“The Anthropocene Biosphere” is an insightful and informative article on the modern era and portrays why understanding the present impact of humans on the planet is crucial for future survival of Earth as a whole. The article by Mark Williams et al illustrates key aspects and contributions, as well as the positive and negative impacts of the current era known as the Anthropocene. The authors argue that this Anthropocene age is substantially different in comparison to any preceding metazoan and microbial eras, stating that four elements clearly distinguish the Anthropocene age as different; the restructure of ecosystems due to invasive species spread, the increase in consumption of materials in both marine and terrestrial ecosystems, the biological …show more content…
modification of both animal and plant species, and the introduction and adaptation of new technologies. The transition to the Anthropocene is briefly discussed in order to explain how evolution of both the microbial and metazoan eras assisted the birth of the Anthropocene biosphere. “The Anthropocene Biosphere” is a must-read because it simultaneously exemplifies why humans are a technological-advanced and prosperous species yet simultaneously explains how the Anthropocene may have a disastrous, long-lasting effect on the planet. With a brief introduction of the Anthropocene, important elements significant to the era itself are summarized. One of these attributes concerns the evolutionary mechanisms of the microbial and metazoan eras that lead up to the Anthropocene. The microbial stage was responsible for development of altered mechanisms of energy production; eventually leading to an event known as the Great Oxygenation Event. During the Great Oxygenation Event, oxygen was released into the atmosphere, eventually bringing about the pre-development of the first metazoan organisms. The metazoan stage led to multi-cellular organism development and their eventual evolution. This in turn generated four different implications of the Anthropocene era that significantly differentiated it from any other time period of the biosphere. The authors make a strong argument that while the Anthropocene period is substantially different from previous stages, it is also forming a disastrous long-term effect on the planet. Several distinguishing characteristics support this statement by the authors. The first piece of evidence that the authors claim to differentiate the Anthropocene from other biospheres is the migration of flora and fauna due to human influences. Before the Anthropocene time period, development of organisms were observed to follow a “gradual evolutionary” pattern in which organisms adapted according to their location. Neobiota, otherwise known as invasive species in ecosystems, are specifcally different. Prior to human influence, organisms were isolated by bodies of water, large land masses or some other geographical factors and most species only changed during a geographical event, such as the movement or collision of large land masses due to earthquakes, tsunamis or volcanic eruptions. The introduction of the human species revolutionized this process as species were moved out of their natural habitat to a new ecosystem through their human hosts, eventually becoming invasive to their new environment. This phenomenon has been observed in other biospheres; but its rapid spread is specific to the Anthropocene epoch: “This rapid homogenization of world biota is perhaps unique in Earth History, and reverses the direction of the comparatively gradual evolution of biographically distinct fauna and flora…Hence incoming species today cannot be used, as previously in Earth’s history, as proxies for changing paleogeography (citation-footnote. Human intervention has allowed species to be able to travel to other environments, which has ultimately halted any type of gradual evolution; instead creating an environment in which conflicting species compete for the same resources. The authors also note that the Anthropocene time period is unparalleled in mankind’s production and consumption of raw materials and basic resources.
Consumption of resources is currently the highest it has ever been: “Humans have fundamentally modified the terrestrial landscape and marine environment in which ecosystems develop, with some 50% of the land surface being modified for agriculture (about 36%), urban, and other human-dominated purposes” (citation-footnote). Not only have humans consumed a great deal of materials and therefore demand a large energy production, but has also generated waste that has been inputted into the environment. “As a result of hyper-fertilization, the amount of reactive nitrogen at the Earth’s surface has approximately doubled by means of the Haber-Bosch process, a perturbation of the nitrogen cycle that may be the greatest since Proterozoic times…”(citation). Thus, the Anthropocene is unlike other epochs, as the sheer amount of consumption and waste production is the highest it has ever …show more content…
been. The Anthropocene epoch can be discerned from other eons since human intervention has modified the evolution of both plant and animal species. “On a global scale, an analysis of satellite imagery has shown that only one-quarter of the Earth’s ice-free land is still wilderness…The remaining areas consist of agricultural, residential, and industrial zones and other ‘anthromes’, that is, areas dominated by human modifications” (citation-footnote). The authors claim that this is evidence that the human species is responsible for the outcome of all species, whether animal or plant. This idea that the Anthropocene is unique to other eras in terms of human intervention can also be displayed in the biodiversity of species. “Humans add to the biosphere many agricultural and horticultural cultivars and animal crossbreeds through techniques such as crossing, preferential selection and, more recently, through Marker-associated selection” (citation-footnote). Humans controlling the evolution of species suggests that the Anthropocene is, in fact, unlike other eras as the pattern of natural evolution has been completely rewritten. As argued by the authors, the Anthropocene is distinctive among other epochs for the reason that one species, man, rules them all. The fourth, and last, parameter the authors convey that separates the Anthropocene from others is the integration of new technologies into the biosphere itself. Humans are unlike any other species. Their own inventions ensure their survival and the authors argue they are the sole reason homo-sapiens have outlived their neighboring species. “For example, roads, mobile (animal) power sources, agriculture and the subsequent concentration of habitation and specialization of knowledge and practice that technology made possible led to expanded human populations that could not sustain themselves…” (citation-footnote). The integration of the technology, ‘technosphere’, enabled the human species to evolve and as such, evolving the biosphere along with it. “In this view, humans and domesticated animals and plants, while biological, are intimately linked into as well as producing the ‘technosphere’, within which they can exist in large numbers and outside of which they cannot” (citation-footnote). As such, the Anthropocene can be regarded as the epoch in which biological means can be associated with technologic, mechanical mechanisms. Thus, the Anthropocene biosphere encodes technology as an essential means of survival for one species and in fact, technology can be attributed to the success of the human species. A variety of inventions, such as vaccinations and agricultural methods, has led to the exponential growth of human populations and as such, the technosphere is even more intimately linked with the human species. In conclusion, “The Anthropocene Biosphere” by Mark Williams et all is an astounding, thought-provoking article with strong arguments presenting reasons why this new modern era is unique among all other epochs.
The authors are effectively able to convey the significance of the Anthropocene through four parameters; the effects of human migration on organism travel, production and consumption levels of the human population, human influences on the evolution of animal and plant species, and the incorporation of new technologies into the biosphere. “The Anthropocene Biosphere”, written by Mark Williams et al, proves to be an informative article on the Anthropocene era. It is a must-read because it simultaneously exemplifies why humans are a technological-advanced and prosperous species yet simultaneously explains how the Anthropocene will have a continued long-lasting effect on the planet. In their view, the Anthropocene, unlike any other time period has irrevocably altered the course of
evolution.
Anthropocentrism has been a central belief upon which modern human society has been constructed. The current state of the world, particularly the aspects that are negative, are reflective of humans continuously acting in ways that are in the interest of our own species. As environmental issues have worsened in recent decades, a great number of environmentalists are turning away from anthropocentric viewpoints, and instead adopting more ecocentric philosophies. Although anthropocentrism seems to be decreasing in popularity due to a widespread shift in understanding the natural world, philosopher William Murdy puts forth the argument that anthropocentrism still has relevancy in the context of modern environmental thought. In the following essay, I will explain Murdy’s interpretation of anthropocentrism and why he believes it to be an acceptable point of
As small mobile groups of hunter-gatherers adopted a sedentary lifestyle, they mastered both agriculture and animal domestication. These small settled groups quickly evolved into cities and towns that encompassed the entire globe. Today the estimated population of the world is over 6.2 million people.1 As the population has grown, it has had several deleterious effects on the Earth. These include climate changes, the spread of diseases, declining food production, deforestation, and environment pollution (particularly air pollution). As people have become more conscious of these harmful effects, they have begun to devise strategies to combat this problem. Among the suggested responses include a switch to renewable energy, a call for zero population growth, and adopting sustainable agricultural practices.
Time and time again it has been seen that human interaction with his/her environment and it’s ecosystems has shown to be increasingly arrogant and self-serving. These endless accounts are proven by the amount of important biological diversity that is being lost to the surrounding environment due to these threats of human development and population growth. There are two forms of these losses of diversity by human hand: direct and indirect. Direct losses would be the destruction of an area needed for human requirements be it social or economical. Examples of these losses would be housing, agriculture, and others. Indirect losses would be those caused by the destruction of an area also needed for the same requirements but the area’s commodities which are valued, water, food, land in general, is needed elsewhere. These losses are few in number compared with those of direct losses yet they are of the greatest importance. They are important because they involve the removal of resources of an area in which other inhabitants are dependent upon. A great example of this regrettable indirect expansion is the loss of the rich habitat of the area known as Owens Valley.
The Anthropocene marks a point in time where human activities were able to greatly alter the environment, some historians believe that it marked the point in time where the industrial revolution began (1700CE to 1900CE). The Industrial revolution essentially was mankind’s breakthrough into modernity, the rapid advancements in technology and the utilisation of fossil fuels gave man a seemingly infinite supply of energy that could be used to transform manual processes into automated ones which was a massive game changer for the manufacturing, communications and transportation industries.(1)
While humans are becoming increasingly aware of the environmental issues that are occurring in the world, most human systems are still unsustainable. Being sustainable in a society means that humans treat Earth like it has a limited supply of resources that need to be carefully managed in order to prevent damage to the world around us (Chiras, D. D., 2016). So, being unsustainable is the opposite; when humans treat the world like they are dominant over it, as well as believing that the Earth has an unlimited supply of resources that should be consumed by humans. Human beliefs and practices influence unsustainability, which can, and often do, correspond with the root cause of the problem.
There is no hesitation when it comes to whether humans impact the global environment. However, it is questioned in whether human’s ecological footprint is either negatively or positively impacting. In clear perspective, humans share from both sides and their ecological footprint is noted towards whether it will benefit or harm the environment around them. Topics such as overpopulation, pollution, biomagnification, and deforestation are all human impacted and can harm the environment, but some include benefits into helping the world around us with solutions to their problems.
John McNeill, in his informative book, Something New Under the Sun, he discusses how the twentieth century brought the world into a steady decline. Although the world has improved technology-wise, it has also had a decline that overshadows the improvement we have seen. McNeil goes on to prove that it is humans, with our new technology are the reason behind this fateful decline. The world’s population has positively and negatively affected the twentieth century world by bringing “ecological changes” that will forever change the world(4).
“We are consuming the Earth’s natural resources beyond its sustainable capacity of renewal” said by Herman Daly, Beyond Growth, Boston 1996, 61[1] .
One of the major effects of the huge population increase has been the depletion of natural resources and the destruction of ecosystems. In the 1960's, theorist Paul Ehrlich predicted that, given the skyrocketing figures of human population, the amount of food produced would not grow at a fast enough rate for human survival (Professor Carr Everbach, personal communication). He predicted mass starvation and death by the year 2000 as the result of uncontrolled population growth. Clearly, this did not occur. Ehrlich did not foresee the advancements ma...
A human induced global ecological crisis is occurring, threatening the stability of this earth and its inhabitants. The best path to address environmental issues both effectively and morally is a dilemma that raises concerns over which political values are needed to stop the deterioration of the natural environment. Climate change; depletion of resources; overpopulation; rising sea levels; pollution; extinction of species is just to mention a few of the damages that are occurring. The variety of environmental issues and who and how they affect people and other species is varied, however the nature of environmental issues has the potential to cause great devastation. The ecological crisis we face has been caused through anthropocentric behavior that is advantageous to humans, but whether or not anthropocentric attitudes can solve environmental issues effectively is up for debate. Ecologism in theory claims that in order for the ecological crisis to be dealt with absolutely, value and equality has to be placed in the natural world as well as for humans. This is contrasting to many of the dominant principles people in the contemporary world hold, which are more suited to the standards of environmentalism and less radical approaches to conserving the earth. I will argue in this essay that whilst ecologism could most effectively tackle environmental problems, the moral code of ecologism has practical and ethical defects that threaten the values and progress of anthropocentricism and liberal democracy.
There is no doubt that human activity is having a significant impact on our environment. These environmental impacts include depleting our natural resources, air and water pollution, climate change, destruction of habitats, and loss of biodiversity. Because of these growing concerns, we need to learn how to live sustainably. Living sustainably will allow us to conserve our limited resources more wisely so they will be available for future generations (Withgott & Brennan, 2011, Chapter 1).
The degradation of ecosystems and loss of biodiversity is increasing at an alarming rate every year. Humans are certainly not the only reason for this, but they are the main contributors. The well-being of ecosystems affects our everyday lives - consumption and consumerism depend on natural resources. Everything humans use is derived from them, in seemingly indirect and direct ways. Yet despite the fact that humans are destroying the environment, many continue to and neglect to take important measures to protect it.
The environment today is not in a good condition, Climate change is evident, and oceans are getting polluted. Rainforrest's are decreasing in size due to deforestation and illegal logging. Animals are getting extinct due to the destruction of their habitats. Natural resources are being consumed at very large amounts, and get wasted. There are different ways these problems can be addressed, one option is environmental management. Environmental management focuses on conservation of natural resources, protection of habitats, and impact of humans on the environment. Conservation of natural resources is the smart use of the world's resources by humans, through this waste production is limited, and there will be less garbage in the world. By conserving
Social ecology is the conceptual principles for knowing the outcomes and relations of the many diverse individual and environmental factors. Social ecology is defined as the study of people within an environment, which have influence on one another. It’s believed to be the earth’s societies reflection upon itself, exploring, discovering, and considering its future (Gutkind, 1974). Factors of social ecology may include the infirmities of age, an increase of population, natural disasters, technology and the growth of society. Within social ecology it is important to notice which people are unable to see the environmental crisis. This movement is placing all the responsibility for destroying the earth on humans as they are overpopulating the planet. There is no possible way of convincing all humans to change their way of life (Bookchin, 1995). However, rather have humans distinguish and eliminate previous forms of control and destruction (Bookchin, 1995). The main standard of social ecology is the fact that problems occur from inherent social issues (Dogan, Rokkan, 1974). These problems cannot be understood without acknowledging the social issues. The development, of certain technologies, social characteristics, cities and science all has caused a vast majority of problems to the earth, which leads back to humans.
Overpopulation can be seen as one of the key factors responsible for the state of our rapidly decaying earth. Developments in medicine, agriculture and technology have allowed for the human race to take over all other species and be excluded from the natural food chain. Humans, particularly westerners, lead lives of extreme consumption that take huge tolls not only on the earth but also on certain groups within society. A great division has developed between the western world and the third world.