The Anthropocene
- 16 May 06, 03:23 PM
Written in 2002 Paul J Crutzen suggested we are now in a geological era which is defined by mankinds impact on the environment - more specifically an age defined by our generation of green house gases. Crutzen in the science journal "Nature" suggests this period started about 300 years ago - A time when industrialisation really got going. This is the Anthropocene.
Geological time is one of those things that most mortals can't get their head around. I understand that the most basic unit of geological time is the "age" and an "epoch" is a series of ages. Epochs are names you might recognise. The Holocene is the most recent, then the Pleistocene before that - And the Pliocene before that.
Are we in the Anthropocene???
The truly famous names to us lay people are immortilised in films like "Jurassic" Park. Jurassic, famous as the dinosaur era, is a geological "period" - an even longer stretch of time.
So what do you think? Are we in a period of time defined by Homo sapiens? And is this sufficiently distinctive to be found in the earths records - And to be given its own name? There are plenty who would take issue. Geological eras are defined by evidence in the fossil and geological record, something physical for us all to see. Crutzen suggests the presence of green house gases caught up in the ice record from 300 years ago is a good starting point to define this new epoch. There are scientists who believe that human induced global warming started when mankind discovered fire - perhaps the Anthropocene started 100,000 years ago! And if our cities crumbled in the dim and distant future, how would they appear in the geological record? Surley they'd be there - as a layer of concrete!
Comments Post your comment
From the linked article:
"So far, these effects have largely been
caused by only 25% of the world population."
I too believe the rot started when we got fire, because before that there was nothing to do at night except the obvious.
With a fire we could sit up all night talking rubbish and develop abstract thinking, theatre, music, history and of course, religion. All went OK until some fools (actually Sumerian accountants) invented writing, and shortly lawyers emerged. Hesiod told me so:
Certainly the anthropogenic marks on the Earth include the great deserts of Mesopotamia and management of tropical forests by indigeneous populations.
The Anthropocene is well underway, but will it last as long as other epochs?
Vaya con Gaia
ed
Complain about this post
It seems to me,that considering all the reasons that have been put forward for climate change problems in the 79 years I have been alive,all boil down to the fact that there are just too many humans.
No matter what other reasons are put forward,this is the basic cause.The chinese are the only ones who have attempted to solve this problem,and have been denigrated for their solution,which unpalatable as it is,is the only real answer.It gets back to the quart in a pint pot.
Life by it's very nature polutes,when it extracts the energy that it needs to continue,it changes the enviroment in which it exists.
To keep the world ,even in this parlous situation,we must only replace
ourselves,
pro bono publico
Complain about this post
BACK TO EDEN, or STATUS QUO.
We know nothing, science is only another belief.
If we think we know anything we are making a mistake. We cannot know, and the proof is simple:- All this "world" or the whole cosmos; everything within it, all we can perceive, feel, smell and hear, (everything we can appreciate and understand including our own five senses), either became or always existed, will always be or, at some time, will no longer be. We don't know. Having come to this unavoidable assessment we have five options;
These are:
1) This "world" always was and always will be.
2) This "world" always was and will at some time no longer be.
3) This "world" became and will at some time no longer be.
4) This "world" became and will always be.
5) A mixture of all the others, (there is an infinite number).
There is no person on earth who can tell you which one is the case, we only choose one and choose to believe it. All we can say is that which we do choose to believe appeals to our five simple senses. What about "dark matter", what about "the eleven dimensions"? We actually know only nothing. Our five simple senses are simply not enough. Doubt is the only certainty. This is an issue we should really come to terms with, we need to understand it to really grow up and become childlike.
We are left with just one question, which is what do we really need out of this world?
We must choose a belief such as to give us the best chance of making it happen. It would not be so difficult if the whole or most of the world wanted or had the need for the same thing. But then again we believe that this is not true. To a great extent our existing belief system has led us think that all people what different things. Not necessarily true, for the most part this is because we believe there are things that we do actually know. Each man's 'Eden' is good for each man.
Thinking and believing that we KNOW things has been the cause of so much harm. Through eating from the tree of knowledge of good and evil Adam and Eve lost their possession of the Garden of Eden. It was not God who expelled them from the garden, it was the inability to hold the concept of love in one's mind whilst holding the concept of knowing, the concepts are mutually exclusive. God only knows.
If we think we know, we cannot believe in God, if we do not believe in God we cannot love our fellow as ourselves. If we do not love our fellow as ourselves we will forever pollute and spoil our very own world, condemn each other and have war. It's as simple as that.
The benefits of loving God above all things and loving our fellow man as ourselves are beyond the bounds of imagination. "Christianity". Contrary to popular belief it is not hard. Not only would it bring us happiness and fulfilment it will solve all the problems that we face today, including environmental, terrorism and world hunger, yes, all and every problem. For what we call problems are only symptoms of a more fundamental problem, which is that we do not believe. We don't believe in God therefore we do not love. There is no other solution.
On the other hand, not believing in God gives us no choice but to think that we know things: one has to hold onto one or the other concept. Therefore to achieve the ultimate we must just BELIEVE in God, for it is only through believing that we can love of our own accord; unforced; forced love is not real. We must abandon the concept of knowledge; take up the concept of understanding and belief. The whole argument takes a different slant however, if we say that God is LOVE; becomes more comprehensive and easier to grapple with. And the garden is Love.
Through love we get back to Eden. If this is the only message we ever get from the Bible, it will be enough. Be careful nonetheless of thinking that God is simply love, for this could lead us into thinking that this world was all there is, which would make loving our fellow man as ourselves irrational; status quo.
Tom
Complain about this post
Greetings Tom
If we substitute 'Humanity' for 'this world' in your list, Option 3 applies.
By present indications, I reckon the odds are that the outcome is on the horizon.
Salaam/Shalom/Shanti/Peace and
Vaya con Gaia
ed
Complain about this post
Speaking about Ecological Matters, I read an article from the Green Party in the USA [gp.org] in which the US Government was going to conduct tests in an area that belongs to Native Americans [even though the area has expressly prohibited such tests]. Maybe "Planet Earth Under Threat" may want to look into this story.
Complain about this post
Who was it that said that this era is defined by the fact that we can go anywhere in the world and see an English sparrow eating french fries outside a McDonalds? This is the age of homogeneity - or the Homogocene! Many think homogenaity is the biggest threat to biodiversity because it destroys local character and expression.
Complain about this post
Ever since the first microbes came into being they began to pollute. Pollution is a product of life, from that there's no escape. The original atmosphere of the Earth would have been lethal to us, but as life emerged it began to emit gases that slowly changed that atmosphere into its present form. Thus, in keeping with James Lovelock's Gaia theory, life created the conditions for its own perpetuation by a process of pollution.
Our problem now is that we have polluted to the point where our own existence is threatened because the Earth cannot deal with the pollutants we pump into the atmosphere, the oceans and the land itself. Over 6.5 billion inhabitants, and growing, on a planet that has reached the limits of what it can provide. Sooner or later something has to give.
On our own small island we passed the 60 million mark last year, and this is reflected in the biodiversity that is being destroyed to build houses and provide water and energy for the growing population.
Governments cannot do anything, despite all the rhetoric. They are too tied in with business interests, and those interests are at variance with what needs to be done. We cannot suddenly stop driving cars or flying, or living a lifestyle that is energy hungry. We may therefore already be past the tipping point, and no matter what we do we will have no effect on the reaction that is happening.
There have been mass extinctions in the past, all natural ones, but this time we may be the agents of our own demise.
Complain about this post
As James Lovelockβs βGaia Theoryβ ( Earth Goddess) suggests, the biosphere regulates its balances through life, and in its own self interest β a self regulating organism. While the human race may be a virus that threatens the planet, we are capable of making the ethically based philosophical decision to stop reproducing at an unsustainable rate and to drastically reduce harmful consumption.
If we are incapable of coming to that ethical conclusion and acting appropriately we deserve to be eradicated by the self regulating organism on which we parasitically exist β the biosphere. When humans replace their anthropocentric values for bio-centric moral principles, they may have some chance of survival.
The Planet Earth and its biodiversity of vegetation and animal life is in delicate natural balance and has NOT been put there for our benefit alone so that we may use, abuse and destroy as we fancy. Eco-centricity is to respect the biosphere and all its life forms and species, and to have the humility to know that we are not central to it, but merely an expendable peripheral that will inevitably be discarded unless we can demonstrate that our ecological credentials are holistic, viable and integral to the planet as a self-sustaining entity.
Initially we must at least:
Conserve energy and reduce consumption to an absolute minimum β especially for motorised transport, heating and lighting.
Invest in the development of sustainable forms of energy and more efficient energy saving technology.
Concentrate agriculture on efficient and sustainable food and fuel production and reduce or eliminate energy profligate farming such animal food production. Use agricultural land efficiently β growing crops is a much more efficient method of food production than is grazing animals.
Produce and access goods and food locally β reducing unnecessary transport energy costs.
Introduce plans and humane incentives for population reduction.
And we must redefine our conventional notions of economic growth. The greenhouse effect is the tragic outcome of opting for growth at all costs, treating the natural environment as both inexhaustible and expendable. Efforts to "turn down the heat" will mean redefining growth, not necessarily freezing it.
βZero Growthβ could exacerbate current economic inequalities, especially between the West and the Third World. Instead we should be aiming for βGreen Growthβ: growth grounded in social justice that takes account of both the environmental and human costs of development.
Inevitably this will mean forging new relationships with the natural world, and with each other β we have to be up to the challenge or perish!
Complain about this post