From March 12 to 14, 2025, the international conference “Anthropocene Calling II: Humans, Animals, Machines” was held at the Monastero di Astino, a collaborative facility of the University of Bergamo in Italy. Continuing from the international conference held at the University of Rome Tor Vergata in Italy in 2024, this symposium aims to conduct a multifaceted examination of the various issues arising from anthropocentrism, under the theme of the “Anthropocene.” The first conference featured subtitles corresponding to four research fields: “Nature, Technology, Language and Culture, and Art.” For this second conference, subtitles centered on research subjects such as “Humans, Animals, Machines,” thereby facilitating cross-disciplinary exchange.
At the symposium, Principal Investigator Yasuko Nakamura first delivered the opening address. Subsequently, Councilor Rodeschini of the MIA Foundation, which manages the venue, Astino Abbey, offered words of praise and welcome for the academic cooperation between Japan and Italy. He also noted that this symposium marked the first collaborative event between the University of Bergamo and the MIA Foundation. Participants in the symposium included members of the AAA Project, such as Takeda, the leader of Group 5, as well as researchers from the University of Bergamo, the University of Rome Tor Vergata, the University of Eastern Piedmont, and the University of St. Gallen in Switzerland.
Researchers from a wide range of disciplines—from the humanities to the natural sciences—gathered to present their research and engage in lively discussions based on their respective areas of expertise. The discussions were conducted in a mixture of English, Italian, and Japanese, demonstrating the deepening of academic collaboration between Japan and Italy (see the list at the end of this report).
This report provides an overview of the six sessions held over the three-day symposium—Nature I, Nature II, Humans and Animals, Robots and Emotions, Humans, Machines, and Habitus, and Art and Ecology—and offers concise summaries of each presentation.
Honorifics are omitted when referring to the presenters’ names.
The session “Nature I” examined how the relationship between humans and nature should be reconstructed in the Anthropocene, from religious, philosophical, and geopolitical perspectives. Okada’s presentation explored a non-fixed view of nature through medieval Christian ideas of resurrection, reincarnation, and transformation. While traditional Christian resurrection presupposes an unchanging self, it was demonstrated that the concept of transformation—regarded as heretical—is more compatible with contemporary ecological thought. The referenced works included the religious paintings in the intarsia style at the Cappella Colleoni in Bergamo, as well as works by the painter Lorenzo Lotto, who was active and had a great influence in Bergamo. Terrosi’s presentation identified three forms of alienation in the Anthropocene: the humanization of nature, the naturalization of humans, and the autonomy of technology. It explored reconstructing these relationships by critically isolating the connections between humans, nature, and technology and re-examining their individual existences. In Luisetti’s discussion, the overcoming of a colonialist view of nature was argued, based on the relationship between Earth and living organisms, and the concept of “Geopower”, which refers to the forces that transform the Earth. It was emphasized that not all humans are equally involved in the environmental problems the Earth faces in the Anthropocene, that the origins lie in the Plantationocene driven by colonialism, and that nature is not merely a resource. Works by artists such as Carolina Caycedo and Motoyuki Shimomichi, who express these themes, were referenced.
In the session “Nature II,” the concept of the Sublime served as a central theme, discussed from aesthetic and philosophical perspectives within the context of the Anthropocene. Takeda analyzed the work of photographer Naoya Hatakeyama, focusing on its theme of the sublime. He pointed out that Hatakeyama’s works consider the relationships between nature and humans, and nature and technology, as equal, which are different from the Romantic concept of the sublime. Referring to Nicolas Bourriaud’s “Anthropocenic Sublime,” he reexamined the contemporary relationship between humans and nature, proposing a form way of the sublime in the Anthropocene. Patella focused on the concept of the Sublime—an aesthetic sensitivity toward nature that has been emphasized since the eighteenth century. Traditional theories of the sublime identify two perspectives: one that regards nature as otherness to be feared (sentimental sublime), and another that internalizes nature as a mirror of the subject (metaphysical sublime). In the contemporary era of environmental crisis, he pointed out that the Uncanny is emerging as a new ecological emotion, suggesting three forms of the sublime. Heritier, from the perspectives of law and aesthetics, discussed the foundations of freedom and responsibility within anthropocentrism, as well as the basis of a pluralistic society, by drawing on three concepts concerning the essence of humanity—homo homini lupus, homo homini deus, and homo homini homo—with reference to Plato’s concept of chōra and the debates of the Kyoto School.
In the session “Humans and Animals,” various perspectives were presented on the relationship between humans and non-human forms of life—including animals and zombies—from the viewpoints of image studies, post-apocalyptic representations, and empathy. Ninomiya focused on aesthetic visual expression in animals, reconsidering the creation of images as a phenomenon that transcends species. Based on the discussions of Darwin and Portmann, he also suggested the possibility that animals engage in creative expression as well. Fukuda examined representations of the apocalypse and zombies in Japanese subculture, focusing particularly on works classified as “Sekai-kei” and “post-Sekai-kei.” A uniquely Japanese approach is found in the emphasis on individual ways of living within a collapsed world, rather than on rebuilding society or investigating causes. Saito focused on empathy as a dynamic process of action prediction, investigating how self-referential empathy and cognitive empathy contribute to action prediction. Specifically, using a reinforcement learning model, the participants performed a task predicting the decision-maked by a human partner and a non-human agent. As a result, it was shown that there are two learning processes called emotional empathy and cognitive empathy, which play an important role in understanding human decision-making.
In the session “Robots and Emotions,” analyses were presented on the recognition of emotions arising between artificial agents and humans from psychological and philosophical perspectives. Izumi, drawing on conceptual space and the semantics of (anti)honorifics, demonstrated that the rhetoric of dehumanization does not merely deny humanity but involves a downgrading act that lowers one’s position in the social hierarchy. Furthermore, he showed that even non-human artificial agents can be linguistically dehumanized. From a psychological perspective, Ikeda showed that humans have a natural tendency to recognize other humans from early childhood, highlighting the inherent difficulty for humans to naturally accept AI and robots. To address this, he discussed the importance of habitus—habitual patterns of behavior—for coexisting with robots and AI. Nakamura and Zheng applied text-mining techniques to analyze Freud’s complete works, elucidating the development of his thought. Analysis using k-means clustering revealed three distinct periods—Phase I (1886–1901), Phase II (1905–1919), and Phase III (1919–1939)—and confirmed the evolution of key concepts such as emotion, libido, and drive. Furthermore, the structural topic model (STM) revealed two turning points in Freud’s theory (1900 and 1907). The results showed that the subject of Freud’s persistent theme of anxiety (angst) expanded from women to children and then to humanity as a whole.
In the session “ Humans, Machines, and Habitus,” participants discussed how human behavior patterns—habitus—are changing and being shaped by the development of AI and machine technology. Yamamoto focused on generative AI, which now generates data utilized in all aspects of life as technological innovation advances, examining its relationship with human creativity. Using examples like Hatsune Miku and the interactions between humans and ChatGPT with customized personalities, he explored the impact of coexisting with generative AI on mental health and discussed the formation of new habitus. Ohira examined from a neuroscientific perspective how habits, implemented and embodied within the brain as proposed in neuroscientist Jean-Pierre Changeux’s paper “The Neural Basis of Habitus,” are formed, maintained, and shared, aiming to elucidate the neural mechanisms . The results revealed that learning and decision-making regarding monetary rewards, as well as learning and decision-making concerning social norms and behaviors, rely on common brain regions such as the striatum within the basal ganglia. Furthermore, from the perspective of Bayesian brain theory, the study also examined the mechanisms for adapting to new information and constructing models of the world. Verdicchio, through the concept of the “Machinocene”—where computers attain intelligence far surpassing humans and bring the Anthropocene to an end—presents a future vision not of a broken relationship between humans and machines, but of humans adapting to mechanical thinking. He thus proposes the Machine Age as an extension of the Anthropocene. Specifically, the relationship between media and the singer Charli XCX and the actor Karla Sofía Gascón, etc., as well as Instagram posts, were taken as examples. This session featured discussions on the possibilities of new habitus emerging from human adaptation and evolution in the AI era, asking how human thought and behavior will change together with machines.
In the session “Art and Ecology,” new perspectives on vitality and the environment through art were explored. Iinuma examined Lygia Clark’s work Bichos from the perspective of semiotic animism, analyzing how an inorganic artwork can embody or manifest a sense of vitality. Focusing on the creature-like qualities that emerge when viewers interact with the artwork, she applied the concept of animism to art, suggesting the possibility for artworks to attain a form of autonomy. Ikeno examined contemporary art of the Anthropocene era through the theme of the atmosphere and the air that envelops the Earth and surround human beings. She first considered the work of Haruko Mikami, exploring air as a component of the human living sphere and its limits. She then analyzed Bruno Latour’s Critical Zones exhibition, focusing on his idea that the atmosphere is constituted through the actions of all actors, both human and non-human. It has been confirmed that in the Anthropocene, we must recognize that the atmosphere is not merely an invisible surrounding environment, but is constructed within relationships with technology, society, and humanity.
In summary, this symposium developed discussions within the broad frameworks of the Anthropocene, focusing on humans and the natural environment surrounding them, as well as technological society, including generative AI. First, it attempted to rethink how humans relate to non-human entities, or whether changes are occurring in these relationships, exploring shifts in these connections and interactions. This involved rethinking the nature of humans, animals, nature, and machines. Second, as humans build new relationships with robots and generative AI—entities inherently difficult to perceive—discussions explored the pursuit of new habitus, such as identifying human-like qualities or similarities with humans. The theme of coexistence possibilities with these entities was deeply debated. These research findings, based on an interdisciplinary perspective from the humanities, natural sciences, and social sciences, reconsidered the limitations of anthropocentrism and deepened new insights toward building a sustainable society.
After the international symposium, participants had the opportunity to visit the Pinacoteca di Brera in Milan and the Museum of Criminal Anthropology Cesare Lombroso in Turin. The collection of the Pinacoteca di Brera symbolizes how humanity has interacted with its surrounding environment throughout history, while the psychological instruments displayed at the Lombroso Museum can be regarded as precursors to modern AI technologies. The international symposium in Bergamo primarily discussed the present and future of the Anthropocene; meanwhile, the field visits in Milan and Turin provided opportunities to reconsider the relationship between humans and the environment in the Anthropocene through the lens of accumulated history.
Based on the discussions at this symposium, it is hoped that research and debate will continue actively in the ongoing Anthropocene.
List of symposium participants(presentation order)
– Atsushi OKADA, Professor, Kyoto Seika University
– Roberto TERROSI, Researcher, University of Rome Tor Vergata
– Federico LUISETTI, Associate Professor, University of St. Gallen
– Giuseppe PATELLA, Professor, University of Rome Tor Vergata
– Paolo HERITIER, Professor, University of Eastern Piedmont
– Nozomu NINOMIYA, JSPS Postdoctoral Fellow / The University of Tokyo
– Asako FUKUDA, Assistant Professor, Professional Institute of International Fashion
– Natsuki SAITO, Researcher, Nagoya University
– Yu IZUMI, Associate Professor, Nanzan University / RIKEN AIP
– Shinnosuke IKEDA, Associate Professor, Kanazawa University
– Yasuko NAKAMURA, Professor, Nagoya University
– Wanwan ZHENG, Assistant Professor, Nagoya University
– Tetsuya YAMAMOTO, Associate Professor, Tokushima University
– Hideki OHIRA, Professor, Nagoya University
– Mario VERDICCHIO, Associate Professor, University of Bergamo
– Yoko IINUMA, PhD student, Kyoto University
– Ayako IKENO, Associate Professor, Aoyama Gakuin University
(Authorship: Yoko IINUMA, Graduate School of Human and Environmental Studies, Kyoto University)