Anthropocene, as defined by Peter Kareiva in his article, “Conservation in the Anthropocene,” is “the new geological era” in which humans dominate almost every facet and cycle of the plane’s ecology. It refers to the extent by which the growing human population affects the environment, including the many ecosystems, species and natural processes that make it up.
Both articles provide us with examples as to the effects that humanity has had on the environment and destruction that may come about due to the actions of human beings. For instance, Vitousek mentions that human enterprises, which include farming, fishing, agriculture, and traditional commerce, can alter major chemical cycles in the environment and can add or remove species from a particular ecosystem. One prime example to this fact is when he states that currently 11% of the remaining birds, 18% of mammals, 5% of fish and 8% of plant species are threatened with extinction. Furthermore, Kareiva mentions that “today it is impossible to find a place on Earth that is unmarked by human activity.” We must understand the impact that our actions may have on the environment and that we are not the only species that inhabit this earth.
Although both articles agree that the anthropocene has had detrimental effects to the environment, they both provide different solutions as to the ways we can change our actions for the benefit of the natural environment. In order to do so, Kareiva challenges the common notion that the way to conserve the environment is to halt human development and in a sense “rope off” certain areas as sacred. He believes that by doing so conservationists “create an atmosphere in which people see nature as the enemy.” Instead, conservationists must relate their actions to the people, especially the poor and look out for their own well-being, as well as natures’. They should not seek to discourage development, rather they should inform the people about the right king of development, which is done with nature in mind. By bringing nature within reach of human communities, and allowing it to take part in the sustenance of the population, it will lead to the appreciation of nature and the desire for conservation.
Vitousek, on the other hand, sides with a different three step approach in order to recognize the consequences of human enterprise on the environment. First, he mentions that we must work to reduce the rate at which we alter the Earth system. He states that ecosystems may be able to better adapt to human modifications if these changes are slow. Second, we must try to understand how the earth’s ecosystems interact with “human caused global change.” By doing, so we will gain knowledge as to the impacts of our actions of the rest of the world. Lastly, he states that we must be responsible for managing the planet and maintaining populations and ecosystems.
In my opinion, both of the solutions are correct and both strive to raise awareness as to the reliance of the human population on the environment and its species. By intertwining human development with nature and by trying to grasp as understanding of the effect that we have on ecosystems, we will be able to realize the importance that the environment plays in our lives and how we in fact depend greatly on the world around us.
