Dawn of the Anthropocene Epoch? Earth Has Entered New Age of Geological Time, Experts Say

Source: Science Daily


Geologists from the University of Leicester are among four scientists- including a Nobel prize-winner -- who suggest that Earth has entered a new age of geological time.

The Age of Aquarius? Not quite -- It's the Anthropocene Epoch, say the scientists writing in the journal Environmental Science & Technology.

And they add that the dawning of this new epoch may include the sixth largest mass extinction in Earth's history. . . .

The scientists propose that, in just two centuries, humans have wrought such vast and unprecedented changes to our world that we actually might be ushering in a new geological time interval, and alter the planet for millions of years.

Read more: http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2010/03/100326101117.htm

---

I don't know whether I should be flattered by the awesome power of my species or be awed by its stupidity.

Skeptics of global warming, by and large, are skeptical of the influence human beings have on their environment. Meanwhile, scientific consensus more and more is showing we should not underestimate the effect we can have on it.

Will there be a place for human beings in the anthropocene epoch? If at least one in six species will die out, will mankind be (eventually) affected?

I doubt seriously we'll go extinct, but I could see a huge decline in human population starting by 2030 and continuing over generations until we have a tenth of the numbers we have now, or less.

to remember to write "Anthropocene Epoch" on my checks.

that we are not a part of our environment, though all that really separates us is a thin layer of skin and an often thick, conceptual layer of abstraction.

We emerge into this World, not from it. Indigenous thought corresponds with the mutuality in our absolute relationship with nature.

We have largely been talked and taught out of that sense of place and realization of an intimate connection, hence, our effect becomes like that of a malignant cancer where a part of the body itself becomes destructive and deadly.

"Prevailing thought seems to have it that we are not a part of our environment, though all that really separates us is a thin layer of skin and an often thick, conceptual layer of abstraction."

:web:

---------------------

It's funny, in some context we think of ourselves at the top of the food chain and in the next minute we can say we don't affect the world. Kinda schizophrenic, really

...the earth will attempt chemotherapy in order to heal.

I don't know what will happen--a horrendous disease, killer weather that
wipes out millions, famine, whatever--but you can't behave like cancer
cells without repercussions.

The Earth is an inanimate object and can "attempt" nothing. But the laws of physics, and the interaction of plants and animals with geological and astronimical events guided by them, will continue.

nt

For one thing, people comparing each other to cancer only inspires hatred and mutual disgust. Comparing oneself to it only inspires self-disgust. There is no good place to go from there and it does nothing for the problem.

We only do what every other organism would do if it had the cleverness. For a millennia, we've devised ways to prevent a population crash, we've communicated methods on how to do it across the world. We kept our population growing and have averted a crash, only to set it up for an even larger crash down the line that we then would have to find a different solution to.

Really, the main problem is population. That's what is behind global warming, extinction of species and destruction of the environment with chemicals. All of that is used to maintain/grow our population.

If you look at it simply, we are model organisms. Look at our population, actually, look at the population
of the species we've domesticated. We're so good at thriving, we can force other species to have population
explosions too.
As far as our drives to survive, we are doing everything in our power we are supposed to.
Well, except we have the tool of our minds, and we really don't seem to be using it. You would think any
smart species would be able to balance the pros and cons of high and low populations and find a good
middle road...but I guess not.

The problem comes with making the decision socially, and I'm afraid, to then enforce it, because it's a myth that we could do it and not sacrifice freedom. Freedom to reproduce has been basic to humankind. Reproduction is too high a drive in human beings and we are set psychologically to reproduce in so many ways. Already we face the dilemma that the fastest reproducing sector of the population then earns the highest voting bloc. The people who control their populations the least are the ones that gain the most political power.

So, then there gets to be other questions: if it's agreed that population must be controlled, who makes the decision on who gets to reproduce? Not only are there consequences to the method chosen for limiting it (look at the unequal impact that China's population control rules had on the female population), but there will be a bias and abuse in government decision-makers for having their own children. Worse, any government or government body put in place to enforce it will be far weaker than the human-drive to reproduce. It's bound to make itself very unpopular very fast.

You're right though, either people go through a mindset shift...or the problem will work itself
out (much more likely).

I would like think, at very least, we could stop doing some of the other things that lower the
quality of life on this planet. I don't know why people wouldn't do everything they could
to make the world a better place to live (we might be getting into something philosophical).

I don't think I would support anything forcing population control, I think it's got to be
about education.
After all, if we can't control the pet population (even with Bob Barker's help) how
could we hope to control human population.

Of course, I'm willing to bet starvation will (is) become unpopular very fast as well.

Nobody does. And that's part of the problem. I don't think it could be done any other way, and, as I said, I think that it is highly unlikely to work as well. No, I think the only thing that will work is: a population crash when we run out of resources.

I sort of think that everything else we do that lowers the quality of life on the planet would be manageable, except its constantly exacerbated by higher population.

I doubt that it could be done with just education, because there will always be too many people who don't get it, or refuse to believe it. Birth control also has its issues: people screw it up. There are too many ways that we, in general, are set to reproduce.

No, I just think our population is going to crash starting about twenty or thirty years from now and will continue to decline maybe for centuries. When it bottoms out, we're going to end up with six-hundred million people or far less, that's what I see happening. I don't foresee, however, that humankind will become extinct, because an advantage with a huge population is: we have a lot of genetic diversity.

I think it will be disease.

I imagine people will always find ways to survive...I mean, as long as we don't make the planet unlivable or the
earth gets incinerated :o

Genetic diversity would help (actually, I don't think our genetic diversity is all that great though, but that's probably
something to double check)
If I remember correctly, scientist think that at some point in the past 100,000 years or so, human populations may
have been as low as a couple thousand females (based on genetics and archaeological data).

Interesting stuff, most people don't seem to think it makes nice conversation though :)

These things are always a little challenging to identify on the front end.

The harder they will fall.

... is very likely to be us.

That and Monsanto's one-generation seeds.

"Unsustainable" hardly begins to describe it.

Hekate

creatures that do not adapt to our environment but rather attempt to adapt our environment to us. We get cold, so we create artificial sources of heat. We get hot, so we created air conditioning. Some of us decided to live in arid areas, so we irrigated them. We flatten hills and redirect streams to build condos and shopping malls. We remove mountaintops so we can get to the coal beneath them. We want more oceanfront property, so we create artificial islands.

Beavers change their environment slightly by building dams, and in some cases improve the environment and in others do serious damage to localized areas. But no creature can come close to Homo Sapiens - or, as some have suggested, now Homo Technologicus.

Some visionaries have suggested that one day we may terra-form Mars and perhaps other planets. How ironic would it be if we end up having to "terra-form" Terra (Earth) herself?

edit to add: please see my sig line.

...but engage in climate engineering, I fear. :(

Stupidity seems to be our middle name....


mark

Man's actions are willful and outside the forces of nature. Burning of fossil fuels, deforestation, and altering the flow of rivers has set the world onto a path of warming. We may have already passed the tipping point for a warmer world, and we are sure making it worse with every ton of coal we burn

" I'd like to share a revelation that I've had during my time here. It came to me when I tried to classify your species and I realized that you're not actually mammals. Every mammal on this planet instinctively develops a natural equilibrium with the surrounding environment but you humans do not. You move to an area and you multiply and multiply until every natural resource is consumed and the only way you can survive is to spread to another area. There is another organism on this planet that follows the same pattern. Do you know what it is? A virus. Human beings are a disease, a cancer of this planet. You're a plague and we are the cure."

when I saw that in the movie, it struck me with its truth.

And was part of the machine society that lay waste to the planet. Just saying.

Any other organism would do this if it were this clever. Every organism is made to replicate its kind as much and as efficiently as possible.

Agent Smith was either misleading or wrong in his command of biology. Organisms are not self-limiting. Ever. They are limited in some way by their environment. Bacteria will double every twenty minutes if they are given a food source and "protected" conditions. The reason why that never goes on is that those ideal conditions are limited by time and space. They cannot be maintained over a long period of time or over a widespread area.

So, I could say that humankind will be limited as well by its environment. It won't be pretty because we've been able to avoid a crash for so long. It will probably be quite spectacular.

Puts us as humans into place. 2 links... one at Google and one at Scribd. At Scribd you can join and download the book as a pdf.

http://www.scribd.com/doc/7829408/Daniel-Quinn-Ishmael-English

http://books.google.com/books?id=83p-OMrNalYC&dq=Ishmael&printsec=frontcover&source=bn&hl=en&ei=ovqtS5_DJIrCNtvIxJkF&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=4&ved=0CCEQ6AEwAw#v=onepage&q=&f=false

Daniel Quinn's website for more info.

http://www.ishmael.org/index1.cfm

but then I just got sad. :(

and Mother Earth has been trying to shake us off her back for centuries.

Make a vow to not breed.

we''re extincting species not just through global warming results of our activities, but directly through habitat destruction. Only a reduction in the number of people can really make a difference.

There are so many unwanted and orphaned children.

Direct quote from someone I know.

Self absorbed, I guess would be one possible answer. x(

People are adapted to favor their own genes. With all of our intelligence, we can't get away from that.

"Americans are really smart about really stupid things -- "

A woman from the Bikini Islands said that sometime after we were dropping

nuclear weapons on her homeland.


The skeptics of global warming and the reality that humans have caused it are few --

but well supported by wealthy who control our natural resources!

if bacteria could drastically alter the climate, why not us?

There is some good news though -- world fisheries may be collapsing, major parts of the ocean going anaerobic and being turned over to the jellyfish, with a giant island of plastic rotating in the pacific etc etc etc ... but at least some of the whales are making a comeback, particularly humpbacks, and gray whales have started to become friendlier with humans lately. We can still win this one. Our proper role is to guide nature, as the Native Americans learned the hard way, and we can still do that if we can just ride over the hump in the population explosion safely. Having kids is a huge chore especially for women and there would be far fewer with just a few more rights of women protected globally, and we can do that yet, if we can just marginalize the right wings of the various countries in power enough.

So yes, if you want to save the world, send republicans packing.

BY nature" and I'll agree with you, wial. Seems to me that where we have been going wrong is in trying to dominate, overcome, guide nature rather than understand it and learn how to be a part of it instead of its master.

I really find myself in total opposition to the folks who seem to think humans are some evil, unnatural species; the equivalent of cancer on what would otherwise be a perfect planet. Such thoughts are silly at best, psychologically harmful to the individuals who have them at worst. (Imagine the amount of self-hatred such a person must have, as they not only hate their entire species, but as part of that species and thus part of the problem by their very existence - must also therefore hate themselves.)

I can only assume that these thoughts are born out of ignorance. First of all, the large source of our problems are due to population as others have noted. Yet, humans are not doing anything any other species in our position wouldn't do. All living organisms on this planet have two hard-coded modes: breed and survive. That's fundamentally your only purpose in life as far as nature is concerned. It doesn't care how you do it, so long as you do it, and it doesn't care if you wipe out entire ecosystems to do it. Hell, nature regularly wipes out entire ecosystems on its own, and has been racking up genocide points millennia before the first human was a twinkle in her ape-like-mamma's eye. Ever heard of those little things called the dinosaurs?

Oh, and just for the record, mother nature has a target on your back as well. She completely plans to wipe out all life on this planet one way or another in a few billion years with or without our help. Even if we managed to bungle everything and result in absolute extinction of everything on this planet including ourselves, all we've done is save mother nature the time it'd take to do it herself.

That's perspective. Now, how do we handle the problem's that currently face us to hopefully find a way to beat mother nature before she ultimately tries to eradicate our species - as she intends to do to all life in the entire universe? Well, invest in science for one. Yet, to solve our immediate population problems we have to first learn to better manage our resources.

I disagree with some of the above posters who think we're bumping up against our population limits. What we are failing to do is properly manage our resources. We're also mucking up our environment with waste. The former is fairly easy to fix, it just requires a commitment and political willpower. The latter can also largely be managed fairly easily.

One thing that has been proven to work to control population is having a higher standard of living. Increase the standard of living for more people, and they'll have less children. They'll also live happier and healthier lives. It's a win-win situation.

Another action that could be taken is initiatives to combat sprawl. Make cities more attractive places to live, build taller, bigger, and more safe buildings. Make those buildings appealing to humans. Humans are not evolved to live in concrete jungles. There are strong deeply embedded desires in humans to be around green things and the like. That is why depression increases dramatically in the winter months.

Understanding things like this and trying to build with them in mind will encourage more and more people to live within the cities. The more people who live within cities, the more other ecosystems can grow and thrive without having the additional human strain.

We can even incorporate such things as vertical farming in our cities to prevent the need for humans to use huge swaths of available land for agriculture.

There is so much we can do to improve our situation, but we don't get to any solution by viewing humanity as a cancer that should be exterminated. Such regressive and negative thinking does nothing to help, leading only to apathy and resignation to our shared fate.