The “Anthropocene” as defined in the article written in the Breakthrough Journal is a new era where humans have affected all parts of nature. Essentially every “flux and cycle” in the environment is disturbed by human involvement, and according to the article in the Breakthrough Journal the concept of preserving natural environments has to change because simply there are no more “natural environments” left in this world. Both of the articles from the Breakthrough Journal and Science Magazine argue that the concept behind the Anthropocene is true; nevertheless both articles have a different viewpoint on the consequences behind that truth.
The key difference between both articles is that the one views earth as “fragile” and the other as “resilient.” The article from the Science Magazine presents the more universally known theory that humans “loom as a presence on the globe,” because we are creating an “irreversible loss of biological diversity” that we must stop by lowering “human enterprise.” In another words this the common doomsday theory, that if we don’t change our actions then this fragile world will come to an end. This article gives scientific statistics and analysis to prove the point that humans are affecting the environment. For example 39-50% of the land was transformed and degraded by humans, and then the author goes on to say that because of this, there is “loss of biological diversity” in the world. The main issue is the “growing scale of the human economy,” which the author feels is the biggest hindrance to the present conservation movement.
The article from the Breakthrough Journal, perceives the earth as very “resilient” and constantly evolving. It agrees with the argument stated in the Science Magazine that humans have changed the worlds ecosystems “flux and cycle,” however rather than looking at that negatively, the author takes a more positive viewpoint. He gives examples of how we have indeed changed the biodiversity and ecosystems, but in his argument the consequences aren’t always negative. For example Indonesian Orangutans, which were said to only be able to survive in “pristine forests,” actually live in “oil palm plantations and degraded lands.” The author doesn’t dismiss the fact that we need to sustain our resources, however his solution is to go along with “human enterprise,” because ultimately human enterprise is necessary for the development of the billions of people in the world.
In my opinion the concept of the “Anthropocene” is highly appropriate, and the viewpoints listed in the Breakthrough Journal highly coincide with mine. Both articles factually prove that all of earth is under human influence, however the article in the Science Magazine offers facts, but doesn’t show how that negatively impacts us. For instance, the consequence of humans transforming 39-50% of land is loss in biological diversity in the world. The author doesn’t continue to explain how that could harm us as a society, however the author of the article from the Breakthrough Journal gives solid examples of how we have continued to survive without this biological diversity. Furthermore the solution offered by the Science Magazine is neither practice nor viable, due to the point that we live in a time where there are billions of people in this world, and no matter what we do as a society “human enterprise” will never cease growing, and if it did it would only harm the people. The Breakthrough Journal words it well with the statement of “as we destroy habitats, we create new ones.” Humans have been present on earth for millenniums, and in that time period the earth has drastically changed without regard to human intervention. It is no doubt important to sustain resources, however there is no point in viewing the conservation problem as a doomsday theory as presented in the Science Magazine. It is pertinent to keep in mind the concept of the Anthropocene and the growing population when establishing conservation tactics.
