In this regard, I remain irked by the methodology of the Anthropocene Observatory, a project by Territorial Agency (John Palmesino and Ann-Sofi Rönnskog) in collaboration with artist Armin Linke and curator Anselm Franke. Presented at the House of World Cultures in 2013, the project investigates the genealogy of the Anthropocene thesis, focusing on the scientifico-mathematical calculations of global Earth-making processes, and archives its findings in the form of texts and videos shown in exhibitions and websites. As Palmesino explains in an interview in the book Architecture in the Anthropocene, the Observatory practices a form of “neutrality” toward its subject, a “politics of non-action”—“not to take a position, not to engage with conflicts, not to partake in territorial conditions and the reorganization of factions and parties”—according to which it advocates simply witnessing and studying the unfolding of the Anthropocene.6Etienne Turpin, “Matters of Observation: A Conversation with John Palmesino and Ann-Sofi Rönnskog,” in Architecture in the Anthropocene: Encounters Among Design, Deep Time, Science and Philosophy, ed. Etienne Turpin (London: Open Humanities Press, 2013), 23. Yet, as we’ve seen, the Anthropocene itself is far from neutral. As such, I find such calls for neutrality to be inevitably complicit in the very non-neutrality of Anthropocene ideology. If we are to survive the Anthropocene, what we need is activism, not neutrality. What’s required is “a revolt against brutality,” and against the violence of climate change, as Solnit contends, not the neutral observation of the fossil-fuel-driven destruction of planet earth.