Embracing the Anthropocene...

"Instead of one Earth Day per year, there will be 364. Once a year, we’ll have an Anti-Earth-Day and allow ourselves to destroy habitats, hunt rare animals, mess with the climate and put toxins in the water. That would act as a strange reminder of the early Anthropocene."

The above quote comes from an interview in the New Scientist (2015) with Christian Schwägerl, a journalist and biologist who has recently published a book on the Anthropocene*. Schwägerl (2015) has an interesting perspective on the proposed geologic epoch, viewing it as a positive opportunity to take on a global collective responsibility in determining the future for our planet. Though recognising the concepts and arguments for the Anthropocene provides the chance to adopt a 'global stewardship' for the planet, Schwägerl (2015) also recognises the risk that I have mentioned in some earlier posts: the epoch could be taken as a way of promoting and encouraging human ownership and control over Earth Systems.

The new book by Christian Schwägerl (2014).
A very holistic and critical in-depth insight
into the Anthropocene. (Source)

How can we make the Anthropocene positive?

Firstly, it is obvious that we need to stop harbouring anthropocentric viewpoints (the belief that humans are the most significant species on Earth), and focus more on long-term goals for the future of humanity and all other life on the planet. An idea that has been toyed with in the academic literature is to market all ecosystems with a monetary value (see Costanza et al 1997). Could this be a way to encourage the conservation and protection of vulnerable and significant ecosystems in a capitalist-dominated economy?

Secondly, we must modify our social and cultural practices such that we show gratitude for our planet (Schwägerl 2015). This is where the quote at the top of this post comes into play. What if we appreciated Earth for the entire 364 days of the year, and carried out the practices we see today (hunt endangered species, pollute water sources, tear down entire rainforests, and alter the atmosphere) in just one 24-hour period? The concept is quite utopian in the current social climate, and also scarily reminds me of the sci-fi horror film, 'The Purge', where for 12 hours in one day of the year, ALL crimes become legal. Changing social norms to ones where humans would whole-heartedly appreciate and protect the planet wouldn't just occur overnight, it would take serious time, effort and powerful people to get the ball rolling.

How do we drive the economy away from fossil fuels?

In Schwägerl's new book (2014) he creates an interesting fictional future scenario. Imagine that China, one of the world's leading economies, becomes home to an extremely influential green movement which forces global governments to act. These fictional protests from China influence an American band to write a viral song called 'Kill the Future', which causes 'panarchists' to remove items from people's shopping trolleys and replace them on the shelves (encouraging less consumption). Supposedly, from a series of events stemming from this initial green movement, the billions of pounds in subsidies in fossil fuels would be diverted to renewable energies and technologies. The change that needs to take place in reality is convincing the global population that we can change our behaviour and actions, and this can change the world for the better (Graham-Leigh 2015).

Getting out of "Holocene thinking"...

In the interview, Schwägerl (2015) argues we should embrace the Anthropocene, and stop seeing the environment as a separate entity from humans. He claims we currently take the environment for granted, using it as a dumping ground for our waste, and a source to exploit for materials and food amongst other things. In his book, Schwägerl (2014) adopts the term 'invironment' as opposed to 'environment' in the Anthropocene as a way to show our inherent connection with nature and the environment. I'm not sure if it'll catch on as a term in reality, but it's a nice way to highlight that in the Anthropocene we should see the 'outside world' of nature as an inseparable connection to humanity.

The human race boasts incredible knowledge, scientists, artists, leaders, and cultural influences. With the state of our current technology and understanding of the planet, why shouldn't it be plausible for humans to overcome short-term planning mindsets and economic mismanagement (Graham-Leigh 2015)? One day in the future, will we be able to see in the rocks, archaeological artefacts, and palaeoclimatic proxies, that humans turned the Anthropocene from a story of exploitation and environmental damage, to one of cooperation, innovation, and humility? I guess only time will tell...

* The book by Schwägerl (2014), 'The Anthropocene: The Human Era and How It Shapes Our Planet', does not have an online copy at the moment, but from reading snippets from the hardback version I can tell you it is well worth a read, with a foreword by Paul Crutzen himself! You can read the first few pages online here if you're interested.

Human or Earth history?

When you think of the Anthropocene, what comes to mind? Do you envisage fossil fuel power stations, industrialisation, exponentially growing human populations, atomic bombs, globalisation and economic expansion? Or, do you picture the human-induced changes to Earth's atmosphere, sedimentary layers, and stratigraphic composition?

If you thought more along the lines of the first description, it may be that you (probably unintentionally) perceive the Anthropocene more as a unit of human history than Earth history. We humans have historically divided blocks of time into different named periods, making communication and analysis easier (Edwards 2015). Take for example the Victorian era, precisely defined by the reign of England's Queen Victoria (1837-1901) (Edwards 2015). Human divided time periods can also be based on stages of cultural development, such as the Bronze Age, which does not have a specific start and end date as it depends on the place and specific civilisation's development (Edwards 2015). Contrastingly, the Geologic Time Scale relates to stratigraphic rock records, correlating to chronostratigraphic units of time. Does this informality make the Victorian era or Bronze Age any less important in human development? No. But it does make them units of human history, and not Earth history.

The Anthropocene: a unit of human history, or Earth history? (Source)

Crucially, we must also decide if the Anthropocene is a recently historic unit of time, or if it is instead an idea for a future unit of time (Finney 2014). The ICS, who create and decide on units for the International Chronostratigraphic Chart (ICC), do not postulate for the future, they assess the stratigraphic record which exists today. Some arguments within the Anthropocene discourse often follow a line of "Oh, but future geologists will look back in millions of years and see chemicals, plastics and atomic fallout in the strata"...have we forgotten that the ICS does NOT consider what might make future Earth History? That is not the way it works. There is no predefined geologic record for the future. If the Anthropocene will be more significant in the future, then that is when it should be classified and formally ratified. Having said that, is the Anthropocene such a profound concept that the unit of time should no longer conform to traditional, predefined time spans and standards as set out in the ICS Stratigraphic Guide?

As Finney (2014) has argued, human-induced impacts on Earth Systems are just starting to be recorded in sediments, but we cannot be sure that a significant and unique sedimentary signal will assemble. Can we really justify a profound change in the ICC and GTS, one which could end our current Holocene interglacial epoch, based upon potential projections and hypothesising of what the future might show us, considering there currently seems to be a lack of consensus based on the past? Finney (2014) also raises an interesting point (once which I had not considered until now), that our precise human observations and measurements are those that would be used for studying human-induced impacts, as opposed to looking in stratigraphic records for information. The stratigraphy for the Anthropocene looks pretty bare in comparison to the multitude of events which humans have observed and recorded over recent history (Finney 2014). 

Finally, I must address the elephant in the room when it comes to the whole concept of the Anthropocene. Are we being a little anthropocentric, assigning an interval of Earth History to our human existence on the planet? Why must we hastily define the Anthropocene as a formal unit of geological history, when its use may be just as powerful to the global population as an informal term? I believe that recognising that we are in the "Anthropocene" (whatever that may mean to you) could go one of two ways. It will either be a huge wake up call, alerting politicians and the general public to our detrimental effects on the planet, OR, it will be an anthropocentric comfort, a pat on the back, knowing that humanity is just that powerful and a dominant God-like species. The AWG must address whether the Anthropocene concept has stemmed from an anthropocentric perspective, rather than purely a geologic and scientific one, and if it belongs as a truly significant era of human history as opposed to one of Earth history.