The term “anthropocene” is used to define the period (now) in which humankind has come to dominate the environment. Whether intentionally or inadvertently, humankind’s own interests have negatively impacted our ecosystem. Both Conservation in the Anthropocene and Human Domination of Earth’s Ecosystems shed light on the causes and effects that humankind has created to lead to this anthropocene.
Vitousek et al. immediately present a very alarming, though realistic, statement: no ecosystem on Earth’s surface is free of pervasive human influence. They expand on this by noting that in order to understand the structure of the Earth’s ecosystem, we must consider the “dominant influence of humanity”. In order to meet the civilization’s needs, humans have drastically altered every aspect of the ecosystem. These aspects include land transformation, global biogeochemistry, biotic additions and losses, climate change, and loss of biological diversity. Vitousek et al. present numerous statistics reinforcing and stressing the consequences. For example, due to human modification, only 2% of rivers today run unimpeded. The Aral Sea, having been reduced by water diversions has decreased water quality and increased human diseases in its general region due to an extensive chain reaction.
In Conservation in the Anthropocene, the authors are introducing and exposing the extent to which man has altered the earth. Kareiva et al. are able to convey the severity of human interference by saying places “untrammeled by man” never existed, at least for a few thousand years or longer. They go further by relating human landscaping to Disneyland. This claim is not far off when we realize that what appears natural is often altered by human to be presented as more anesthetically pleasing. Kareiva et al. uses the terms “innocent” and “uncontroversial” to describe the conventional wisdom of the practice of conservation. The authors dispel those claims by informing the audience of what has gone into conservation. Such crimes include “running out long-established human communities, erecting hotels in their steads, removing unwanted species while supporting more desirable species, drilling wells to water wildlife, and imposing fire management that mixes control with prescribed burns”. Various examples are presented illustrating conservation attempts gone wrong.
Kareiva et al. sheds a more positive light by recounting that nature and species are built to adapt. They comment on the resilience of nature and its ability to rapidly recovery from human disturbances, such as oil spills and high radiation levels. They expand on this notion by explaining we create new habitats when we destroy old ones. “The history of life on Earth is of species evolving to take advantage of new environments only to be at risk when the environment changes again.”
Kareiva et al. explain that the new vision for conservation require us to realize our necessity and dependence on nature, as well as appreciate the strength and resilience of it. They explain that it is our reluctance, to change and invest in this, that gets in the way of changing conservation as it is now. Vitousek et al. build on this same idea, also adding that we can adapt to slower change, which may seem impractical, in order to reduce the speed and level of our impact.
