THE ANTHROPOCENE
by J. Riedal, M. Fries, & C. Woolums
Its meaning.
Environmentalism has typically used historical data, such as fossil records and atmospheric gas concentrations, to back up claims that human activity is largely involved with the changing climate and extinction rates. Geologic time is typified by similar fossils and conditions found in rock layers. But what happens when scholars find that the layer currently being deposited is far different than any in the past? Enter the Anthropocene. Today, more and more scholars are agreeing that human activity is so pervasive in the global system that our footprint will be forever etched into geologic time. The starting point of the Anthropocene is debated, but in the 21st century, we are realizing the advent of this new era. The Anthropocene is a period in time where our human presence is evident in every way, from the gases we release in the air, to the waste we bury in the ground, and to the biologic species we introduce to new habitats. The Anthropocene, related to the concept of Anthropocentrism, is a time when humans rule supreme, when we have surpassed nature, and take on the role of creative actors. The thing is though, if we know we have growing control, can humans make this an era of extinction or an era of flourishment?
Its context.
The term, Anthropocene, has not been officially recognized by either the International Committee on Stratigraphy or the International Union of Geological Sciences (IUGS) as a distinct geological period of time yet, but in August 2016 the Working Group on the Anthropocene (WGA) voted to formally designate and presented their case to the IUGS. Paul Crutzen, a Nobel laureate and atmospheric chemist is credited with the popularization of the term in the early 21st century within the scientific community (Stromberg, 2013). This recognition is however, one of few, in the larger context of academic and rhetorical debates of the word, which began in the late last century and is evidenced by the patterned use of the term. The history of the Anthropocene is more or less the history of human civilization, and primarily the impacts of our recent industrialization over the last 250 years (Dukes, 2011). When dealing with the Anthropocene context is not only relative to the academic community but also in relation to contemporary debates over our impact on our planetary ecosystems in the long term.
The Anthropocene must be understood as it relates to other anchors of academic and scientific discourse surrounding human ecological impacts on a global scale. It is important to mention Anthropocentrism and the larger conception therein of our own ability to change the world deep into the future. The Anthropocene as a concept is grounded in the hard science of geological time scales. In the late 1960s it became increasingly evident to scientists that the significant changes in the chemical composition of the water, gas, and mineral content of our present iteration of life on earth were likely being caused by human activity. However, early critiques against the Anthropocene focussed on scientists’ inability to make long term predictions based on relatively recent measurements (Bonneuil, 2016).
As is common in environmental debate, the meaning of the Anthropocene can change as it is pertains to different perspectives, initiatives, and motives involved in the debate over its validity. For many earth scientists, it is a part of the soil record indicating distinct changes in composition correlated with the appearance and expansion of human industrial activity. For energy companies and international economists, however, the Anthropocene indicates a much more problematic narrative against fossil fuel dependency and carbon emissions in the short term future (Purdy, 2015). It is clear that the historical and cultural context of the Anthropocene is complex while its existence is debated, sides are already being drawn for or against it.
Its importance.
The debate surrounding the Anthropocene as an actual time period has been relatively recent, dating back primarily to the 1960s. In the context of overall environmental scholarship, the concept of the Anthropocene has been solidly backed up, we believe. From our perspective as U.S. educated citizens, it is very real and all around us. According to an article from the Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences, in the 200 year period between the proposed start of the Anthropocene in 1800 to 2000, the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere increased from 283 ppmv to 369 ppmv. This, compared to the previous 200 year period (1600-1800), which saw an increase from 276 ppmv to 283 ppmv, is a startling jump in atmospheric emissions. Popular films such as An Inconvenient Truth popularized the notion that humans were changing the atmosphere and used the Anthropocene as a tool to motivate.
The main weakness of the Anthropocene argument is that humans have always been changing the planet we share. Paul Crutzen coined the term “Anthropocene” in 1995, saying that this specific geological era started in the late eighteenth century, when ice cores displayed an increase in the methane and carbon dioxide concentrations in the air. This is usually correlated to industrial emissions, which ignores the impact of animal populations and changing terrains (e.g. melting permafrost). Deforestation occurring throughout our evolutionary history as we transitioned from hunter-gatherers to agrarians has influenced the atmospheric carbon cycle well before industrialization. Due to the contribution by non-human sources, many are unconvinced that atmospheric gases confirm an Anthropocene.
The main strength lies in the visible impacts that we have, fortunately. What will remain of us, as modern fossils, will be troves of plastic waste, nuclear fuel, crumbling cement and other forever materials we synthesize. Often images will appear on social media of wild animals dying of plastic consumption. We know to cut our bottle rings so the don’t choke turtles and many have heard of the rumored Great Pacific Garbage Patch. Plastics can take longer than a lifetime to decompose, and now, even rocks are being formed with plastic particles inside, called plastiglomerates (Corcoran et al., 2014). The waste we produce doesn’t disappear when we no longer see it, instead it can reach places on earth humans have never visited themselves. Being able to walk outside and see a piece of trash half-buried in the dirt should be evidence enough that our influence is permanent, that we live in a human epoch, the Anthropocene.
Its outcome.
In order to achieve feasible outcomes environmentalists are beginning to move away from the classical thought of Nature being pure and are realizing the importance of the implication the Anthropocene presents. If the earth is entering the Anthropocene then it means humans not only change global systems but also that this change could be intentional. One method to address negative impacts is the use of geoengineering, literally engineering a world suitable for human life. Acceptance of the Anthropocene and acceptance of human influence over global systems can allow for constructive arguments for how we can positively influence and build ecosystems through actions we know will have effects. If humans can be culpable of change, humans can be capable of change, and the idea of saving the environment could become the reality of creating the environment.
We must take caution, though. The Anthropocene is an epoch marked by human destruction. We only see the effects of our actions by what disappears–the acres of rainforest, the dwindling species, the color of the barrier reef. There will be those that upon realizing their influence, will seek to control ecosystems for their benefit. Our global institution of Capitalism requires resource exploitation. While some could find wealth in changing global systems, many more may be left marginalized.
As we enter the Anthropocene, we must recognize that even individually, we effect change in the world. Humans have caused irreversible changes to earth systems but we have the power to change things for the better.
References
Bonneuil, C., & Fressoz, Jean-Baptiste. (2016). The shock of the Anthropocene : The earth, history, and us. London; Brooklyn, NY: Verso.
Corcoran, Patricia L., Charles J. Moore, and Kelly Jazvac. “An anthropogenic marker horizon in the future rock record.” GSA Today, 2014, 4-8. Accessed March 22, 2017.
Dukes, P. (2011). Minutes to Midnight History and the Anthropocene Era from 1763 (Anthem World History). London: Anthem Press.
Purdy, J. (2015). After nature : A politics for the anthropocene. Cambridge, Massachusetts: Harvard University Press.
Steffen, Will, Åsa Persson, Lisa Deutsch, Jan Zalasiewicz, Mark Williams, Katherine Richardson, Carole Crumley, Paul Crutzen, Carl Folke, Line Gordon, Mario Molina, Veerabhadran Ramanathan, Johan Rockström, Marten Scheffer, Hans Joachim Schellnhuber, and Uno Svedin. “The Anthropocene: From Global Change to Planetary Stewardship.” Ambio 40, no. 7 (2011): 739-61.
Stromberg, Joseph. “What Is the Anthropocene and Are We in It?” Smithsonian.com. January 01, 2013. Accessed March 23, 2017. http://www.smithsonianmag.com/science-nature/what-is-the-anthropocene-and-are-we-in-it-164801414/.