When natural scientists speak of cosmology, it is likely that they mean the universe and speak of matter: the planets, the stars, space travel, the possibility of other life forms in outer space, facts that await exploration. When ethnologists speak of cosmology, they are probably speaking about concepts: human-made notions about the emergence of the universe and notions of good and evil. Social, moral, religious, but also aesthetic views that define a community of belief, be it Maya, Catholic, or the belief system of the natural sciences. One side sees hard facts, the other social facts. What does this mean for academic conversations in the framework of the Anthropocene? The natural sciences might be able to establish the problem of the Anthropocene rationally, but what if their cosmology knows of no ready solution or meets its limitations? Maybe an entirely new cosmology is required, new disciplines and new curricula that think together the hard and the soft, and perhaps, somewhat beyond that as well.