Home
Archive
Columnists
Video
Blogs
Discuss
About
Search
Donate
Advertise
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Register to Vote: Rock the Vote, powered by Working Assets Wireless
Advertisement
  • AlterNetYour turn

Support AlterNet
Do you value the information you're getting from AlterNet? Please show your support with a tax-deductible donation.


Feedback
Tell us how we're doing.

Environment

Have Humans Caused the Earth to Enter a New Epoch?

By Robert C. Cowen, Christian Science Monitor. Posted February 11, 2008.


The Anthropocene epoch would mark the period when humans became the predominant force over the Earth's environment.

Geologists wonder if they should add a new epoch to the geological time scale. They call it the Anthropocene -- the epoch when, for the first time in Earth's history, humans have become a predominant geophysical force. Naming such a new epoch would also recognize that humans now share responsibility with natural forces for the state of our planet's ecological environment.

Geologists have been using the term informally for at least half a decade. Now members of the Stratigraphy Commission of the Geological Society of London have laid out the case for giving the term official scientific status.

Presenting that case in the February issue of GSA Today magazine, the team notes that "since the start of the industrial revolution, Earth has endured changes sufficient to leave a global stratigraphic signature." It is different from anything found in the entire geological record up to that point. That means the team expects future geologists examining this record will recognize a distinct break with the Holocene ("recent whole") epoch that covers the past 10,000 years.

Atmospheric chemist and Nobel Prize winner Paul Crutzen at Germany's Max Planck Institute for Chemistry in Mainz says this presents humanity with an awesome challenge. He has pointed out that what the London team calls the "novel biotic, sedimentary, and geochemical change" now being written into the geological record reflects the emergence of human intelligence and technology as a geophysical force.

On his website, he explains this means that "to develop a world-wide accepted strategy leading to sustainability of ecosystems against human stresses will be one of the great future tasks of mankind." He adds that it will take "intensive research and wise application of the knowledge" gained to develop sustainable environmental management.

Soil scientist Daniel Richter at Duke University in Durham, N.C., would agree. In an announcement of his work last month, he explained that human-induced changes to the world's soils are enough in themselves to justify saying we have entered the "Anthropocene (or man-made) age." He notes, "With more than half of all soils on Earth now being cultivated for food crops, grazed, or logged for wood, how to sustain Earth's soils is becoming a major scientific and policy issue."

He adds, "If humanity is to succeed in the coming decades, we must interact much more positively with the great diversity of Earth's soils."

Dr. Richter cites Africa as an example of this challenge. There, widespread farming without nutrient recycling threatens continent-wide soil infertility. He adds that, globally, "expanding cities, industries, mining, and transportation systems all impact soil in ways that are far more permanent than cultivation." Richter is part of an international group that has set up the first global long-term soil research network. This will help develop the knowledge needed for worldwide soil management.

In making the case for a new epoch, geologists such as the London team cite many other aspects of human geophysical impact. It will be up to the International Commission on Stratigraphy to decide whether or not to establish a new Anthropocene epoch. But it is clear that Earth has taken an unpre°©cedented geological turn in our time and there is no turning back.

Digg!

See more stories tagged with: epoch, anthropocene

Liked this story? Get top stories in your inbox each week from Environment! Sign up now »


Advertisement

 

Comments Turn comments off sitewide Give us feedback »
Comments closed.
The comments for this story have been closed. Thank you to everyone who participated.
View:
Holocene - Recent or Whole
Posted by: asog on Feb 11, 2008 6:30 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I would like to note that the Holocene epoch that you're describing as ("recent whole") has the meaning of "entirely recent" according to this Wikipedia entry: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holocene

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» And your point is? Posted by: VickyinSD
I do believe...
Posted by: JoshuaLudd on Feb 11, 2008 6:44 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I think it is unquestionable that we as humans have become a force affecting our entire planet, and not simply because of Global Warming. For example, if we see a timeperiod where there is massive deforrestation on a global scale such as we see today we would consider that the effects of a rather huge force. In fact we have seen not only the die-off of forests but of numerous species as well. We also see huge numbers of domesticated animals being raised for food increased dramatically, which also has a host of environmental impacts itself.

Yet we still see people saying that we simply could not have played any part in global warming. That our reach is simply not that great. That is quite simply foolishness.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

End of the Rope??
Posted by: crazy carlos on Feb 11, 2008 6:59 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Many scientists have argued that the average life span of a species is about 100,000 years on this planet. Suprised? The human species as now constituted has been here about that length of time.

Maybe Shitheads like Bush etal are a forwarning of what is in store for all of us.

Some very bad things are on the horizon for this planet. Hopefully the planet will only vomit up the humans and allow other species to survive. WE ARE NOT ESSENTIAL TO THIS PLANET.

Crazy Carlos

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» In our church's... Posted by: Bbear41
» RE:end of the Rope?? Posted by: bookie
» RE: nd of the Rope?? Posted by: dmmaze6
It's obvious we've made an impact
Posted by: VickyinSD on Feb 11, 2008 8:48 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
because almost everywhere you look there's concrete, asphalt, bridges, buildings, fences, walls, etc. If we were gone tomorrow, those things would remain for quite some time. And let's not forget the tons and tons of waste discarded, including nuclear, chemical and biological.

If the beginning of the Anthropocene period started with the industrial revolution, and we've screwed things up as much as we have in such a short amount of time, then the Anthropocene period will probably be the shortest lived historical time-frame ever recorded. I don't think we've got much time left at the rate we're going.

The writing is on the wall, but will there be anyone still around to read it when it's over is another question. (I seriously doubt it)

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

a deeply unconscious humanity
Posted by: unity1 on Feb 11, 2008 9:19 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
can never hope to take responsibility for the earth and her environment - that is the height of arrogance - just look at what we are reaping now, the consequences of incredible short sightedness -

people bleat on about their rights, but fail to recognize their responsibilities - we are living the consequences now

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Our worst danger may be archaic religion
Posted by: ReallyBearish on Feb 11, 2008 9:55 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Much of the religious belief in the West is centuries behind our current problems, including environmental issues. Dragging religion into the 21st century is as important as dealing with global warming.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

The omnivore's next dilemma
Posted by: Dboy on Feb 11, 2008 10:10 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Here's a related lecture at TED...related because we humans have an unhealthy view of nature and how we relate to it:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TQPN1O03z8I

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Issues of Environment not political?
Posted by: A-Junky on Feb 11, 2008 10:52 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
It seems interesting to me that in our present political climate no one, not the candidates not the voters, seem to feel that issues associated with the environment are of great significance. The candidates are not talking about the problems associated with the ecosystem and the voters do not list it as one of the five top issues of this election. As far as I can tell, the ecosystem is the most important issue of our time. This is about the politics of life itself! We, as a country, need to bring this into the ongoing discussion of political issues. It undergirds all other discussions. Some other issues may be more apparent to the average man/woman on the street but we need to begin to understand that if the ecosystem goes haywire none of the other issues will matter. It must become primary soon or we will be in even bigger trouble than we are now!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Laws of conservation
Posted by: Andrew_S on Feb 11, 2008 11:05 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
It takes 3 - 9 centuries dependant on the region to grow an inch of fertile soil. The very earth itself has millenial patterns of shifting growth regions. In terms of one specific species it is a case of dysfunctional industrialization verses the laws of nature. We can assume the earth is benign and trundles along on its's merry way, albeit extremely slowly especially for the denaturized neo cultured me first and now'ers. Part of the industrializing process also involves capitalization, or the creation of money from nothing, aka commerce. The folly of basic infinite economics is the draw down of resources with no accounting for the replenishment, not even a set aside. Put it another way the simple uncriminalizing of the profit incentive. Just as our dealing with each other, someone loses for someone to gain.
In this so called new geological epoch, we choose to gamble with something that never gambles, it doesn't know how to. The point of collapse is when symbiotic diversity is no longer available, even worse when the counterbalances of the system are fundamentally changed. For each change there is an opposing effect, subtle but measureable. The most dire of which is to change atmospheric composition, many creatures can survive this, plants, insects, but not most warm blooded creatures, the evolutionary capacity is negated and bypassed, if not by the power of hubris, just reality. Perhaps the rumour of ex minister (UK) Tony Blair's, greening of the world by reforestation maybe true, what isn't so apparent is the starter fertilizer.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Holocene Was Beginning Of Major Ecological Problems
Posted by: Jeff Hoffman on Feb 11, 2008 12:39 PM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Humans discovered agriculture and began overpopulating at the beginning of the Holocene. These two behaviors are the roots of all of our ecological, and even environmental, problems. Agriculture destroys natural vegetation in favor of what humans want and creates other problems identified by some of the posters on this thread. Overpopulation, well that speaks for itself, but its biggest problem is that it displaces other species. Unfortunately, agriculture and other circumventions of natural population controls such as starvation and disease, WITHOUT THE NECESSARY COUNTERBALANCE OF ADEQUATE BIRTH CONTROL, have allowed humans to take over the Earth. Hopefully someday, the Earth will be taken back without massive ecological destruction, though that seems very unlikely.

Anyway, the point is that the Holocene age is when humans began having a major ecological impact. The industrial revolution, as destructive as it's been, was merely a outgrowth and came millennia after significant human destruction of ecosystems began.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Planet of the apes
Posted by: Beached Whale on Feb 11, 2008 1:06 PM   
Current rating: 1    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The hubris of the misanthropists here is quite breathtaking.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Planet of the apes Posted by: Andrew_S
Entirely recently wholly - why does who care?
Posted by: editnetwork on Feb 11, 2008 2:42 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Urging either "recent whole" or "entirely recent" as a rendering of Holocene may seem like hair-splitting. One cares because it highlights not only the ridiculous diversity of look-up sources, on- and offline, but also how far we've come from any understanding of Latin in our everyday use of language.

For that matter, Anthropocene might be better coined as Anthropogenic or Anthropoclimatic, for that matter. Does the circulating coinage mean "humanly recent" or "recently human" or what?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Is "all" singular or plural?
Posted by: Sojourner on Feb 11, 2008 9:26 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
All "is" xyz? Or all "are" xyz? Yeah, it can be either. And it didn't much matter until now, since this is the first time that we have had "all" depend on us. If the message of this article is that times have changed, maybe it matters now whether or not we notice.

"All" is just a bit more than most of us can handle. So here we are caught between those who find excuses not to acknowledge the change, but rather insist that all would be well if we just returned to some Golden Age of the past, and those who say "full-speed-ahead, we will cross that bridge when we come to it." I have in mind for the first, traditional religion, and for the second, simple-minded worship of science.

We can't just split the difference. But it will be a resolution that preserves the best of those alternatives that is most likely to preserve our species. So let's have religious scientists and scientific sacredness.

Yeah, I suppose, I am dreaming. Most likely we will continue to battle over the alternatives rather than work with the best that each has to offer. For if we were able to find what is good in each, that might mean we deserve to survive. Suppose?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Please see the much more important sidebar
Posted by: AsteroidMiner on Feb 11, 2008 11:53 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
http://www.alternet.org/blogs/
environment/76461/?
comments=view&cID=831018
Why John McCain Isn't the Candidate to Stop Climate Change
Posted by Dr. Joseph Romm, Climate Progress at 12:10 PM on
February 8, 2008.

Especially the paragraph:
The next president must make reducing GHG emissions a central
focus of his or her administration if we want to avoid the worst
impacts of global warming: catastrophic sea level rise, widespread
drought and desertification, and loss of up to 70 percent of all
species.

"[L]oss of up to 70 percent of all species" includes Homo Sapiens,
the human race.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Follow the link to Salon
Posted by: AsteroidMiner on Feb 11, 2008 11:58 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
http://www.salon.com/
news/feature/2007/
12/12/ipcc_report/
index_np.html
Desperate times, desperate scientists

Fed up with politicians and the media, scientists are pleading to
the world to wake up to the imminent threats of global warming.

By Joseph Romm

How dire is the climate situation? Consider what Rajendra
Pachauri, the head of the United Nations' prestigious
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), said last
month: "If there's no action before 2012, that's too late. What we
do in the next two to three years will determine our future. This is
the defining moment." Pachauri has the distinction, or misfortune,
of being both an engineer and an economist, two professions not
known for overheated rhetoric.

In fact, far from being an alarmist, Pachauri was specifically
chosen as IPCC chair in 2002 after the Bush administration waged
a successful campaign to have him replace the outspoken Dr.
Robert Watson, who was opposed by fossil fuel companies like
ExxonMobil. So why is a normally low-key scientist getting more
desperate in his efforts to spur the planet to action?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

70% of all species includes humans
Posted by: AsteroidMiner on Feb 12, 2008 12:03 AM   
Current rating: 1    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Hydrogen Sulfide gas will Kill all people. Homo Sap will go
EXTINCT unless drastic action is taken.

October 2006 Scientific American

"EARTH SCIENCE
Impact from the Deep
Strangling heat and gases emanating from the earth and sea, not
asteroids, most likely caused several ancient mass extinctions.
Could the same killer-greenhouse conditions build once again?
By Peter D. Ward
downloaded from:
http://www.sciam.com/
article.cfm?articleID=
00037A5D-A938-150E-
A93883414B7F0000&
sc=I100322
....................Most of the article omitted......................
But with atmospheric carbon climbing at an annual rate of 2 ppm
and expected to accelerate to 3 ppm, levels could approach 900
ppm by the end of the next century, and conditions that bring
about the beginnings of ocean anoxia may be in place. How soon
after that could there be a new greenhouse extinction? That is
something our society should never find out."

Press Release
Pennsylvania State University
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
Monday, Nov. 3, 2003
downloaded from:
http://www.geosociety.org/meetings/2003/prPennStateKump.htm
"In the end-Permian, as the levels of atmospheric oxygen fell and
the levels of hydrogen sulfide and carbon dioxide rose, the upper
levels of the oceans could have become rich in hydrogen sulfide
catastrophically. This would kill most of the oceanic plants and
animals. The hydrogen sulfide dispersing in the atmosphere would
kill most terrestrial life."

www.astrobio.net is a NASA web zine. See:

http://www.astrobio.net/
news/modules.php?op=
modload&name=News&
file=article&sid=672

http://www.astrobio.net/
news/modules.php?op=
modload&name=News&
file=article&sid=1535

http://www.astrobio.net/
news/article2509.html

http://astrobio.net/news/
modules.php?op=modload
&name=News&file=article
&sid=2429&mode=thread
&order=0&thold=0

These articles agree with the first 2. They all say 6 degrees C or
1000 parts per million CO2 is the extinction point.

The global warming is already 1 degree Farenheit. 11 degrees
Farenheit is about 6 degrees Celsius. The book "Six Degrees" by
Mark Lynas agrees. If the global warming is 6 degrees
centigrade, we humans go extinct. See:
http://www.marklynas.org/
2007/4/23/six-steps-to-hell-
summary-of-six-degrees-as-
published-in-the-guardian

"Under a Green Sky" by Peter D. Ward, Ph.D., 2007.
Paleontologist discusses mass extinctions of the past and the one
we are doing to ourselves.

ALL COAL FIRED POWER PLANTS MUST BE
CONVERTED TO NUCLEAR IMMEDIATELY TO AVOID
THE EXTINCTION OF US HUMANS. 32 countries have
nuclear power plants. Only 9 have the bomb. The top 3
producers of CO2 all have nuclear power plants, coal fired power
plants and nuclear bombs. They are the USA, China and India.
Reducing CO2 production by 90% by 2050 requires drastic action
in the USA, China and India. King Coal has to be demoted to a
commoner. Coal must be left in the earth. If you own any coal
stock, NOW is the time to dump it, regardless of loss, because it
will soon be worthless.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]