i think you should include 'Eschatology' as a sub-theme when discussing the anthropocene era.

if it's all over anyway, build to destroy.  neoliberalism starts making sense then.

that's interesting. I'll definitely read about it. But on first pass it seems a bit theological/tangential. Building to destroy seems a bit radical, and almost too active. Why not just descend into a putrid state of nihilistic decay instead?

Slavoj Zizek's book "Living in the end times" is at home collecting dust on my bookshelf. Maybe it's time to dig in. 

It might be stretching beyond the scope you want to focus on, but I think it would be informative to study cultural expectations of the future man made environment.

The idea that people would build worlds or cities with engineered ecologies has been a theme in science fiction for decades, and both movies and books could provide evidence of the aspirations and fears modern society has for this anthropocene age.

Some books (many more out there)
Ringworld, Larry Niven
Red Mars Series, Kim Stanley Robinson
also Freeman Dyson's speculative ideas for manipulating the solar system to create habitable planets.

Ultimately this depends on where you want your thesis to fall on the scale from pragmatic to fantastic. These obviously would lean more towards fantastic, but as Buckminster Fulley or Archigram demonstrate, fantasy is a valid approach to architectural speculation.

Benny, my own M.Arch thesis followed a similar line without the Anthropocene idea. Perhaps the scope of your thesis allows you to make a bold claim and run with it but I would be weary about making such a simple statement as "human actions have changed the world".  The world is fine and has lived through worse than humans many times over... The same cannot be said about us however but that's beside the point.

Pick an angle. Are you looking at urban settlements, disaster relief housing, mass migration, independence... etc? Is there a design solution to your position or are you just writing theory? You don't want to wax poetically about self-sustaining nomadic culture change that so happens to be created by convertible urban furniture. I've seen worse.

Midlander's last paragraph is exactly what I was going to write.  You need to decide if this is pure fiction, dystopian or utopian, or a work of reductio ad absurdum. I'd recommend reading Climate Wars by Gwynne Dyer for good post apocalyptic environmental scenarios.

Framing the Anthropocene as a problem implies that there is a solution that is not the Anthropocene. Consider the Anthropocene as a condition rather than a problem.

Also, consider the false dichotomy exposed by the Anthropocene (nature vs. culture) and explore unitary ways of approaching design that reference the interconnectedness amongst systems.

Don't get hung up on global systems. While the connections between the global systems that you reference are very important, it becomes incredibly easy to lose sight of the trees for the forest as you increase in scale. More often than not, decentralization and regionalism where emphasis placed on local quirks is better design than globalization where one size fits all.

You also mentioned impermanence and nomadism. Check out some yurts. 

Deer...... http://m.nautil.us/issue/101/in-our-nature/what-the-deer-are-telling-us-rp

That's a good article, Olaf.

It blew my mind Donna and I believe it is related to this anthropocene topic. We like Deer it appears.

New Zealand on the other hand does not like mammals. 

http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2014/12/22/big-kill

Benny you should check out Howard T. Odum, specifically for systems and environment. Find his book if you can.

Great article Lukeggg.....I say we 1080 the entire one floor peanut butter Sprawl.