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
