The Anthropocene

[Coyote]

Geologic Eras are vast stretches of time, almost inconceivable to our brief life spans. There is something strange about being at the beginning of what is likely a new era,and being of the species that defines it

Canada’s Crawford Lake could mark the beginning of the Anthropocene

The mud of a Canadian lake holds an extremely precise record of humans’ influence on Earth. But the Anthropocene isn’t an official geologic epoch yet.

www.sciencenews.org

…Still, attempting to define the Anthropocene in geologic terms underscores humanity’s rapid and intense impact on the planet, Turner says. “We’ve become a geological force.”

 

[MisterBeale]

Nice.

From your link;

". . . But not all scientists agree that the Anthropocene began merely 70 years ago, or that it should be defined as a geologic term at all. “Any time you draw a hard line in the geologic record or in any other system, you’re creating a binary — there’s a before and there’s an after,” says paleoecologist Jacquelyn Gill of the University of Maine in Orono. “We know human impacts began well before 1950.”

On critical hope and the anthropos of non-anthropocentric discourses. Some thoughts on archaeology in the Anthropocene​

Published online by Cambridge University Press: 02 December 2021

On critical hope and the anthropos of non-anthropocentric discourses. Some thoughts on archaeology in the Anthropocene | Archaeological Dialogues | Cambridge Core

On critical hope and the anthropos of non-anthropocentric discourses. Some thoughts on archaeology in the Anthropocene - Volume 28 Issue 2

www.cambridge.org

. ..
<snip>

Reuniting humans and non-humans in the Anthropocene: post-industrial hopes for ‘happy endings’ and some ethical and political failures​

". . .This prophecy in critical theory of an alien and unreconciled ‘nature’ lashing back against human civilization (Stoetzler Reference Stoetzler, Best, Bonefeld and O’Kane2018, 153) haunts the Western world in the Anthropocene today, arguably – and ironically – mainly through non-anthropocentric discourses. Even though these discourses are rooted in multiple intellectual traditions and attempt to distance themselves from critical theory, they often coopt fears embodied within critical theory that consider alienation from nature as a form of regress for humanity. These fears are based on imaginaries of a ‘great divide’ between humans and non-humans that non-anthropocentric discourses treat as a severe conceptual and discursive error. The discourses intend to diagnose or undo the epistemological and environmental damage caused by that imagined divide and the domination of ‘man’ (specifically, affluent, white, Europhone, able-bodied, masculine, urbanized, heterosexual, liberal citizens of the Western world; see Braidotti Reference Braidotti and Grusin2017, 23). They make attempts to rethink the Earth in terms of socio-ecological systems, hybrid species, more-than-human cyborgs, assemblages, affective life and so on (Wakefield Reference Wakefield2014, 452). The great divide – or in Marxist terminology, the metabolic–ecological rift (cf. Foster, Clark and York Reference Foster, Clark and York2010; Wark Reference Wark2015) – in question is considered to be caused by capitalism. However, the original sin is often thought to be inherited from modernity, which is considered to have the potential to foster the tendencies innate in capitalism (and as some emphasize, also in socialism) to go against nature and nature’s instrumental treatment in order to pursue human progress.

Among many examples of these approaches is that of Bonneuil and Fressoz (Reference Bonneuil and Fressoz2016, 19) who consider the Anthropocene as a concept that “abolishes the break between nature and culture, between human history and the history of life and Earth.” They suggest that the epoch reveals at last how the world is “an intricate network in which social and natural arrangements mutually reinforce each other” (Bonneuil and Fressoz Reference Bonneuil and Fressoz2016, 35). They propose to politicise the Anthropocene with the sole purpose of being alert about the contradictions and limitations of modernity that brought it about and “to explore what may be infinitely enriching and emancipatory in those attachments that link us with other beings on a finite Earth” (Bonneuil and Fressoz Reference Bonneuil and Fressoz2016, 41–42). In a widely cited article Chakrabarty (Reference Chakrabarty2009) makes comparable points. He suggests that irrefutable scientific evidence pointing to a new geological epoch, the Anthropocene, accentuates humans as a recently emerged geological agent. The only way for humans to understand and eventually think of a way out of the current predicament brought along with the epoch, according to Chakrabarty (Reference Chakrabarty2009, 213), involves the consideration of “human history as part of the history of life on this planet.” In other words, he argues for admitting to the “collapse of the age-old humanist distinction between natural history and human history” (Chakrabarty Reference Chakrabarty2009, 201) to address the Anthropocene (see also, e.g. Burke et al. Reference Burke, Fishel, Mitchell, Dalby and Levine2016; Harrington Reference Harrington2016; Moore Reference Moore2015; Head Reference Head2016; LeCain Reference LeCain2015).

As may already be clear through these examples, despite its pessimistic outlook, non-anthropocentric critique of the Anthropocene is in essence very hopeful, following in the footsteps of critical theory (see Chandler Reference Chandler2019). It attempts to rework existing relations of alienated humans with their non-human others where; the ultimate aim is to come up with new treatments of the latter by the former so that humans can continue to thrive. It is hard at times to miss the theological and romantic undertones in such thinking, i.e. the yearning for an imaginary, pristine, Edenic nature (unspoiled by humans, and eventually by modern capitalist industry) where everything is entangled and, as such, is ‘simultaneously human and natural’ (Harrington Reference Harrington2016, 490; see Lane Reference Lane2015, 489). This is, in fact, critical hope in action, aiming for a self-reflexive, softer and more enlightened relationship between humans and non-humans (see Stoetzler Reference Stoetzler, Best, Bonefeld and O’Kane2018, 152–53). It serves to open up possibilities for the post-industrial Western world to redeem past mistakes and make a new start. . . "

Anthropocene - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

 

[toobfreak]

Geologic Eras are vast stretches of time, almost inconceivable to our brief life spans. There is something strange about being at the beginning of what is likely a new era,and being of the species that defines it …Still, attempting to define the Anthropocene in geologic terms underscores humanity’s rapid and intense impact on the planet, Turner says. “We’ve become a geological force.”

The Anthropocene, another non-existent, imaginary term made up by globalists to further label natural events as somehow artificial just because man did them, ignoring the fact that man is PART of Nature and so part of nature's plan, doing what all life does, having an effect changing the environment no different than most other life has done from the fish to the tree to the honey bee, and over what? 0.000000022% of the history of the Earth.

Events and things have constantly changed the Earth since its formation, from the LHB, to carbon and iron in rocks, to prokaryotes, cyanobacteria, stromolites, methane, oxygen, eukaryotes, the appearance of animals, the effects of ice ages, insects, flowering plants, grasses, primates, and finally, intelligent, learning, creative humans.

Oh, the horror.

 

[Hossfly]

The Anthropocene, another non-existent, imaginary term made up by globalists to further label natural events as somehow artificial just because man did them, ignoring the fact that man is PART of Nature and so part of nature's plan, doing what all life does, having an effect changing the environment no different than most other life has done from the fish to the tree to the honey bee, and over what? 0.000000022% of the history of the Earth.

Events and things have constantly changed the Earth since its formation, from the LHB, to carbon and iron in rocks, to prokaryotes, cyanobacteria, stromolites, methane, oxygen, eukaryotes, the appearance of animals, the effects of ice ages, insects, flowering plants, grasses, primates, and finally, intelligent, learning, creative humans.

Oh, the horror.

To be fair, the Anthropocene should be dedicated to Al Gore and renamed Goreanthropocene because it started on the day he was born, March 31,1948.

 

[Coyote]

The Anthropocene, another non-existent, imaginary term made up by globalists to further label natural events as somehow artificial just because man did them, ignoring the fact that man is PART of Nature and so part of nature's plan, doing what all life does, having an effect changing the environment no different than most other life has done from the fish to the tree to the honey bee, and over what? 0.000000022% of the history of the Earth.

Events and things have constantly changed the Earth since its formation, from the LHB, to carbon and iron in rocks, to prokaryotes, cyanobacteria, stromolites, methane, oxygen, eukaryotes, the appearance of animals, the effects of ice ages, insects, flowering plants, grasses, primates, and finally, intelligent, learning, creative humans.

Oh, the horror.

Indeed. The Earth has had many geological eras.

Why “horror”? It is what it is. Most likely the start of another era defined by humanity. Why would you think the the Quaternary Period of the Cenozoic era marks the finale?

r

 

[toobfreak]

To be fair, the Anthropocene should be dedicated to Al Gore and renamed Goreanthropocene because it started on the day he was born, March 31,1948.

Fact of the matter Hoss is that 10,000 times, the emergence of some new lifeform or factor from amphibians to fish, to impactors, to volcanoes and continental drift, to changes in the earth's spin or distance of the moon, to ferns to flowering shrubs to insects, to mammals have all lead to the beautiful Earth as we know it today.

And each time by effecting radical change that meant changes to if not the extinction of millions of species and things to herald in the new-- all part of nature's plan. Mankind is not "ruining" the Earth no more than the insect did. We are simply part of nature's plan for the coming future of the Earth as it will be in the future making room for billions of us and our new technological wonders at the expense of many old and increasingly less important things.

That is why 99% of all things that have ever lived and been are extinct now. Not because of man but because that is how the Earth constantly changes. The one constant of the Earth is that she always seeks balance in and after every change.

 

[Coyote]

We are part of nature, and we are changing the planet. For the better or worse depends on the species. Why deny that humanity is having a tremendous impact on the Earth? It just is.

 

[toobfreak]

Indeed. The Earth has had many geological eras.

Actually, your chart only covers about 1/9th the age of the Earth all part of the Phanerozoic Eon. That is roughly the period after which the Avalon Explosion lead to the Cambrian event where life really diversified and came onto land.

Why “horror”? It is what it is.

Wasn't that my point?

Most likely the start of another era defined by humanity.

We call it the Holocene. Mankind's effects likely really began in the Ionian middle age of the late Quaternary Period modulated by ice ages culminating with the invention of the tool to aid survival, most notably the bow and the domestication of animals, along with natural extinctions of such things as the mammoth, mastodon, saber-toothed cat and other predators by the natural warming of the earth facilitating the expansion of mankind.

Why would you think the the Quaternary Period of the Cenozoic era marks the finale?

I don't. We are just into the very beginnings of the new subatlantic chronozone of the barely 12,000 year old new Holocene. Lots of things yet to come.

 

[toobfreak]

We are part of nature, and we are changing the planet. For the better or worse depends on the species. Why deny that humanity is having a tremendous impact on the Earth? It just is.

My only point is the anticipation that the real drive behind the creation of an "Anthropocene Age" subset within the Holocene will be to blame man and justify draconian 'green' actions to save the planet which is really only intended to make a few filthy rich while vastly curtailing the rights of billions of others.

 

[Coyote]

Actually, your chart only covers about 1/9th the age of the Earth all part of the Phanerozoic Eon. That is roughly the period after which the Avalon Explosion lead to the Cambrian event where life really diversified and came onto land.

True. Taken as a whole the geological record, even though it only a fraction of what was existed, is fascinating!

Wasn't that my point?

We call it the Holocene. Mankind's effects likely really began in the Ionian middle age of the late Quaternary Period modulated by ice ages culminating with the invention of the tool to aid survival, most notably the bow and the domestication of animals, along with natural extinctions of such things as the mammoth, mastodon, saber-toothed cat and other predators by the natural warming of the earth facilitating the expansion of mankind.

The way I understand the geological time scale is that the time scale is divided into eras that are marked by major events that leave changes in the stratigraphy of the Earth.

Man’s effects prior to the past couple of centuries did not leave such measurable changes in the record planet wide or create a tipping point. The divisions aren’t going to be precise dates but within a few centuries or so (a few seconds in geological time).

Nature/earth WILL go on, but will it leave an environment conducive to the life we know now, including us? I think denying our effect is being willfully blind. We are, in my opinion, on the verge of a major extinction event and because we refuse to recognize how interrelated everything is for political and economic reasons, it could overtake us before we are capable of changing the way we do things. And it won’t be the loss of the big fauna, it will start with the tiny things that form the base of every ecosystem - insects, plankton, pollinators, etc.

I don't. We are just into the very beginnings of the new subatlantic chronozone of the barely 12,000 year old new Holocene. Lots of things yet to come.

Currently, we are in the Holocene Epoch of the Quaternary Period of the Cenozoic Era…if it isn’t a new Epoch, it would likely be a new Age.

 

[toobfreak]

True. Taken as a whole the geological record, even though it only a fraction of what was existed, is fascinating!

What is most fascinating is that by logical extrapolation, our geological record implies that life is bountiful and common everywhere in the universe it is given half a chance to succeed.

Nature/earth WILL go on, but will it leave an environment conducive to the life we know now, including us? I think denying our effect is being willfully blind.

Statigraphic evidence is that history is replete with species whose effect ultimately contributed to their own extinction. Sometimes that is just how it works out--- failure or inability to adapt/cope.

We are, in my opinion, on the verge of a major extinction event

It would be like the 14th major and minor extinction event in the last 2 billion years, and the last in roughly 25 million years; some would say we might be overdue. Thank god for the last one which brought us the Miocene and the Age of Mammals or we wouldn't be here today! Only man's arrogance would have him thinking that his extinction is any better or worse than any other! I know for a fact that most of the planet would disagree and find their problems greatly alleviated if not for the environmental pressure put upon them from mankind. And keep in mind that the earth has sophisticated balancing mechanisms and our own limits and destruction could all be engineered as part of the self-correcting system of the planet to steer things back to the null setting.

it will start with the tiny things that form the base of every ecosystem

Turns out that it is the tiniest things, miles down deep in the ocean or Earth's crust which are both most important to the sustained survivability of the planet AND the most stubborn to vanquish. We may go in a flash, but they survived even the Chixulub impactor.

 

[Crick]

Turns out that it is the tiniest things, miles down deep in the ocean or Earth's crust which are both most important to the sustained survivability of the planet AND the most stubborn to vanquish. We may go in a flash, but they survived even the Chixulub impactor.

Suppose another Chicxulub impactor was detected headed our way. Would you support efforts to alter its course away from the Earth?

 

[fncceo]

Why deny that humanity is having a tremendous impact on the Earth? It just is.

When I ask someone why they always pester people about Jesus ... they give me the same answer ... "Why deny it? It just is?"

Religious fundamentalism may be crazy ... but it make people feel very sure about their beliefs.

 

[Crick]

When I ask someone why they always pester people about Jesus ... they give me the same answer ... "Why deny it? It just is?"

I've debated lots of religious folks and they've never said such a thing to me. The difference here is that there is a great deal more evidence that god does not exist than that he does while mountains of evidence support AGW and almost none supports your point of view on the topic.

Religious fundamentalism may be crazy ... but it make people feel very sure about their beliefs.

What exactly do you mean by "religious fundamentalism" because your statement here feels a bit circular.

Here is the opening paragraph from Wikipedia's article on Fundamentalism

Fundamentalism is a tendency among certain groups and individuals that is characterized by the application of a strict literal interpretation to scriptures, dogmas, or ideologies, along with a strong belief in the importance of distinguishing one's ingroup and outgroup, which leads to an emphasis on some conception of "purity", and a desire to return to a previous ideal from which advocates believe members have strayed. The term is usually used in the context of religion to indicate an unwavering attachment to a set of irreducible beliefs (the "fundamentals").

The term "fundamentalism" is generally regarded by scholars of religion as referring to a largely modern religious phenomenon which, while itself a reinterpretation of religion as defined by the parameters of modernism, reifies religion in reaction against modernist, secularist, liberal and ecumenical tendencies developing in religion and society in general that it perceives to be foreign to a particular religious tradition. Depending upon the context, the label "fundamentalism" can be a pejorative rather than a neutral characterization, similar to the ways that calling political perspectives "right-wing" or "left-wing" can have negative connotations.

 

[task0778]

attempting to define the Anthropocene in geologic terms underscores humanity’s rapid and intense impact on the planet, Turner says. “We’ve become a geological force.”

"Rapid and intense"? "Geological force"? Pure opinion. Speculation.

Most likely the start of another era defined by humanity.

"Most likely"? Pure opinion. Speculation.

Why deny that humanity is having a tremendous impact on the Earth?

"Tremendous impact"? Wow. Really? Pure opinion. Speculation.

Nature/earth WILL go on, but will it leave an environment conducive to the life we know now, including us? I think denying our effect is being willfully blind. ... We are, in my opinion, on the verge of a major extinction event.

Maybe. But these kinds of statements portending doom and gloom for life on this planet approaches hysteria. Life has undergone some pretty radical changes over it's history, yet life finds a way. And I suspect so will we.


You know what bugs me about all this? First of all, I've seen scientific group after scientific group prognosticating disaster for the past 30 odd years maybe more, and they've all been wrong. Is Florida under water yet? How about New York City? No? How much have the oceans risen since 1950? It's bullshit. And they want huge gobs of money to fix it. Fuck that.

I don't see anybody with a cost-effective solution that actually would move the needle on climate change/global warming. It feels like a giant scam, give us a ton of money and we'll take care of it. Fuck that. I've seen what Gore, AOC, and the democrats want to do with their Green New Deal that costs what, some $90 trillion bucks. That's trillion with a "T". Where's the money going to come from? Most of it would come from US taxpayers, no? Just like reparations, I gotta pay for what somebody else did? Fuck that.

I do see that the US has made some changes to reduce carbon emissions. I do see reports here and there of new technologies that will lead to new clean energies. I suspect the by the next century, humanity will have found better energy alternatives with no thanks to Gore, AOC, Thunberg, or any other fear-monger.

 

[Matted Joybeard]

The Anthropocene, another non-existent, imaginary term made up by globalists to further label natural events as somehow artificial just because man did them, ignoring the fact that man is PART of Nature and so part of nature's plan, doing what all life does, having an effect changing the environment no different than most other life has done from the fish to the tree to the honey bee, and over what? 0.000000022% of the history of the Earth.

Events and things have constantly changed the Earth since its formation, from the LHB, to carbon and iron in rocks, to prokaryotes, cyanobacteria, stromolites, methane, oxygen, eukaryotes, the appearance of animals, the effects of ice ages, insects, flowering plants, grasses, primates, and finally, intelligent, learning, creative humans.

Oh, the horror.

'man is just like a honeybee'. holy shit.

 

[toobfreak]

'man is just like a honeybee'. holy shit.

He is? Where did you hear that?

 

[ReinyDays]

What's wrong with using "Holocene"? ... if Pleistocene is defined by the glaciation / interglacial cycles ... then all that's changed is agriculture ...

I guess it's the Anthropocene if humans say it is ... nothing else cares* ... and we don't want to bruise tender human egos more than we have to ...

* = except dogs ...

 

[miketx]

No one knows jack shit about what happened back then.

 

[toobfreak]

What's wrong with using "Holocene"? ...

My guess is that by getting the term Anthropocene codified into the scientific lexicon, since it is "anthro," my guess is that their aim is to use it to track and blame human activity as somehow working against nature, something to be charted and regulated, fined and taxed, instead of just PART of nature.

Hey, green is fine, just that to do green realistically, you don't wait until the crisis is upon you, they should have started thinking about this stuff in the 1950s then, you begin instituting corrective actions as the technology and budgets allow rather than throw the baby out with the bath water turning civilization on its head trying to go totally green in ten years.

Climate change or not, people can only change things as fast as budgets and technology allow, and the cure cannot be worse than the problem. If mankind actually succeeds in becoming nearly carbon neutral and almost fossil fuel product free over the next 100 years, the Earth will effect its natural balancing and correcting systems and return the planet to 19th century conditions or whatever accordingly.