What do humanists have to offer in the ongoing discussion of anthropogenic climate change or the Anthropocene? The science is not ours but viewed at a distance. Meanwhile, pragmatic action is seldom driven by humanist prose, and only in the rarest of cases are humanities professors placed so as to have much impact on climate policy. Our tendency in this situation—it is not the only one where this happens—is to retreat to the humanist comfort zones of cultural theory, critique, or ethical analysis. Even at its best, this represents a move back behind the walls that today separate scholarly humanism from mainstream discourse on important societal issues. Can we offer more? Dipesh Chakrabarty, a leading humanist participant in the Anthropocene discussion, has pointed to some possibilities. Ethical and critical analysis certainly figures in his work, but it takes a backseat to his central offering: a historiographic meditation with implications for reconceiving our future. The historical perspective is required because, for Chakrabarty, the central problematic of the Anthropocene involves reconciling events that move on vastly different timescales. The Great Acceleration in human population growth and use of fossil fuels

中文翻译：

---

气候危机的两个深层历史模型

在对人为气候变化或人类世的持续讨论中，人文主义者必须提供什么？科学不是我们的，而是远观的。与此同时，人文主义散文很少推动务实的行动，只有在极少数情况下，人文学科教授才能对气候政策产生重大影响。我们在这种情况下的倾向——它不是唯一发生这种情况的地方——是退回到文化理论、批评或伦理分析的人文主义舒适区。即使在最好的情况下，这也代表了一种将学术人文主义与重要社会问题的主流话语分开的墙后的倒退。我们可以提供更多吗？Dipesh Chakrabarty 是人类世讨论的主要人文主义参与者，他指出了一些可能性。道德和批判性分析肯定会出现在他的作品中，但它在他的核心产品中处于次要地位：对重新构想我们的未来具有影响的历史沉思。历史视角是必需的，因为对于 Chakrabarty 来说，人类世的核心问题涉及协调在截然不同的时间尺度上发生的事件。人口增长和化石燃料使用的巨大加速