The Anthropocene, Reviewed
Today’s topic is the
Anthropocene and the many debates around it. If you have never heard of this, the Anthropocene is a proposed
new geologic epoch that is named after humanity and our impact on the planet.
While not yet officially recognised in the International Chronostratigraphic Chart, this term has entered the popular imagination. Even John Green, author,
and YouTube star, has written a book titled The Anthropocene Reviewed. It is a
brilliant collection of essays rating different aspects of the human world on a
five-star scale, reminiscent of the reviews of restaurants on Google and other
online platforms like Goodreads.
So, if popular culture
books have been written on this phenomenon, why is there any debate about
whether the Anthropocene is real? Well, because we have no conclusive way to
date this new geologic epoch. What geologic evidence exemplifies the impacts of humanity
on our planet? The debate spans from tens of thousands of years ago when people
first started farming all the way to the
1950s with the detonation of nuclear weapons. What scientists are looking for
is a ‘golden spike’ that can unequivocally prove the impact of humans on the
geology of our planet. Apparently, scientists all over the world are racing to
see if their nation or province will be the one to prove the timing of the
Anthropocene with their own ‘golden spike.’ In fact, very recently, a lake in
Canada was recommended as the global ‘golden spike.’
However, other
scientists have questioned whether it is even worth classifying the
Anthropocene as a separate geologic epoch. What if humanity burns itself
out in the next few centuries and climate systems regulate themselves? Most
geologic epochs span over three million years, is this time of anthropogenic
climate change large enough to warrant a break from the conventions of naming
the epochs? Especially if the start of the Anthropocene falls in the
1950s, is a 70-year period enough to classify a whole new geologic age? What is
the length of one single human lifespan in the broader scale of the Earth’s 4.5
billion years?
This has led several
scientists to question whether the Anthropocene should be an epoch, or if it
should be classified as event with a clear beginning and end. This is
a very interesting argument as it pivots away from the previous debate about
whether the Anthropocene is even a real phenomenon. The argument that the Anthropocene
is an event compares human activity and its consequences to other atmospheric
events like The Great Oxidation and the Devonian Plant Explosion (where plants
expanded onto land and spread across all continents).
This author does not
argue for or against any one of these arguments. It is clear that humans are
having a large impact on our planet, which may warrant the designation of a new geologic
time period. What is fascinating about this debate is that it shows how science builds
upon itself. The ‘Anthropocene as an event’ argument could not exist without
the original argument that the ‘Anthropocene is real and needs to be named.’ And
neither of these could exist without the science proving anthropogenic climate
change and the impact of human development on our planet. There is no clear answer to this debate, which makes it so interesting. Coming back to the
topic of my first blog post, these are the bricks that build up modern science,
with each adding more complexity and proof to our collective brick wall. Science
benefits greatly from debate and conversation, so we must encourage and engage
with its debates and arguments. While it is not my responsibility to name and prove the Anthropocene and its start date, it does fall on me as a young scientist to engage with this topic and allow space for debates to occur.
Comments
Post a Comment