Thursday, 5 March 2015

Comments on the Anthropocene

In 2002 chemist Paul Crutzen coined the term ‘the Anthropocene’.[i] Here at CCCU we discussed this increasingly influential term last week, focusing on its geological basis, its wider take up well outside of natural science, and also the relationship between the two.

Crutzen sees the Anthropocene as the ‘geology of mankind’, a new geological era in which humans play the lead role in influencing the erstwhile natural processes that shape the planet. He cites the Italian geologist Antonia Stoppani, who in the midst of the ‘great acceleration’ (the rapid speeding up of human impact on nature through industrialisation and population growth associated with industrialisation) in 1873 talked of the ‘anthropozoic era’, an era in which human  consciousness and thought enabled humans to play a qualitatively larger role in natural process.[ii]
One thing distinctive about the Anthropocene today is that whilst ostensibly a concept rooted in the natural science of geology, it has rapidly become also a moral and political comment on the relationship between humans and nature. This is a good reason for non-geologists such as myself to consider its geological basis.
The current geological epoch, the Holocene, is only 11,700 years old. It is regarded as an inter-glacial epoch within the quaternary period. It covers the period of human colonisation of the planet, the development of organised human societies, the advent of farming and of course industrialisation. The Holocene already is the human epoch. Why then the rush to declare a new era (or epoch to be geologically precise)?
The Anthropocene, it is argued, is a qualitatively new departure for nature premised upon the rapidly increased human impact upon it:  it is a new epoch. Different markers of the start of this epoch are proposed: the advent of farming, the steam engine marking the start of the industrial revolution, the first nuclear test or the more recent mass use of plastics.
The citing of various iconic human landmarks suggests that the marker between the Holocene and a new Anthropocene may be as much contingent upon human concerns as rooted in geological observation or forecasts. Amongst geologists there is a good deal of disagreement and dissatisfaction with the term.[iii]Some geologists rather pessimistically argue that human society is unlikely to survive too long in geological time, and that we will leave barely a trace in the rock. If geological epochs are supposed to be delineated by ‘spikes’ in observable stratigraphy generated by changes in planetary processes (one of two criteria to be considered in delineating epochs, the other being that it should be useful to scientists) these geologists have a point.
Are we in danger of overstating the human footprint in geological terms, across geological  time? Maybe, more modestly, the Anthropocene is not an epoch but a  geological age. Ages are subdivisions of epochs (which themselves are subdivision of periods). This seems to me to be a more sensible proposal. But even here, my geologically informed friends tell me, there are issues. The Holocene itself spans a mere 11,700 years (so far, and assuming we haven’t quite yet declared its end), and has already been subdivided into three ages. The closer to our own time we examine, the clearer the science can be, the more possible it is to subdivide according to the sort of changes that we simply can’t be sure about from previous geological periods millions of years ago.  
Maybe the Anthropocene is important irrespective of epoch, age or even geology at all. It marks out a time in which human action plays the dominant role in natural processes – nature is no longer natural. This is effectively the ‘end of nature’ thesis, influential amongst eco-critics and eco-modernisers alike. Bill McKibben published The End of Nature in 1989, and sums the general argument up well:
"If the waves crash up against the beach, eroding dunes and destroying homes, it is not the awesome power of Mother Nature. It is the awesome power of Mother Nature as altered by the awesome power of man, who has overpowered in a century the processes that have been slowly evolving and changing of their own accord since the earth was born."[iv]
McKibben refers to natural processes in general, rather than their expression in geological evidence, and this is the case with many of today’s advocates of the salience of the Anthropocene. Global warming is unsurprisingly often referred to (including by McKibben) as an example of where natural processes are being altered by human impact in a manner that presents a danger to human societies.
So have we entered the Anthropocene? In geological terms I’d quote the answer given by Chinese communist leader Zhou Enlai when asked about the significance of the French Revolution: ‘It’s too soon to say’ - in this case by a few million years perhaps.  
In social / political terms the Anthropocene is a plastic term moulded around the narrative of those using it. For eco-critics, neo-Malthusians and negative growth advocates it should alert us to the deleterious effects of our actions on the planet and prompt us to breed less and produce less. According to the subheading of a recent Guardian newspaper article, it is: ‘Humanity’s terrifying impact on Earth  [that] justifies new Anthropocene epoch’.[v] For eco-modernisers it provides a rationale for  geo-engineering – if we have a prominent impact on natural processes, then let’s engineer to mitigate the deleterious effects.
I suspect the debate does two things, seemingly at odds but actually mutually reinforcing. In declaring the Anthropocene as ‘the geology of mankind’ we may be overstating the importance of human colonisation of the planet in geological time.
However, rather than this assertion of our importance in geological time being hubristic or anthropocentric, it is most often made precisely to warn us of human hubris and to promote an ecocentric morality and politics.  Here I suspect the debate may reflect a pessimism that understates human ingenuity and scientific possibility in our own time.



[i] Crutzen, P.J. (2012) The Geology of Mankind. Nature. 415, 23. Accessed at http://www.geo.utexas.edu/courses/387h/PAPERS/Crutzen2002.pdf
[ii] Ibid.
[iii] Voosen, P. (2012) Geologists drive golden spike toward Anthropocene's base. E &E. September 17. Accessed at http://www.eenews.net/stories/1059970036
[iv] McKibbin, B. (1989) The End of Nature. Random House. New York
[v] Samples, S. (2014) Anthropocene: is this the new epoch of humans? Guardian newspaper ( UK), 16 October. Accessed at http://www.theguardian.com/science/2014/oct/16/-sp-scientists-gather-talks-rename-human-age-anthropocene-holocene