Karieva uses the word anthropocene to describe the current state of the world, where humans “dominate every flux and cycle of the planet’s ecology and geochemistry.” The anthropocene era is one where humans have affected every aspect of the natural world and have thus become part of it. Karieva mentions that almost all of the world has already been shaped by humans and that humans will continue to alter it. Vitousek similarly emphasizes people’s impact upon the world, stating, “In a very real sense, the world is in our hands—and how we handle it will determine its composition and dynamics, and our fate.” Karieva and Vitousek both agree that people are the major forces which continue to shape the world.
Talking about the anthropocene era is a very useful concept for thinking about nature. Both Karieva and Vitousek explain the effects of humans on the world. Vitousek mentions how people have greatly altered land through agricultural processes or other enterprises, contributed to a loss of biological diversity, brought about climate change, and even affected the global biochemistry. Vitousek states, “all of these seemingly disparate phenomena trace to a single cause—the growing scale of the human enterprise.” Vitousek blames the problems in nature on human’s interactions with nature, mentioning the “global consequences of human enterprise” and claims we should work to “reduce the rate at which we alter the earth system.” Vitousek agrees with the idea of an anthropocene era, yet has somewhat different ideas from Karieva as to how the era of humans should be regarded.
Karieva mentions the issues with conservation, which instead of keeping nature pristine and untouched, actually exacerbates the human presence. Conservation tactics such as “removing unwanted species while supporting more desirable ones, drilling wells to water wildlife, and imposing fire management” all vastly effect and change the natural world, creating human constructions similar to “Disneyland.” Thus rather than leaving nature as it is, conservation tactics emphasize the anthropocene era of the planet.
Unlike common tropes about the fragility of nature, Karieva points out that nature is in fact very resilient and adapts to human interference. Wildlife is “thriving” around the Chernobyl plant which leaked radiation while “coyotes roam downtown Chicago,” Karieva writes. All of these examples of the resilience of nature and its constant adaptation to humans shows how nature is thriving in this anthropocene era.
I agree with Karieva’s interpretation of the world, as one with “no wilderness,” where “nature is resistant rather than fragile,” and where “people are actually part of nature and not the original sinners who caused our banishment from Eden.” When thinking about nature in such a way, one can certainly apply the anthropocene era to this time period. Humans are shaping nature and it is a dynamic force “in our midst rather than far away,” as Karieva puts it.
