The majority (39%) of you were under the impression that we had entered the Anthropocene, but only in the last few decades. This opinion aligns with the growing general consensus in academia and the AWG, arguing that the Great Acceleration period of the mid-20th century, encompassing huge societal, technological, and environmental changes, is the most likely date of onset (Waters et al 2016).
23% of you believed that we have been in the Anthropocene for centuries i.e. Ruddiman's early anthropogenic hypothesis (Ruddiman 2003; Ruddiman 2013), or maybe even as far back as megafaunal extinctions (Doughty et al 2010)! Those of you who voted 'Other' (23%) commented that it depends on the ways in which we define the Anthropocene. Does it mean a time of great human impact and dominance, and if so, how do we measure human impact objectively? Or, does it mean a time of vast changes to Earth Systems, noted from the first instance of change, or the largest change? Some of you also commented that it depends whether the Anthropocene is defined as an epoch or age.
Finally, 15% of the votes argued that we are still in the Holocene. This either means that these people disagree with the Anthropocene concept entirely and think we should remain in the Holocene Epoch which already encompasses human impact, or can see its merits for research but believe it should remain an informal term.
The division of opinions in my one small poll almost represent a small-scale version of the spread of voices in academia which have been explored over the last 4 months! Even if Waters et al (2016) represent a large majority of the AWG's opinion, the remaining members of the group and other academics are either completely against formalisation, or argue a different onset should be chosen instead of mid-20th century. Has your opinion changed since your vote in this initial poll and after reading the debates on my blog? Please let me know in the comments below!
23% of you believed that we have been in the Anthropocene for centuries i.e. Ruddiman's early anthropogenic hypothesis (Ruddiman 2003; Ruddiman 2013), or maybe even as far back as megafaunal extinctions (Doughty et al 2010)! Those of you who voted 'Other' (23%) commented that it depends on the ways in which we define the Anthropocene. Does it mean a time of great human impact and dominance, and if so, how do we measure human impact objectively? Or, does it mean a time of vast changes to Earth Systems, noted from the first instance of change, or the largest change? Some of you also commented that it depends whether the Anthropocene is defined as an epoch or age.
Finally, 15% of the votes argued that we are still in the Holocene. This either means that these people disagree with the Anthropocene concept entirely and think we should remain in the Holocene Epoch which already encompasses human impact, or can see its merits for research but believe it should remain an informal term.
The division of opinions in my one small poll almost represent a small-scale version of the spread of voices in academia which have been explored over the last 4 months! Even if Waters et al (2016) represent a large majority of the AWG's opinion, the remaining members of the group and other academics are either completely against formalisation, or argue a different onset should be chosen instead of mid-20th century. Has your opinion changed since your vote in this initial poll and after reading the debates on my blog? Please let me know in the comments below!
I voted that we are still in the Holocene! From what I have read in the past I feel that the epoch is already a period of human impact, I also think it is a "knee-jerk" reaction if we decide on it now. I think we are too anthropocentric in classifying it so soon after the start of the human impact, that is if it is taken as the start of the industrial revolution. Your posts if anything have shown to me the confusion and ambiguity, which makes me feel that we shouldn't jump to a decision if we do not really know. Thanks for your posts!
ReplyDeleteInteresting opinion Loz! Thank you for being honest with your vote. I completely empathise with your viewpoints, and worry that making a decision with such vast implications so suddenly could be a mistake when looking back in hindsight. I'm glad someone else has considered the anthropocentric ideology behind it too, seems I'm not alone!
DeleteI'm really glad you've enjoyed these posts and that they've helped clarify your opinion, thank you for your comments. I will be doing one final post to summarise my opinions shortly :)
At first I believed we are in the anthropocene but after reading your blog and understanding the topic more I am now more uncertain about what I think! Your blogs have been very engaging and a great read!! Hope to read more of stuff in the future.
ReplyDeleteThis is great news to hear I've made you question your initial opinion - I have achieved my aims haha! Before I started this blog, I honestly took it at face-value that we were in the Anthropocene after being taught it in lectures and through various articles. But after spending months looking deeper into the topic it has become clear to me that there are many more complex arguments beneath the surface.
DeleteThank you so much for your kind words! I'm glad you've enjoyed my posts :) I will be doing one final conclusion post soon, and hopefully be able to blog occasionally with updates after that!
I was initially in the majority as my assumption was we had done so much to Earth, we should probably label it as something. However, when looking at other epochs, I'm no longer sure. The current geological situation is still the same, just slightly changed... I'm really not sure, but I'm glad I'm not the one making the decision!
ReplyDeleteThis is great to hear you've started questioning your initial opinion after reading my blogs! Although the recent paper by Waters et al suggests there is a consensus forming, I'm still not convinced that this is the right decision considering other epochs in geologic time. And I agree with you, rather the AWG making the decision than me!
DeleteHi Katy, it is really interesting to read about the results of your survey. What would be fascinating is to compare you results to a survey of the wider public. Do you think less people would acknowledge the existence of the Anthropocene compared to your results? If so, perhaps they should read your blog to find out more!
ReplyDeleteMy take on the matter is that it all seems a bit academic defining the start of the Holocene (especially when academics seem to be getting quite personal about it all). Does that start point really matter? However, what I do feel is very very very very very important is that the Anthropocene is defined as a new geological epoch (and sooner rather than later). This is because I believe it will send an even stronger signal to the international community and wider public that changes to the planet are extraordinary and undeniably different from normal historical climatic variation. Furthermore, I believe that marking a new human geological time frame would go a long way in promoting and sustaining, at all levels, the changes required to meet the new globally recognised Paris Climate deal.
Hi Alex, thanks for your comment! I agree, it would be interesting to see if the wider public views were similar to those who voted in my poll (mostly fellow students). I think that since the publishing of Waters et al paper 2 days ago, there has been a lot more public attention. For example, scrolling down my newsfeed on Facebook, friends and family were sharing links of various news/science articles talking about 'entering the Anthropocene'. Though this is great to spread public awareness, it seems some of these people (e.g. my Auntie) had only just heard of the Anthropocene and wasn't sure what it was. I'd like that if more people read my blog to help understand it :).
DeleteInteresting opinion on the matter, Alex. I agree with you that it is important to get the message out about human impacts and changes to our planet sooner rather than later, as we could cross some irreversible planetary boundaries! The Anthropocene would definitely go a long way in altering people to detrimental habits. However, do you think making such a colossal change to the geologic time scale, with huge implications for Earth history, purely to encourage human action is warranted?
Hey Katy, originally I thought we had been in it for centuries, and I remember in 1st year buying into Ruddiman's early anthropocene hypothesis quite a lot (although now I think its slightly far fetched). It almost doesn't matter when it actually started, just that we accept it's happening, as Alex mentioned above.
ReplyDeleteThe people who voted other, what do you think they believe? Is it Ruddiman's hypothesis or something else?
Hey Katy, originally I thought we had been in it for centuries, and I remember in 1st year buying into Ruddiman's early anthropocene hypothesis quite a lot (although now I think its slightly far fetched). It almost doesn't matter when it actually started, just that we accept it's happening, as Alex mentioned above.
ReplyDeleteThe people who voted other, what do you think they believe? Is it Ruddiman's hypothesis or something else?
Hi Ollie, thanks for the comment! Yes, I remember thinking the same in my 1st year as it was all I knew back then. Now I've looked at so many other ideas for onsets and arguments within the Anthropocene, it is much easier to rule out some suggestions.
DeleteGood question. I think it honestly depends on HOW we define the Anthropocene i.e. age or epoch, human or earth history etc. Perhaps those people who voted other just weren't sure at the beginning of the blog, and if so, I hope they now have a solid opinion!