| Anthropocene | |||||||||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 0.000073 – 0Ma | |||||||||||||||||||
.jpg) The invention ofelectric lights has allowed massive human population centers to be seen fromlow Earth orbit, demonstrating how humanity's impacts are visible at a global scale. | |||||||||||||||||||
| Chronology | |||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||
| Usage information | |||||||||||||||||||
| Celestial body | Earth | ||||||||||||||||||
| Regional usage | Proposed but rejected subdivision of theQuaternary Period | ||||||||||||||||||
| Time scale(s) used | ICS Time Scale | ||||||||||||||||||
| Definition | |||||||||||||||||||
| Chronological unit | Epoch | ||||||||||||||||||
| Stratigraphic unit | Series | ||||||||||||||||||
| First proposed by | Anthropocene Working Group | ||||||||||||||||||
| Lower boundary definition | Minimum atmospheric methane concentration | ||||||||||||||||||
| Lower boundary GSSP | Crawford Lake, Ontario, Canada 43°28′05″N79°56′55″W / 43.46806°N 79.94861°W /43.46806; -79.94861[1] | ||||||||||||||||||
| Upper boundary definition | Present day | ||||||||||||||||||
| Upper boundary GSSP | N/A N/A | ||||||||||||||||||
| Upper GSSP ratified | N/A | ||||||||||||||||||
| Part ofa series on |
| Human history |
|---|
| ↑Prehistory (Stone Age) (Pleistocene epoch) |
| ↓Future |
Anthropocene is a term that has been used to refer to the period of time during whichhumanity has become a planetary force of change. It appears in scientific and social discourse, especially with respect to accelerating geophysical and biochemical changes that characterize the 20th and 21st centuries on Earth. Originally a proposal for a newgeological epoch following theHolocene, it was rejected as such in 2024 by theInternational Commission on Stratigraphy (ICS) and theInternational Union of Geological Sciences (IUGS).[2][3][4]
The term has been used in research relating to Earth'swater,geology,geomorphology,landscape,limnology,hydrology,ecosystems andclimate.[5][6] The effects of human activities on Earth can be seen, for example, in regards tobiodiversity loss, andclimate change. Various start dates for the Anthropocene have been proposed, ranging from the beginning of theNeolithic Revolution (12,000–15,000 years ago), to as recently as the 1960s. The biologistEugene F. Stoermer is credited with first coining and using the termanthropocene informally in the 1980s;Paul J. Crutzen re-invented and popularized the term.[7]
TheAnthropocene Working Group (AWG) of the Subcommission on Quaternary Stratigraphy (SQS) of the ICS voted in 2016 to proceed towards a formalgolden spike (GSSP) proposal to define an Anthropocene epoch in thegeologic time scale. Later that year, the group presented the proposal to theInternational Geological Congress.[8]
In 2019, the AWG voted in favour of submitting a formal proposal to the ICS by 2021.[9] The proposal located potentialstratigraphic markers to the mid-20th century.[10][9][11] This time period coincides with the start of theGreat Acceleration, a post-World War II time period during which globalpopulation growth,economic growth,pollution andexploitation of natural resources have all increased at a dramatic rate.[12] TheAtomic Age also started around the mid-20th century, when the risks ofnuclear wars,nuclear terrorism, andnuclear accidents increased.
Twelve candidate sites were selected for the GSSP; the sediments ofCrawford Lake (Halton Region), Canada were finally proposed, in 2023, to mark the lower boundary of the Anthropocene, starting with the Crawfordian stage/age in 1950.[13][14]
In 2024, after 15 years of deliberation, the Anthropocene Epoch proposal of the AWG was voted down by a wide margin by the SQS, owing largely to its shallow sedimentary record and extremely recent proposed start date.[15][16] The ICS and the IUGS later formally confirmed, by a near unanimous vote, the rejection of the AWG's Anthropocene Epoch proposal for inclusion in the Geologic Time Scale.[2][3][4] The IUGS statement on the rejection concluded: "Despite its rejection as a formal unit of the Geologic Time Scale, Anthropocene will nevertheless continue to be used not only by Earth andenvironmental scientists, but also by social scientists, politicians and economists, as well as by the public at large. It will remain an invaluable descriptor of human impact on the Earth system."[4]
As early as 1873, the Italian geologistAntonio Stoppani acknowledged the increasing power and effect of humanity on the Earth's systems and referred to an 'anthropozoic era'.[17] From 1877 onward, the term 'Psychozoic' was used by geologists such asJoseph LeConte andJohannes Herman Frederik Umbgrove.[18][19]
An early concept for the Anthropocene was theNoosphere byVladimir Vernadsky, who in 1938 wrote of "scientific thought as a geological force".[21] Scientists in theSoviet Union appear to have used the termAnthropocene as early as the 1960s to refer to theQuaternary, the most recentgeological period.[22]EcologistEugene F. Stoermer subsequently usedAnthropocene with a different sense in the 1980s[23][24] and the term was widely popularised in 2000 byatmospheric chemistPaul J. Crutzen,[7][25] who regarded the influence of human behavior on Earth's atmosphere in recent centuries as so significant as to constitute a new geological epoch.[26]: 21 [27]
The pressures we exert on the planet have become so great that scientists are considering whether the Earth has entered an entirely new geological epoch: the Anthropocene, or the age of humans. It means that we are the first people to live in an age defined by human choice, in which the dominant risk to our survival is ourselves.
The termAnthropocene is informally used in scientific contexts.[29] TheGeological Society of America entitled its 2011 annual meeting:Archean to Anthropocene: The past is the key to the future.[30] The new epoch has no agreed start-date, but one proposal, based on atmospheric evidence, is to fix the start with theIndustrial Revolutionc.1780, with the invention of thesteam engine.[31][32] Other scientists link the new term to earlier events, such as the rise of agriculture and theNeolithic Revolution (around 12,000 yearsBP).
Evidence of relative human impact – such as thegrowing human influence on land use, ecosystems,biodiversity, andspecies extinction – is substantial; scientists think that human impact has significantly changed (or halted) the growth of biodiversity.[33][34][35][36] Those arguing for earlier dates posit that the proposed Anthropocene may have begun as early as 14,000–15,000 yearsBP, based on geologic evidence; this has led other scientists to suggest that "the onset of the Anthropocene should be extended back many thousand years";[37]: 1 this would make the Anthropocene essentially synonymous with the current term,Holocene.
In 2008, the Stratigraphy Commission of theGeological Society of London considered a proposal to make the Anthropocene a formal unit of geological epoch divisions.[6][31] A majority of the commission decided the proposal had merit and should be examined further. Independent working groups of scientists from various geological societies began to determine whether the Anthropocene will be formally accepted into theGeological Time Scale.[38]
In January 2015, 26 of the 38 members of the International Anthropocene Working Group published a paper suggesting theTrinity test on 16 July 1945 as the starting point of the proposed new epoch.[39] However, a significant minority supported one of several alternative dates.[39] A March 2015 report suggested either 1610 or 1964 as the beginning of the Anthropocene.[40] Other scholars pointed to thediachronous character of the physical strata of the Anthropocene, arguing that onset and impact are spread out over time, not reducible to a single instant or date of start.[41]
A January 2016 report on the climatic, biological, and geochemical signatures of human activity in sediments and ice cores suggested the era since the mid-20th century should be recognised as ageological epoch distinct from the Holocene.[42]
The Anthropocene Working Group met in April 2016 to consolidate evidence supporting the argument for theAnthropocene as a true geologic epoch.[43] Evidence was evaluated and the group voted to recommendAnthropocene as the new geological epoch in August 2016.[8]
In April 2019, theAnthropocene Working Group (AWG) announced that they would vote on a formal proposal to theInternational Commission on Stratigraphy, to continue the process started at the 2016 meeting.[11] In May 2019, 29 members of the 34 person AWG panel voted in favour of an official proposal to be made by 2021. The AWG also voted with 29 votes in favour of a starting date in the mid 20th century. Ten candidate sites for aGlobal boundary Stratotype Section and Point have been identified, one of which will be chosen to be included in the final proposal.[9][10] Possible markers includemicroplastics,heavy metals, or radioactive nuclei left by tests fromthermonuclear weapons.[44]
In November 2021, an alternative proposal that the Anthropocene is ageological event, not an epoch, was published[45][46] and later expanded in 2022.[47] This challenged the assumption underlying the case for the Anthropocene epoch – the idea that it is possible to accurately assign a precise date of start to highlydiachronous processes of human-influenced Earth system change. The argument indicated that finding a singleGSSP would be impractical, given human-induced changes in the Earth system occurred at different periods, in different places, and spread under different rates. Under this model, the Anthropocene would have many events marking human-induced impacts on the planet, including themass extinction of large vertebrates, thedevelopment of early farming, land clearance in the Americas, global-scale industrial transformation during theIndustrial Revolution, and the start of theAtomic Age. The authors are members of the AWG who had voted against the official proposal of a starting date in the mid-20th century, and sought to reconcile some of the previous models (includingRuddiman andMaslin proposals). They citedCrutzen's original concept,[48] arguing that the Anthropocene is much better and more usefully conceived of as an unfolding geological event, like other major transformations in Earth's history such as theGreat Oxidation Event.
In July 2023, the AWG choseCrawford Lake inOntario, Canada as a site representing the beginning of the proposed new epoch. The sediment in that lake shows a spike in levels of plutonium from hydrogen bomb tests, a key marker the group chose to place the start of the Anthropocene in the 1950s, along with other elevated markers including carbon particles and nitrates from the burning offossil fuels and widespread application of chemical fertilizers respectively. Had it been approved, the official declaration of the new Anthropocene epoch would have taken place in August 2024,[49] and its firstage may have been named Crawfordian after the lake.[50]
In March 2024, an internal vote was held by theIUGS: After nearly 15 years of debate, the proposal to ratify the Anthropocene had been defeated by a 12-to-4 margin, with 2 abstentions.[16] These results were not out of a dismissal of human impact on the planet, but rather an inability to constrain the Anthropocene in a geological context. This is because the widely-adopted 1950 start date was found to be prone to recency bias. It also overshadowed earlier examples of human impacts, many of which happened in different parts of the world at different times. Although the proposal could be raised again, this would require the entire process of debate to start from the beginning.[15] The results of the vote were officially confirmed by the IUGS and upheld as definitive later that month.[16]
Crutzen proposed the Industrial Revolution as the start of Anthropocene.[17]Lovelock proposes that the Anthropocene began with the first application of theNewcomen steam engine in 1712.[51] TheIntergovernmental Panel on Climate Change takes the pre-industrial era (chosen as the year 1750) as the baseline related to changes in long-lived, well mixed greenhouse gases.[52] Although it is apparent that the Industrial Revolution ushered in an unprecedented global human impact on the planet,[53] much of Earth's landscape already had been profoundly modified by human activities.[54] The human impact on Earth has grown progressively, with few substantial slowdowns. A 2024 scientific perspective paper authored by a group of scientists led byWilliam J. Ripple proposed the start of the Anthropocene around 1850, stating it is a "compelling choice ... from a population, fossil fuel, greenhouse gasses, temperature, and land use perspective."[55]
In May 2019 the twenty-nine members of the Anthropocene Working Group (AWG) proposed a start date for the Epoch in the mid-20th century, as that period saw "a rapidly rising human population accelerated the pace of industrial production, the use ofagricultural chemicals and other human activities. At the same time, the first atomic-bomb blasts littered the globe with radioactive debris that became embedded in sediments and glacial ice, becoming part of the geologic record." The official start-dates, according to the panel, would coincide with either the radionuclides released into the atmosphere from bomb detonations in 1945, or with theLimited Nuclear Test Ban Treaty of 1963.[9]
The peak inradionuclides fallout consequential to atomic bomb testing during the 1950s is another possible date for the beginning of the Anthropocene (the detonation of thefirst atomic bomb in 1945 or thePartial Nuclear Test Ban Treaty in 1963).[9]
On June 19, 2025, Vincent Gauci proposed that Anthropocene began in 1592. Ice core records had shown a minimum atmospheric methane concentration at that time.[56]
The nameAnthropocene is a combination ofanthropo- from theAncient Greekἄνθρωπος (ánthropos) meaning 'human' and-cene fromκαινός (kainós) meaning 'new' or 'recent'.[57][58]
The human impact on biodiversity forms one of the primary attributes of the Anthropocene.[59] Humankind has entered what is sometimes called the Earth's sixth major extinction.[60][61][62][63][64] Most experts agree that human activities have accelerated the rate of species extinction.[35][65] The exact rate remains controversial – perhaps 100 to 1000 times the normal background rate of extinction.[66][67]
Anthropogenic extinctions started as humans migrated out of Africa over 60,000 years ago.[68] Increases in global rates of extinction have been elevated above background rates since at least 1500, and appear to have accelerated in the 19th century and further since.[5] Rapideconomic growth is considered a primary driver of the contemporary displacement and eradication of other species.[69]
According to the 2021Economics of Biodiversity review, written byPartha Dasgupta and published by the UK government, "biodiversity is declining faster than at any time in human history."[70][71] A 2022 scientific review published inBiological Reviews confirms that an anthropogenicsixth mass extinction event is currently underway.[72][73] A 2022 study published inFrontiers in Ecology and the Environment, which surveyed more than 3,000 experts, states that the extinction crisis could be worse than previously thought, and estimates that roughly 30% of species "have been globally threatened or driven extinct since the year 1500."[74][75] According to a 2023 study published inBiological Reviews some 48% of 70,000 monitored species are experiencing population declines from human activity, whereas only 3% have increasing populations.[76][77][78]
_relative_to_baseline_-_fcosc-01-615419-g001.jpg)
Biodiversity loss happens whenspecies disappear completely from Earth (extinction) or when there is a decrease or disappearance of species in a specific area. Biodiversity loss means that there is a reduction inbiological diversity in a given area. The decrease can be temporary or permanent. It is temporary if the damage that led to the loss is reversible in time, for example throughecological restoration. If this is not possible, then the decrease is permanent. The cause of most of the biodiversity loss is, generally speaking, human activities that push theplanetary boundaries too far.[79][80][81] These activities includehabitat destruction[82] (for exampledeforestation) andland use intensification (for examplemonoculture farming).[83][84] Further problem areas areair andwater pollution (includingnutrient pollution),over-exploitation,invasive species[85] andclimate change.[82]
Many scientists, along with theGlobal Assessment Report on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services, say that the main reason for biodiversity loss is agrowing human population because this leads tohuman overpopulation andexcessive consumption.[86][87][88][89][90] Others disagree, saying that loss of habitat is caused mainly by "the growth of commodities for export" and that population has very little to do with overall consumption. More important are wealth disparities between and within countries.[91] In any case, all contemporary biodiversity loss has been attributed to human activities.[92]
Climate change is another threat toglobal biodiversity.[93][94] For example,coral reefs—which arebiodiversity hotspots—will be lost by the year 2100 if global warming continues at the current rate.[95][96] Still, it is the general habitat destruction (often for expansion of agriculture), not climate change, that is currently the bigger driver of biodiversity loss.[97][98] Invasive species and other disturbances have become more common in forests in the last several decades. These tend to be directly or indirectly connected to climate change and can cause a deterioration of forest ecosystems.[99][100]Studies ofurban evolution give an indication of how species may respond to stressors such as temperature change and toxicity. Species display varying abilities to respond to altered environments through bothphenotypic plasticity and geneticevolution.[101][102][103] Researchers have documented the movement of many species into regions formerly too cold for them, often at rates faster than initially expected.[104]
Permanent changes in the distribution of organisms from human influence will become identifiable in thegeologic record. This has occurred in part as a result of changing climate, but also in response to farming and fishing, and to the accidental introduction of non-native species to new areas through global travel.[5] The ecosystem of the entireBlack Sea may have changed during the last 2000 years as a result of nutrient and silica input from eroding deforested lands along theDanube River.[105][106]
Researchers have found that the growth of the human population and expansion of human activity has resulted in many species of animals that are normally active during the day, such as elephants, tigers and boars, becoming nocturnal to avoid contact with humans, who are largely diurnal.[107][106]
One geological symptom resulting from human activity is increasingatmospheric carbon dioxide (CO2) content. This signal in the Earth's climate system is especially significant because it is occurring much faster,[108] and to a greater extent, than previously. Most of this increase is due to thecombustion offossil fuels such as coal,oil, andgas.
Effects ofclimate change are well documented and growing for Earth'snatural environment and human societies. Changes to theclimate system include anoverall warming trend,changes to precipitation patterns, and moreextreme weather. As the climate changes it impacts the natural environment with effects such as more intenseforest fires, thawingpermafrost, anddesertification. These changes impact ecosystems and societies, and can become irreversible oncetipping points are crossed. Climate activists are engaged in a range of activities around the world that seek to ameliorate these issues or prevent them from happening.[114]
Changes in drainage patterns traceable to human activity will persist over geologic time in large parts of the continents where the geologic regime is erosional. This involves, for example, the paths of roads and highways defined by their grading and drainage control. Direct changes to the form of the Earth's surface by human activities (quarrying andlandscaping, for example) also record human impacts.
It has been suggested[by whom?] that the deposition ofcalthemite formations exemplify a natural process which has not previously occurred prior to the human modification of the Earth's surface, and which therefore represents a unique process of the Anthropocene.[118] Calthemite is a secondary deposit, derived from concrete,lime,mortar or other calcareous materialoutside the cave environment.[119]Calthemites grow on or under man-made structures (including mines and tunnels) and mimic the shapes and forms of cavespeleothems, such asstalactites,stalagmites, flowstoneetc.
Human activities, including deforestation and road construction, are believed to have elevated average total sediment fluxes across the Earth's surface.[5] However, construction of dams on many rivers around the world means the rates of sediment deposition in any given place do not always appear to increase in the Anthropocene. For instance, manyriver deltas around the world are actually currently starved of sediment by such dams, and are subsiding and failing to keep up with sea level rise, rather than growing.[5][120]
Increases in erosion due to farming and other operations will be reflected by changes in sediment composition and increases in deposition rates elsewhere. In land areas with a depositional regime, engineered structures will tend to be buried and preserved, along with litter and debris. Litter and debris thrown from boats or carried by rivers and creeks will accumulate in the marine environment, particularly in coastal areas, but also in mid-oceangarbage patches. Such human-created artifacts preserved in stratigraphy are known astechnofossils.[5][121]
Changes in biodiversity will also be reflected in the fossil record, as will species introductions. An example cited is the domestic chicken, originally thered junglefowlGallus gallus, native to south-east Asia but has since become the world's most common bird through human breeding and consumption, with over 60 billion consumed annually and whose bones would become fossilised in landfill sites.[122] Hence, landfills are important resources to find "technofossils".[123]
In terms of trace elements, there are a range of distinct signatures left by modern societies. For example, in theUpper Fremont Glacier in Wyoming, there is a layer ofchlorine present in ice cores from 1960's atomic weapon testing programs, as well as a layer ofmercury associated with coal plants in the 1980s.[124][125][126]
From the late 1940s, nuclear tests have led to localnuclear fallout and severe contamination of test sites both on land and in the surrounding marine environment. Some of theradionuclides that were released during the tests are137Cs,90Sr,239Pu,240Pu,241Am, and131I. These have been found to have had significant impact on the environment and on human beings. In particular,137Cs and90Sr have been found to have been released into the marine environment and led tobioaccumulation over a period throughfood chain cycles. The carbon isotope14C, commonly released during nuclear tests, has also been found to be integrated into the atmosphericCO2, and infiltrating thebiosphere, throughocean-atmosphere gas exchange. Increase inthyroid cancer rates around the world is also surmised to be correlated with increasing proportions of the131I radionuclide.[127]
The highest global concentration of radionuclides was estimated to have been in 1965, one of the dates which has been proposed as a possible benchmark for the start of the formally defined Anthropocene.[128]
Human burning offossil fuels has also left distinctly elevated concentrations of black carbon, inorganic ash, and spherical carbonaceous particles in recent sediments across the world. Concentrations of these components increases markedly and almost simultaneously around the world beginning around 1950.[5]
A marker that accounts for a substantial global impact of humans on the total environment, comparable in scale to those associated with significant perturbations of the geological past, is needed in place of minor changes in atmosphere composition.[129][130] A range of markers characterizing the period have been identified, such assilicone oraluminium, but most prominentlyplastic, with plastic, reminiscent of archaeological ages like theIron Age, marking an archaeological plastic age or the anthropocene even as a geologicalplastic epoch.[131]
A useful candidate for holding markers in the geologic time record is thepedosphere. Soils retain information about their climatic and geochemical history with features lasting for centuries or millennia.[132] Human activity is now firmly established as the sixth factor of soil formation.[133] Humanity affects pedogenesis directly by, for example, land levelling, trenching and embankment building, landscape-scalecontrol of fire by early humans, organic matter enrichment from additions of manure or other waste, organic matter impoverishment due to continued cultivation and compaction fromovergrazing. Human activity also affects pedogenesis indirectly by drift of eroded materials or pollutants. Anthropogenic soils are those markedly affected by human activities, such as repeated ploughing, the addition of fertilisers, contamination, sealing, or enrichment with artefacts (in theWorld Reference Base for Soil Resources they are classified asAnthrosols andTechnosols). An example from archaeology would bedark earth phenomena when long-term human habitation enriches[134] the soil withblack carbon.
Anthropogenic soils are recalcitrant repositories of artefacts and properties that testify to the dominance of the human impact, and hence appear to be reliable markers for the Anthropocene. Some anthropogenic soils may be viewed as the 'golden spikes' of geologists (Global Boundary Stratotype Section and Point), which are locations where there are strata successions with clear evidences of a worldwide event, including the appearance of distinctive fossils.[135] Drilling for fossil fuels has also created holes and tubes which are expected to be detectable for millions of years.[136] The astrobiologistDavid Grinspoon has proposed that the site of the Apollo 11 Lunar landing, with the disturbances and artifacts that are so uniquely characteristic of our species' technological activity and which will survive over geological time spans could be considered as the 'golden spike' of the Anthropocene.[137]
An October 2020 study coordinated byUniversity of Colorado at Boulder found that distinct physical, chemical and biological changes to Earth's rock layers began around the year 1950. The research revealed that since about 1950, humans have doubled the amount offixed nitrogen on the planet through industrial production for agriculture, created ahole in the ozone layer through the industrial scale release ofchlorofluorocarbons (CFCs), released enoughgreenhouse gasses from fossil fuels to cause planetary levelclimate change, created tens of thousands ofsynthetic mineral-like compounds that do not naturally occur on Earth, and caused almost one-fifth ofriver sediment worldwide to no longer reach the ocean due to dams, reservoirs and diversions. Humans have produced so many millions of tons of plastic each year since the early 1950s thatmicroplastics are "forming a near-ubiquitous and unambiguous marker of Anthropocene".[138][139] The study highlights a strong correlation between global human population size and growth, global productivity and global energy use and that the "extraordinary outburst of consumption and productivity demonstrates how the Earth System has departed from its Holocene state since c. 1950 CE, forcing abrupt physical, chemical and biological changes to the Earth's stratigraphic record that can be used to justify the proposal for naming a new epoch—the Anthropocene."[139]
A December 2020 study published inNature found that the total anthropogenic mass, or human-made materials, outweighs all thebiomass on earth, and highlighted that "this quantification of the human enterprise gives a mass-based quantitative and symbolic characterization of the human-induced epoch of the Anthropocene."[140][141]
Although the validity ofAnthropocene as a scientific term remains disputed, its underlying premise, i.e., that humans have become a geological force, or rather, the dominant force shaping the Earth's climate, has found traction among academics and the public. In an opinion piece forPhilosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B,Rodolfo Dirzo, Gerardo Ceballos, andPaul R. Ehrlich write that the term is "increasingly penetrating the lexicon of not only the academic socio-sphere, but also society more generally", and is now included as an entry in theOxford English Dictionary.[143] The University of Cambridge, as another example, offers a degree in Anthropocene Studies.[144] In the public sphere, the termAnthropocene has become increasingly ubiquitous in activist, pundit, and political discourses. Some who are critical of the termAnthropocene nevertheless concede that "For all its problems, [it] carries power."[145] The popularity and currency of the word has led scholars to label the term a "charismatic meta-category"[146] or "charismatic mega-concept."[147] The term, regardless, has been subject to a variety of criticisms from social scientists, philosophers, Indigenous scholars, and others.
The anthropologist John Hartigan has argued that due to its status as a charismatic meta-category, the termAnthropocene marginalizes competing, but less visible, concepts such as that of "multispecies."[148] The more salient charge is that the ready acceptance ofAnthropocene is due to its conceptual proximity to the status quo – that is, to notions of human individuality and centrality.
Other scholars appreciate the way in which the termAnthropocene recognizes humanity as a geological force, but take issue with the indiscriminate way in which it does. Not all humans are equally responsible for the climate crisis. To that end, scholars such as the feminist theoristDonna Haraway and sociologistJason Moore, have suggested naming the Epoch instead as theCapitalocene.[149][150][151] Such impliescapitalism as the fundamental reason for the ecological crisis, rather than just humans in general.[152][153][154] However, according to philosopherSteven Best, humans have created "hierarchical and growth-addicted societies" and have demonstrated "ecocidal proclivities" long before the emergence of capitalism.[155] Hartigan, Bould, and Haraway all critique whatAnthropocene does as a term; however, Hartigan and Bould differ from Haraway in that they criticize the utility or validity of a geological framing of the climate crisis, whereas Haraway embraces it.
In addition to "Capitalocene," other terms have also been proposed by scholars to trace the roots of the Epoch to causes other than the human species broadly. Janae Davis, for example, has suggested the "Plantationocene" as a more appropriate term to call attention to the role thatplantation agriculture has played in the formation of the Epoch, alongside Kathryn Yusoff's argument that racism as a whole is foundational to the Epoch. The Plantationocene concept traces "the ways that plantation logics organize modern economies, environments, bodies, and social relations."[156][157][158][159] In a similar vein, environmental humanities scholars like Heather Davis and Indigenous studies scholars such as Métis geographerZoe Todd have argued that the Epoch must be dated back to the colonization of the Americas, as this "names the problem of colonialism as responsible for contemporary environmental crisis."[160] Potawatomi philosopher Kyle Powys Whyte has further argued that the Anthropocene has been apparent to Indigenous peoples in the Americas since the inception of colonialism because of "colonialism's role in environmental change."[161][162][163]
Other critiques ofAnthropocene have focused on the genealogy of the concept. Todd also provides aphenomenological account, which draws on the work of the philosopherSara Ahmed, writing: "When discourses and responses to the Anthropocene are being generated within institutions and disciplines which are embedded in broader systems that act as de facto 'white public space,' the academy and its power dynamics must be challenged."[164] Other aspects which constitute current understandings of the concept of theAnthropocene such as the ontological split between nature and society, the assumption of the centrality and individuality of the human, and the framing of environmental discourse in largely scientific terms have been criticized by scholars as concepts rooted in colonialism and which reinforce systems of postcolonial domination.[165] To that end, Todd makes the case that the concept ofAnthropocene must be indigenized anddecolonized if it is to become a vehicle of justice as opposed to white thought and domination.
Eco-philosopher David Abram, in a book chapter titled 'Interbreathing in the Humilocene', has proposed adoption of the term 'Humilocene' (the Epoch of Humility), which emphasizes an ethical imperative and ecocultural direction that human societies should take. The term plays with the etymological roots of the term 'human', thus connecting it back with terms such as humility, humus (the soil), and even a corrective sense of humiliation that some human societies should feel given their collective destructive impact on the earth.[166]
William Ruddiman has argued that the Anthropocene began approximately 8,000 years ago with thedevelopment of farming and sedentary cultures.[167] At that point, humans were dispersed across all continents exceptAntarctica, and theNeolithic Revolution was ongoing. During this period, humans developed agriculture andanimal husbandry to supplement or replacehunter-gatherer subsistence.[168] Such innovations were followed by a wave ofextinctions, beginning with largemammals and terrestrial birds. This wave was driven by both the direct activity of humans (e.g. hunting) and the indirect consequences ofland-use change for agriculture. Landscape-scaleburning by prehistoric hunter-gathers may have been an additional early source of anthropogenic atmospheric carbon.[169] Ruddiman also claims that the greenhouse gas emissions in-part responsible for the Anthropocene began 8,000 years ago when ancient farmers cleared forests to grow crops.[170][171][172]
Ruddiman's work has been challenged with data from an earlier interglaciation ("Stage 11", approximately 400,000 years ago) which suggests that 16,000 more years must elapse before the current Holocene interglaciation comes to an end, and thus the early anthropogenic hypothesis is invalid.[173] Also, the argument that "something" is needed to explain the differences in the Holocene is challenged by more recent research showing that all interglacials are different.[174]
Homogenocene (from old Greek:homo-,same;geno-,kind; kainos-,new;) is a more specific term used to define our current epoch, in whichbiodiversity is diminishing andbiogeography andecosystems around the globe seem more and more similar to one another mainly due toinvasive species that have been introduced around the globe either on purpose (crops, livestock) or inadvertently. This is due to the newfound globalism that humans participate in, as species traveling across the world to another region was not as easily possible in any point of time in history as it is today.[175]
The term Homogenocene was first used by Michael Samways in his editorial article in theJournal of Insect Conservation from 1999 titled "Translocating fauna to foreign lands: Here comes the Homogenocene."[176]
The term was used again by John L. Curnutt in the year 2000 inEcology, in a short list titled "A Guide to the Homogenocene",[177] which reviewedAlien species in North America and Hawaii: impacts on natural ecosystems by George Cox.Charles C. Mann, in his acclaimed book1493: Uncovering the New World Columbus Created, gives a bird's-eye view of the mechanisms and ongoing implications of the homogenocene.[178]
The concept of the Anthropocene has also been approached via humanities such as philosophy, literature and art. In the scholarly world, it has been the subject of increasing attention through special journals,[179] conferences,[180][181] and disciplinary reports.[182] The Anthropocene, its attendant timescale, and ecological implications prompt questions about death and the end of civilisation,[183] memory and archives,[184] the scope and methods of humanistic inquiry,[185] and emotional responses to the "end of nature".[186] Some scholars have posited that the realities of the Anthropocene, including "human-induced biodiversity loss, exponential increases in per-capita resource consumption, and globalclimate change," have made the goal of environmentalsustainability largely unattainable and obsolete.[187]
Historians have actively engaged the Anthropocene. In 2000, the same year that Paul Crutzen coined the term, world historian John McNeill publishedSomething New Under the Sun,[188] tracing the rise of human societies' unprecedented impact on the planet in the twentieth century.[188] In 2001, historian of scienceNaomi Oreskes revealed the systematic efforts to undermine trust inclimate change science and went on to detail the corporate interests delaying action on the environmental challenge.[189][190] Both McNeill and Oreskes became members of the Anthropocene Working Group because of their work correlating human activities and planetary transformation.
Bridie Lonie has reflected that the Anthropocene has been a theme for art in New Zealand since the 1970s. Often working outside the art institutions as societally challengingintervention art also "Interrupting the Automatism" in the activation, decision making and ultimate control of especially urban public space[191]
... it could be that without human influence the ecological and taxonomic diversity of tetrapods would continue to increase in an exponential fashion until most or all of the available ecospace is filled.
The overarching driver of species extinction is human population growth and increasing per capita consumption.
Specifically, our results show a great escalation beginning around 1850 for most variables. If combined with information on carrying capacity or planetary boundaries, these data could be used to explore the possibility that human demands on multiple fronts have greatly accelerated and may have approached or exceeded the biosphere's regenerative capacity. From a population, fossil fuel, greenhouse gasses, temperature, and land use perspective, the mid 19th century (∼1850) stands out as a compelling choice among the potential starting points for the Anthropocene.
Moreover, we have unleashed a mass extinction event, the sixth in roughly 540 million years, wherein many current life forms could be annihilated or at least committed to extinction by the end of this century.
Text and images are available under aCreative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.Biodiversity is declining faster than at any time in human history. Current extinction rates, for example, are around 100 to 1,000 times higher than the baseline rate, and they are increasing.
Moreover, we have unleashed a mass extinction event, the sixth in roughly 540 million years, wherein many current life forms could be annihilated or at least committed to extinction by the end of this century.
For the first time at a global scale, the report has ranked the causes of damage. Topping the list, changes in land use—principally agriculture—that have destroyed habitat. Second, hunting and other kinds of exploitation. These are followed by climate change, pollution, and invasive species, which are being spread by trade and other activities. Climate change will likely overtake the other threats in the next decades, the authors note. Driving these threats are the growing human population, which has doubled since 1970 to 7.6 billion, and consumption. (Per capita of use of materials is up 15% over the past 5 decades.)
The overarching driver of species extinction is human population growth and increasing per capita consumption.
Conservation biologists standardly list five main direct drivers of biodiversity loss: habitat loss, overexploitation of species, pollution, invasive species, and climate change. TheGlobal Assessment Report on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services found that in recent decades habitat loss was the leading cause of terrestrial biodiversity loss, while overexploitation (overfishing) was the most important cause of marine losses (IPBES, 2019). All five direct drivers are important, on land and at sea, and all are made worse by larger and denser human populations.
Research suggests that the scale of human population and the current pace of its growth contribute substantially to the loss of biological diversity. Although technological change and unequal consumption inextricably mingle with demographic impacts on the environment, the needs of all human beings—especially for food—imply that projected population growth will undermine protection of the natural world.
Current generic extinction rates will likely greatly accelerate in the next few decades due to drivers accompanying the growth and consumption of the human enterprise such as habitat destruction, illegal trade, and climate disruption.
Through examining the drivers of biodiversity loss in highly biodiverse countries, we show that it is not population driving the loss of habitats, but rather the growth of commodities for export, particularly soybean and oil-palm, primarily for livestock feed or biofuel consumption in higher income economies.
The 'scary thing', [Dr. Wolff] added, was the rate of change now occurring in CO2 concentrations. In the core, the fastest increase seen was of the order of 30 parts per million (ppm) by volume over a period of roughly 1,000 years. The last 30 ppm of increase has occurred in just 17 years. We really are in the situation where we don't have an analogue in our records.
It was only with the rise of capitalism over the past few hundred years, and the breathtaking acceleration of industrialization from the 1950s, that on a planetary scale things began to tip out of balance.
The advent of the Anthropocene coincided with a planetary rift, as the human economy under capitalism heedlessly crossed, or began to cross, Earth System boundaries, fouling its own nest and threatening the destruction of the planet as a safe home for humanity.
Today we call this planetary monolith "global capitalism," but humans became global animals tens of thousands of years before the onset of capitalism. Humans created hierarchical and growth-addicted societies some ten thousand years ago and their ecocidal proclivities stretch back millennia more into prehistory. And just like every political empire of the past, the human empire has possibly reached its zenith and begun its downward spiral toward collapse. This empire's peak and slide into catastrophe marks a new epoch not only in human history, but also the history of the earth. Debates over whether advanced societies have entered into a new "postmodernity" pale in significance to the scientifically-based proposition that human activity has created a new epoch in geological history—the age of the Anthropocene. This epoch characterized by the dominance of human influence over earth's systems and has led to, among other colossal events, a sixth mass extinction crisis and runaway climate change.
{{cite book}}: CS1 maint: location (link)
| General | |
|---|---|
| Causes |
|
| Effects |
|
| Mitigation |
|
| Principles | |
|---|---|
| Consumption |
|
| World population | |
| Technology | |
| Biodiversity | |
| Energy | |
| Food | |
| Water |
|
| Accountability | |
| Economic | |
| Applications |
|
| Sustainable management | |
| Agreements and conferences |
|
| Economics | |
|---|---|
| History | |
| Philosophy | |
| Sociology | |
| Science studies |
|
| Technology studies |
|
| Policy | |
| Major topics | |
|---|---|
| Society and population | |
| Publications | |
| Lists | |
Events and organizations |
|
| Related topics | |
| International | |
|---|---|
| National | |
| Other | |
.jpg)
