by Carlos Ferraro*

• Educommunication is a set of actions that a group of people intentionally develop to promote communicative, open, frank, democratic and participatory ecosystems” Ismar Olivera Soares

• The Anthropocene: It is an era characterized by a Western mode of production in which human beings are placed at the center, imposing their dominance over nature - inheritance of the Cartesian thought of "human beings as masters of nature" Miguel Benasayag

1. INTRODUCTION: HUMANITY IN TRANSITION

We are living in a time of historic inflection. Humanity is undergoing a profound transformation that is not limited to climate change, digitalization, or the technological revolution. What is at stake is the very meaning of existence and the way we inhabit the world.
In this context, a decisive concept emerges: the Anthropocene. With this term, science and philosophy name the era in which the impact of human activity has become a determining geological and cultural force. But beyond its environmental definition, the Anthropocene, in Miguel Benasayag's interpretation, is a mirror that reflects the image of a civilization that has lost its vital connection with the Earth and with others.

In parallel, from the field of communication and education, Educommunication—conceived as a set of actions aimed at promoting open, frank, democratic, and participatory communication ecosystems— represents an ethical and political response to another form of crisis: that of symbolic and social ties.
My purpose in this presentation is to bring these two horizons into dialogue: Benasayagui's critique of the Anthropocene and the transformative proposal of Educommunication. I understand that both movements converge in the same historical necessity: relearning how to inhabit, whether the Earth or the word, from an awareness of interdependence, limits, and reciprocity.

2. THE ANTHROPOCENE: THE ERA OF HUMAN OVERFLOW

For Benasayag, the Anthropocene is the culmination of an exhausted civilizational paradigm: that of the modern, rational, autonomous subject, who conceives of himself as the master and measure of all things. This subject—a child of Cartesian modernity and the Enlightenment project—has colonized nature, bodies, and, more recently, consciences, in the name of progress and efficiency.
Benasayag warns that this is not simply an ecological crisis, but an ontological and cultural one. Humanity has surpassed its own limits: in its desire to dominate, it has created a world it can no longer control. "The Anthropocene is not a natural catastrophe; it is the logical consequence of a civilization that confused power with life."

Technology, in this context, is not just a tool; it is an environment and a condition of existence. We live within the technoworld, an ecosystem where human relationships, knowledge, and emotions are mediated, quantified, and often subordinated to the algorithm. What Benasayag calls "algorithmic colonization" describes the replacement of lived experience with calculation and prediction. In the name of optimization, the subject becomes a "user," a datum that functions, but no longer inhabits.
The Anthropocene, then, not only destroys the planet: it destroys the very possibility of human habitation.

3. THE BREAKING OF THE BOND: FROM DOMINATION TO UPROOTING

The root of this crisis is anthropocentrism, the idea that humankind is at the center of the universe. Benasayag considers this a founding illusion of the West: the belief that the world is an object at the service of human reason. This separation between "us" and "the other"—nature, animals, peoples, cultures—has eroded the notion of community and generated planetary loneliness.

Today, as glaciers melt and social systems fragment, civilization faces the cost of its arrogance: the loss of its sense of limit. Limit, for Benasayag, is not a restriction but the very condition of life. All living things exist in a balance of forces, in an exchange that cannot be sustained if reciprocity is broken. Therefore, the challenge is not to "save the Earth," but to relearn how to live within it, recognizing our condition as a species among others, as a part and not as the center.

4. EDUCOMMUNICATION: THE INHABITATION OF THE WORD

Educommunication, since its origins in Latin America, has also been a critique of the paradigm of domination, but on another level: that of communication. If the ecological crisis is the result of technical domination over nature, the contemporary cultural crisis is the fruit of media domination over words and meaning.

In response to this, Educommunication proposes an emancipatory praxis, according to Ismar Soares: "A set of actions that a group of people intentionally develop to promote open, frank, democratic, and participatory communication ecosystems."

This definition encompasses a philosophy of connection. The communicative ecosystem is the symbolic equivalent of the natural ecosystem: a living network of relationships where every voice has a place and every dialogue creates shared meaning. Educating and communicating are, thus, acts of coexistence and co-responsibility. In a world fragmented by technocracy and information overload, Educommunication becomes a pedagogy of encounter, which seeks to restore the social fabric through dialogue.

5. FROM TECHNICAL COLONIZATION TO MEDIA COLONIZATION

If we follow Benasayag's critical reading, technology is not neutral. Its logic of limitless expansion reproduces a way of thinking that also dominates global communication: constant flux, saturation, immediacy.
The algorithmic colonization he denounces has its counterpart in the media colonization that Educommunication combats: the reduction of experience to consumption, the standardization of the gaze, the loss of real dialogue.
In both cases, what is destroyed is the space of the common: in the Anthropocene, the natural common (the Earth as home); in the communication crisis, the symbolic common (the word as a bridge). The task, then, is the same: to restore the bond.

6. LIVE: THE WORD SHARED BETWEEN BOTH PARADIGMS

Benasayag uses the verb "inhabit" in a strong sense: to inhabit is to live with, not to live upon. It is to recognize that life does not take place in the isolation of the self, but within the fabric of diversity.
Educommunication also understands communication as inhabiting, not transmitting. Inhabiting the word implies creating spaces where voices circulate, are heard, and mutually transform. The communicator-educator, in this sense, is not a sender of messages, but a mediator of presences, someone who enables community building.
Just as the Anthropocene demands an ethic of limits and interdependence with the Earth, Educommunication demands an ethic of dialogue and participation. Both dimensions—ecological and communicational—converge in a pedagogy of collective living.

7. FROM CIVILIZATIONAL CRISIS TO POLITICAL HOPE

Benasayag's diagnosis is severe but not fatalistic. He warns that humanity has already moved out of its "home": technology has built another world. But in this move, the question of meaning remains open. The challenge is not to surrender to technological determinism, but to reclaim the capacity to act together.
Educommunication, in this context, represents a concrete political response. Where the Anthropocene reveals the exhaustion of the modern model, Educommunication proposes a civilizing alternative: the reconstruction of social ties through dialogue, cooperation, and shared responsibility.

8. EDUCOMMUNICATION IN THE KEY OF THE ANTHROPOCENE

If we accept the idea that the Anthropocene is a new era for the planet, then Educommunication must be rethought in that light: as an educommunication of limits, sustainability, and care.

This involves: developing critical awareness about the technocratic use of communication; fostering educational experiences that integrate ecological, symbolic, and political aspects; and promoting communities that learn to engage with nature as much as with the media.
The 21st-century educational communicator must mediate between worlds: the human and the natural, the digital and the physical, the local and the global. Their task is not to teach techniques, but to cultivate a culture of coexistence.

9. TOWARDS A PEDAGOGY OF LIVING

We propose, then, to understand Educommunication as a pedagogy of living in the Anthropocene. Living in the world and living in words are two ways of responding to the same urgency: rebuilding the broken bond between human beings, nature, and community.
This pedagogy involves relearning how to listen; accepting limits as a condition for balance; valuing slowness and depth in the face of technological acceleration; and practicing real participation, not that simulated by algorithms.
To dwell means to be present, with awareness, with body, with words. It means relinquishing the illusion of control to embrace the task of caring.

10. THE ANTHROPOCENE AND EDUCOMMUNICATION: OPPORTUNITY AND RISK FOR DEMOCRACY

The Anthropocene era not only challenges the relationship between humanity and nature; it also questions the very sustainability of democracy. In a world governed by data flows, algorithms, and transnational platforms, collective decisions risk being displaced by automated systems of control and prediction.
Miguel Benasayag warns that this “algorithmic colonization” not only transforms the human mind, but also erodes the foundations of critical thinking, an essential condition for democratic deliberation. When citizens are reduced to consumers of personalized information, public space fragments into bubbles, and dialogue is replaced by polarization.

At this point, Educommunication emerges as a decisive opportunity. Its practices—networking, media literacy, critical reading, and pluralistic debate—can become antidotes to communication manipulation and misinformation. Educating to communicate is educating to deliberate, to exercise active and conscious citizenship.

Democracy, in an edu-communicative sense, is not a static system but a permanent practice of dialogue and care for the common good. Therefore, in the era of the Anthropocene, its defense cannot be limited to political institutions: it must extend to the media and technological ecosystem that shapes our perceptions of the world.
The risk is clear: a democracy without critical subjects degenerates into a sham; but the opportunity is also clear: an educated citizenry can rebuild the broken ties between word, action, and community.
Thus, Educommunication presents itself as a democratic pedagogy for the Anthropocene, capable of uniting ecological awareness, social justice, and communicative responsibility within a single ethical horizon.

11. TOWARDS A PLANETARY PEDAGOGY OF COMMUNICATION

The convergence of ecological and educational-communication thinking opens up the possibility of a planetary pedagogy: an education that not only teaches how to communicate, but also how to inhabit the planet as a symbolic and biological community.
This implies a cultural paradigm shift: from competition to cooperation, from consumption to reciprocity, from unlimited growth to vital balance.
The future of Educommunication lies in being a bridge between ethics, ecology, and democracy. A space for cultural resistance and the reconstruction of citizenship in the face of the advance of technocratic logic.

CONCLUSION

Miguel Benasayag's thinking on the Anthropocene and the proposal for Educommunication converge on the same humanist horizon: the defense of life as a bond. Both denounce the logic of domination—whether technical or media-based—and advocate for a world where existence is conceived through interdependence, responsibility, and dialogue.
If the Anthropocene is the name of the crisis, Educommunication may be the name of the response. A response not based on nostalgia or a naive trust in technology, but on the conviction that only through encounter can humanity be rebuilt.

Educating and communicating are, in this sense, political and ecological acts: they are ways of caring for the Earth, of caring for the word, and of caring for hope.

REFERENCES

Benasayag, M. (2023). Lectures and interviews on technology, life, and critical thinking. IFIS – Institute of Philosophy, Buenos Aires.
Benasayag, M. (2025). “Technology has built a new house, and the brain is moving.” Interview in Infobae, January 2025.
Soares, IO (2011). Educommunication: the concept, the practitioner, the application. Standard.
Kaplún, M. (1998). A pedagogy of communication. Editions de la Torre.
Ferraro, C. (2019). Democracy and Educommunication. SIGNIS ALC.
Carlos Ferraro is:
Professor of Philosophy and Educational Sciences (USAL – CONSUDEC) Educommunicator President of SIGNIS Latin America and the Caribbean.

Founding member and member of the board of directors of CELAEC