to Live at the End of the World: Theory, Art, and Politics for the Anthropocene
Assessing the dawn of the Anthropocene era, a poet and philosopher How do we live at the end of the world?
The end of the Holocene era is marked not just by melting glaciers or epic droughts, but by the near universal disappearance of shared social the ruling class builds walls and lunar shuttles, while the rest of us contend with the atrophy of institutional integrity and the utter abdication of providing even minimal shelter from looming disaster.
The irony of the Anthropocene era is that, in a neoliberal culture of the self, it is forcing us to consider ourselves as a collective again. For those of us who are not wealthy enough to start a colony on Mars or isolate ourselves from the world, the Anthropocene ends the fantasy of sheer individualism and worldlessness once and for all. It introduces a profound sense of time and events after the so-called "end of history" and an entirely new approach to solidarity.
How to Live at the End of the World is a hopeful exploration of how we might inherit the name "Anthropocene," renarrate it, and revise our way of life or thought in view of it. In his book on time, art, and politics in an era of escalating climate change, Holloway takes up difficult, unanswered questions in recent work by Donna Haraway, Kathryn Yusoff, Bruno Latour, Dipesh Chakrabarty, and Isabelle Stengers, sketching a path toward a radical form of democracy—a zoocracy, or, a rule of all of the living.
The end of the Holocene era is marked not just by melting glaciers or epic droughts, but by the near universal disappearance of shared social the ruling class builds walls and lunar shuttles, while the rest of us contend with the atrophy of institutional integrity and the utter abdication of providing even minimal shelter from looming disaster.
The irony of the Anthropocene era is that, in a neoliberal culture of the self, it is forcing us to consider ourselves as a collective again. For those of us who are not wealthy enough to start a colony on Mars or isolate ourselves from the world, the Anthropocene ends the fantasy of sheer individualism and worldlessness once and for all. It introduces a profound sense of time and events after the so-called "end of history" and an entirely new approach to solidarity.
How to Live at the End of the World is a hopeful exploration of how we might inherit the name "Anthropocene," renarrate it, and revise our way of life or thought in view of it. In his book on time, art, and politics in an era of escalating climate change, Holloway takes up difficult, unanswered questions in recent work by Donna Haraway, Kathryn Yusoff, Bruno Latour, Dipesh Chakrabarty, and Isabelle Stengers, sketching a path toward a radical form of democracy—a zoocracy, or, a rule of all of the living.
129 pages, Kindle Edition
Published May 3, 2022
4 people are currently reading
185 people want to read
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 9 of 9 reviews
January 22, 2023
Have you been asking yourself what comes after “the end of history” and what follows the postmodern? Well this short book attempts to hazard an answer. The proffered answer, coming at us like the global return of the repressed, is the return of geological time. The only thing is that, during the prolonged period of its disappearance from the conscious radar screen, human activity has taken a cumulative effect on nature and the surrounding environment and arguably brought an end to the Holocene, the geological period beginning after the last ice age. Although the name is still subject to contestation, the result has been the ushering in of the Anthropocene, a new proposed period in Earth’s history marked by the impact of human activity on ecosystems and the environment.
The three essays that make up this work attempt to bring the methods of philosophical analysis to the construction and critique of the concept of the Anthropocene by considering it through the lenses of time, art, and politics. A primary thread running through the three sections is that the natural world and the natural environment are increasingly impinging on human reality and our life world, whether we like it or not. This comes in the forms increasingly of natural events, storms, and natural disasters at an increasingly fast clip: be it hotter years, rivers drying up, super storms, stronger hurricanes, pandemics, and other changing conditions. Similarly the forms of living and attitudes towards the lived condition with the natural world mark a break with the romantic and other forms of consciousness that have approached nature, the human condition, and our lived world previously. The reorientation moves from the romantic consciousness which experiences nature and uses natural resources through acts of private consumption to the new shared lived experience of the Anthropocene and natural events impinging on and disrupting our postindustrial modern lives.
Credit should be given and points earned for the ambitions of the book and the boldness of the answer offered in response to the challenges of the times. With that said, as an early philosophical foray into a relatively uncharted literary space, the execution may not live up to those ambitions. As the book goes along, the author Holloway feels like he is getting over his skis and as a result repeatedly turns to other authors as authorities to keep his analysis standing upright. The effect, particularly noticeable in the final chapter, is a heavy use of quotations and citations. At one level, the last chapter reads like a string of quotations strung together; a more generous reading would say that ample help was used to stick the landing. Regardless, there is definitely something here and the argument is onto something real. We don’t need a book to tell us this, but it’s helpful when they are there as a reminder. This is something that I would like to see fleshed out further in future books and in real life. There is potential here in both spheres as the Earth and our human interactions with and within it could and should become the center for a grounded system of values for the present and future.
The three essays that make up this work attempt to bring the methods of philosophical analysis to the construction and critique of the concept of the Anthropocene by considering it through the lenses of time, art, and politics. A primary thread running through the three sections is that the natural world and the natural environment are increasingly impinging on human reality and our life world, whether we like it or not. This comes in the forms increasingly of natural events, storms, and natural disasters at an increasingly fast clip: be it hotter years, rivers drying up, super storms, stronger hurricanes, pandemics, and other changing conditions. Similarly the forms of living and attitudes towards the lived condition with the natural world mark a break with the romantic and other forms of consciousness that have approached nature, the human condition, and our lived world previously. The reorientation moves from the romantic consciousness which experiences nature and uses natural resources through acts of private consumption to the new shared lived experience of the Anthropocene and natural events impinging on and disrupting our postindustrial modern lives.
Credit should be given and points earned for the ambitions of the book and the boldness of the answer offered in response to the challenges of the times. With that said, as an early philosophical foray into a relatively uncharted literary space, the execution may not live up to those ambitions. As the book goes along, the author Holloway feels like he is getting over his skis and as a result repeatedly turns to other authors as authorities to keep his analysis standing upright. The effect, particularly noticeable in the final chapter, is a heavy use of quotations and citations. At one level, the last chapter reads like a string of quotations strung together; a more generous reading would say that ample help was used to stick the landing. Regardless, there is definitely something here and the argument is onto something real. We don’t need a book to tell us this, but it’s helpful when they are there as a reminder. This is something that I would like to see fleshed out further in future books and in real life. There is potential here in both spheres as the Earth and our human interactions with and within it could and should become the center for a grounded system of values for the present and future.
February 27, 2025
For class! Awesome and wish I'd read it for my capstone but also really wish there was a more concrete vision of zoocracy presented....
December 29, 2023
Travis Holloway’s ‘How to Live at the End of the World’ raises more questions than it answers. The book is very much in the vein of nonfiction and literature, and art for that matter, that is trying wrestle with the meaning of the Anthropocene. It is a philosophical work which primarily uses aesthetics as its tool for analysis. Indeed, the central chapter is focused on how art is reacting and adapting to our changing (and declining?) world. The other two major chapters focus on the history of the Anthropocene, as a fact, a concept, and a word; and, the politics of the Anthropocene, especially what opportunities might exist.
What I like about this work is that Holloway takes a philosophical and analytical approach, but is far more clear in his writing than some of the other authors who’ve penned critical works. I thought his survey and analysis of Anthropocenic art was fascinating, especially his theory about a movement back towards the epic. I also thought some of his political analysis had a grain of potentiality. It reminded me of Arturo Escobar’s ‘Designs for the Pluriverse,’ in that a fracturing of the neoliberal system may open many small spaces and opportunities where a diversity of approaches can be tried. I also resonated with the idea of a democracy of all life, and how a movement away from the human-centric focus of classical philosophy could be beneficial.
I was a little less impressed with the historical chapter. While I believe some of the criticisms of the word “Anthropocene” and how it was arrived at are deserved, and make some good points about differential power, I generally find that vein of inquiry tedious. I was happy when Holloway left that argument behind and focused more on the real-world consequences of the language and conceptualization of the Anthropocene. I think he did a good job of pointing out that while not everyone or every culture is equally responsible, we still, as a whole species, are driving these changes.
The main critique I have for this book is that it is incomplete. It is really a collection of several essays, rather than a whole book with full follow-through. Holloway very much acknowledges this fact in his introduction, so it comes as no surprise to the reader. But, it means that this book should be seen as a contributor to only certain aspects of the discourse around the Anthropocene. This is not the first book I would recommend to someone just dipping their toes into Anthropocenic studies, but I do think it has a lot of value to those who are already immersed.
What I like about this work is that Holloway takes a philosophical and analytical approach, but is far more clear in his writing than some of the other authors who’ve penned critical works. I thought his survey and analysis of Anthropocenic art was fascinating, especially his theory about a movement back towards the epic. I also thought some of his political analysis had a grain of potentiality. It reminded me of Arturo Escobar’s ‘Designs for the Pluriverse,’ in that a fracturing of the neoliberal system may open many small spaces and opportunities where a diversity of approaches can be tried. I also resonated with the idea of a democracy of all life, and how a movement away from the human-centric focus of classical philosophy could be beneficial.
I was a little less impressed with the historical chapter. While I believe some of the criticisms of the word “Anthropocene” and how it was arrived at are deserved, and make some good points about differential power, I generally find that vein of inquiry tedious. I was happy when Holloway left that argument behind and focused more on the real-world consequences of the language and conceptualization of the Anthropocene. I think he did a good job of pointing out that while not everyone or every culture is equally responsible, we still, as a whole species, are driving these changes.
The main critique I have for this book is that it is incomplete. It is really a collection of several essays, rather than a whole book with full follow-through. Holloway very much acknowledges this fact in his introduction, so it comes as no surprise to the reader. But, it means that this book should be seen as a contributor to only certain aspects of the discourse around the Anthropocene. This is not the first book I would recommend to someone just dipping their toes into Anthropocenic studies, but I do think it has a lot of value to those who are already immersed.
January 16, 2025
Such a timely read. The book's short length asks more questions than provide answers, but they are questions we need to be thinking about as the world as we know it is changing and becoming a different one because of the climate catastrophes occuring around the earth. I appreciate the three fields Holloway draws from to trace an understanding of how we've arrived at the anthropocene, the era where humans have caused geological change. It made me understand just how immense of an impact climate change is - we caused geological change!!! Our everyday consumerist actions accumulate to an impact that has marked the earth. From chatgpt, to fast fashion, to plastic, the food we eat, it's everywhere.
Holloway did a great job of showing how Western thought developed into separating humans from nature, making humans superior and nature just a domain in which we live in and that serves us - such a flawed way of thinking that is causing the repercussions we will suffer. Holloway described climate change as a pendulum that is swinging back at us. The art of the anthropocene has shifted, showing nature as something to be feared, something that we collectively have no control over. Something we were once able to push around, until it began to push back. And one of the main themes Holloway threads through this essay is how climate change will force us into a collective experience; although society is so polarized, we have to agree that the climate is changing because we experience every day. And it is this promise of collective that can point us towards change, and a collective not just with other humans but with all living beings.
Climate change is scary as hell. But the ending of this book gives me hope: "Friends, let’s keep living. Now is the time to assemble as friends with all of the living." This is something we will experience together one way or the other, and together we can also build a better world, bc Lord knows the world we live in now must change.
Holloway did a great job of showing how Western thought developed into separating humans from nature, making humans superior and nature just a domain in which we live in and that serves us - such a flawed way of thinking that is causing the repercussions we will suffer. Holloway described climate change as a pendulum that is swinging back at us. The art of the anthropocene has shifted, showing nature as something to be feared, something that we collectively have no control over. Something we were once able to push around, until it began to push back. And one of the main themes Holloway threads through this essay is how climate change will force us into a collective experience; although society is so polarized, we have to agree that the climate is changing because we experience every day. And it is this promise of collective that can point us towards change, and a collective not just with other humans but with all living beings.
Climate change is scary as hell. But the ending of this book gives me hope: "Friends, let’s keep living. Now is the time to assemble as friends with all of the living." This is something we will experience together one way or the other, and together we can also build a better world, bc Lord knows the world we live in now must change.
January 24, 2024
The book offers the most if viewed as an introductory overview on the notion of the Anthropocene and its academic/artistic/cultural discourse. Although even in this regard it is missing important perspectives, as for examples those of New Materialists thinkers like Barad, Coole or Elisabeth Povinelli. Posthumanist like Rosi Braidotti are hardly mentioned too (once), although the word posthuman is used several times.
What else is missing? Well, a historical-materialistic perspecitve of Capitalism as an life-changing, social mediated form of organising workforce, with all its consequences - basically, a mention of Karl Marx and his political-economical, but also ecological critique of Capitalism. Regarding this, I highly recommend reading Kohei Saitos "Marx in the Anthropocene" as an materialist-marxian critique of the discourse surrounding the notion of the Anthropocene.
The only Marxian mention in Holloways book is Chakrabarty, an indian historian who from my point can hardly be called marxian in his thinking and writing - I won't pursue this here, but I think Chakrabarty notion of deep history and his political conclusions are rather hollow. Hollow also cites some critique on Chakrabarty, so props to him for that.
To conclude: you won't find answers here, rather a potpourri of views, opinions and positions on how fck up the state of humanity is... formulated in a more elaborate manner than my words. For a starter solid, but nothing of exeptional depth.
What else is missing? Well, a historical-materialistic perspecitve of Capitalism as an life-changing, social mediated form of organising workforce, with all its consequences - basically, a mention of Karl Marx and his political-economical, but also ecological critique of Capitalism. Regarding this, I highly recommend reading Kohei Saitos "Marx in the Anthropocene" as an materialist-marxian critique of the discourse surrounding the notion of the Anthropocene.
The only Marxian mention in Holloways book is Chakrabarty, an indian historian who from my point can hardly be called marxian in his thinking and writing - I won't pursue this here, but I think Chakrabarty notion of deep history and his political conclusions are rather hollow. Hollow also cites some critique on Chakrabarty, so props to him for that.
To conclude: you won't find answers here, rather a potpourri of views, opinions and positions on how fck up the state of humanity is... formulated in a more elaborate manner than my words. For a starter solid, but nothing of exeptional depth.
November 3, 2024
I think my primary issue with this book is just my dislike for how philosophy is written.
Holloway poses many interesting questions and ideas throughout this short treatise:
- Tracing the philosophical ideas that are at the root of what humans have done with the world: neoliberalism, humanism, human exceptionalism, colonialism, an understanding that humans are above nature, rather than a part of it
- A reframing of human history and geological history as one. Understanding that, if humans have impacted nature, nature is swinging the pendulum back, with no regard for who is responsible and why.
- Connecting various pieces of art that are concerned with human beings no longer "above" the elements, but subjected to them. And therefore, a reversal of the Romantic movement (Shelley, Wordsworth, etc.). Nature is no longer a place to find solace and return with clarity about human thoughts. It's a place to reckon with human behavior.
So, lots of really insightful and cutting thoughts. At the same time, the writing could feel redundant and occasionally circular. Lots of -- "In this chapter, I'm going to prove...," and then listing a bunch of examples or quotes from other philosophical texts, and then concluding with, "So in this chapter, I proved..."
It never really answered how to live at the End of the World. It focused on what patterns of thought led us to the end of the world? What kinds of art, politics, ways of thinking do we need to move forward? And is the "end of the world" just the end of a certain epoch of human thought, social structure, and relationship with nature? But never what I was really craving the whole time -- a sense of the grief, the hopelessness, the frustration of it.
Worth a read though.
Edit -- really agree with this assessment from a Goodreads reviewer:
"Holloway is comfortable here, highly readable, some fresh air amid so many theorists, et al., who think they need to emulate Hegel or Whitehead in their prose. There are no answers here, nothing approximating a plan. More of an intellectual call to arms, to arm up and do more.... thinking."
Holloway poses many interesting questions and ideas throughout this short treatise:
- Tracing the philosophical ideas that are at the root of what humans have done with the world: neoliberalism, humanism, human exceptionalism, colonialism, an understanding that humans are above nature, rather than a part of it
- A reframing of human history and geological history as one. Understanding that, if humans have impacted nature, nature is swinging the pendulum back, with no regard for who is responsible and why.
- Connecting various pieces of art that are concerned with human beings no longer "above" the elements, but subjected to them. And therefore, a reversal of the Romantic movement (Shelley, Wordsworth, etc.). Nature is no longer a place to find solace and return with clarity about human thoughts. It's a place to reckon with human behavior.
So, lots of really insightful and cutting thoughts. At the same time, the writing could feel redundant and occasionally circular. Lots of -- "In this chapter, I'm going to prove...," and then listing a bunch of examples or quotes from other philosophical texts, and then concluding with, "So in this chapter, I proved..."
It never really answered how to live at the End of the World. It focused on what patterns of thought led us to the end of the world? What kinds of art, politics, ways of thinking do we need to move forward? And is the "end of the world" just the end of a certain epoch of human thought, social structure, and relationship with nature? But never what I was really craving the whole time -- a sense of the grief, the hopelessness, the frustration of it.
Worth a read though.
Edit -- really agree with this assessment from a Goodreads reviewer:
"Holloway is comfortable here, highly readable, some fresh air amid so many theorists, et al., who think they need to emulate Hegel or Whitehead in their prose. There are no answers here, nothing approximating a plan. More of an intellectual call to arms, to arm up and do more.... thinking."
February 3, 2023
Read this book for its intro and for the first chapter. Just don't expect it to stick the landing. There is some unnecessary repetition of otherwise salient ideas that are worth investigating on their own. Appreciate that Holloway relied to a significant degree upon Sylvia Wynter's thinking, in addition to Bernard Stiegler's, Wendy Brown's, and many others. The outcome is a bit of a mess toward a rethinking of arts and politics in the Anthropocene (the final two chapters), all while alerting us to some worthwhile, pre-existing kernels by other contemporary theorists. The footnotes and bibliography contains some riches.
Holloway is comfortable here, highly readable, some fresh air amid so many theorists, et al., who think they need to emulate Hegel or Whitehead in their prose. There are no answers here, nothing approximating a plan. More of an intellectual call to arms, to arm up and do more.... thinking.
Holloway is comfortable here, highly readable, some fresh air amid so many theorists, et al., who think they need to emulate Hegel or Whitehead in their prose. There are no answers here, nothing approximating a plan. More of an intellectual call to arms, to arm up and do more.... thinking.
December 30, 2024
Less to say and more to seemingly say “please read these authors.” I feel I gained very little from this other than to get an idea for what others think about the concept of the Anthropocene. Philosophy often gets bogged down in a series of “no, really! I read that person too!” And disproving arguments that don’t need to be disproven. This is no different. I would have liked to see something bold put forth here but unfortunately it was pretty timid.
February 14, 2023
'How to Live at the End of the World' should be seen more as a doorstopper opening the path to exploring other thinkers and their ideas rather than as a book that provides answers to any big questions.
Displaying 1 - 9 of 9 reviews