Science & Technology in NYC, Fall 2012

The denotative meaning behind “anthropocene” is literally the era of humankind. More specifically it is referring to the time period from the Industrial Revolution to the present day where humans have “dominated” the ecosystem: both land and ocean. With the growing population worldwide, humans have expanded into lands and ecosystems previously untouched. However, in recent years various intellectuals and scientists have pushed for “conservation” in an effort to increase biodiversity. Moreover given the growing population it is also important to use land for the best interest of the people. With this being said, “urban ecology” refers to the balance between preserving biodiversity but also keeping the best interests of people in terms of the usage of the land. Urban ecology is the interaction between humans and the ecosystem in an urban area, where there is a higher population of people than living organisms. Both Kareiva and Vitousek agree that the human dominance over the land and ocean is largely a negative one and needs to be addressed and fixed immediately.

According to Kareiva, nature is not as fragile and delicate as scientists supposed it was in the 70’s and 80’s. Rather, nature has shown to be resilient to human influence. For example, the American chestnut was overtaken by a foreign disease but according to the author, “the ecosystem (was) surprisingly unaffected.” Kareiva continued to explain that while humans would like to conserve land and build parks to “preserve” the ecosystem, they are still transforming it. For example, when a park is built, humans decide what species should thrive in the area, build wells for drinking water etc. By wanting to preserve the land, humans end up changing it.

Furthermore, Vitousek also describes the extent to which humans have transformed the land in a more scientific sense. The rise of population has increased the need for resources to satisfy the wants and needs of influx of people. Humans have transformed the land for various purposes including: farming, industry and fishing. According to Vitousek, human land use accounts for the most “substantial human alteration of the Earth system.” Furthermore, humans have also affected the oceans through over fishing as well as the sprout of algal blooms in coastal areas, which indirectly produce harmful chemicals. Lastly, human alteration of resources has also led to the extinction of “one-quarter of the Earth’s bird species.”

While both authors state the negative affects of anthropocene, they do however, express optimism and offer feasible solutions to address the issue. For Kareiva, a better means of achieving conservation would be to understand the needs of the indigenous people as well as biodiversity. Moreover, for Vitousek, he stresses educating people about the ecosystem and having them understand the need to take responsibility for “managing the planet.” Both solutions are feasible, but the most effective way to make change is for people as a whole to be conscious of their affect on the environment and find the balance between preserving biodiversity and land use.

As stated in Vitousek’s article, “all organisms modify their environment.” The growth of the human population on Earth, as well as the development of modern technology have had drastic effects on our planet’s ecology. The Anthropocene is the term used to describe the period of time over which man has had a detrimental, as well as beneficial, impact on Earth’s ecology. Compared to the Holocence, an era categorized by low levels of human influence on their ecosystems, the Anthropocene illuminates the effects that an ever-increasing human population, advancements in technology, and alteration of the environment can have on an ecosystem. The human population increases everyday, and not only in small increments. Thousands are born each day, even every hour (every minute could be stretching it). A rough translation reveals that the root of the term could mean something along the lines of “human era.” Our generation is quite possibly the most influential generation in human history. History is writing itself more quickly than ever before and developments in technology are enabling humans to do things that even 20 years ago, people never thought could be possible. In an era where humans, even machines, can communicate over great distances, it is hard to imagine what the future holds for us humans. As amazing as the feats humans have been able to accomplish are, the burden that our environment bears is even greater. The level of damage caused to terrestrial, oceanic, and biotic ecosystems are staggering. Both articles clearly exposed the negative effects of human interaction to these important ecosystems. Perhaps the most prominent and detrimental effect of human interaction with these ecosystems is the vast increase in CO2 in our atmosphere. Burning fossil fuels and driving cars are just two of a long list of human activities that lead to increased levels of CO2. While increased levels of CO2 are beneficial to organisms such as flora and fauna, other organisms suffer as this results in poor food quality. Over-fishing can lead to a massive degradation of the oceanic food chain, thus resulting in major problems for aquatic species. Both articles explore the interaction of humans and their environments. Kareiva’s article discusses the concept of an “Urban Ecology.” The phrase “Urban Ecology” refers to the relationship between those living in an urban setting and their environment. Probably the best example of an “urban ecology” is New York City; a city that despite the concrete jungle looming overhead, is adept at keeping things environmentally friendly. In “Conservation in the Anthropocene” the central argument is too stop looking to create new parks and whatnot, and instead, we should focus on making our cities greener and more eco-friendly.

The term anthropocene refers to the geological age of the earth. The current age, or the stage of the earth that started approximately 200 years ago when the industrial revolutions began. One of the writers of the articles, Kareiva talked about the conservation projects that are held around the world. Due to greed, human destroyed vast amounts of land for money and power. It wasn’t until recently that people found out the ultimate consequences of past actions and started conservation projects in hopes that the damages will be undone. However, Kareiva displayed what the world is doing for conservation, especially America in this case, is wrong. In the name of the conservation project, living spaces were taken away and the species that must be preserved is not preserved. It is basically wasting money and doing noting. Kareiva mentioned the Yellows Stone State Park. The park was set up to preserved the beautiful natural scenery of Yellow Stone and to save the small animals that dwell in such unique habitat. The untold story about the park is that people, especially Native Americans, were driven away from their home. It is evident that some conservation projects are fairly controversial as they are benefitting others than the just the nature and its inhabitants.

Before the industrial revolution, it was the Earth itself that controlled itself. The humans did not alter the Earth’s ecosystem. It was the nature that controlled people’s life. When technology developed and human population increased, the controller of the Earth shifted to the humans. The factories, deforestation, and vast amount of toxins and liter started to alter the ecosystem of the Earth. During last 200 years, humans changed the nature dramatically that it is had to find the right solution to the problem. Humans do know the polluted air causes many problems, however, it is also a fact that society cannot run without the factories producing carbon dioxide. Kareiva said, “ Nature is so resilient that it can recover rapidly from even the most powerful human disturbances.” It means that whatever damages that human causes to the Earth can be recovered. However, the ongoing changes shows that the humans are damaging the Earth without giving it time to recover. The statistics, science, and what we see and feel right now shows that Earth has changed and there are more ongoing changes.

Both articles mentioned that human population now dominates this planet. In the stage of Anthropocene, it is important to find a way to cope the Earth’s nature with the urban societies. In my opinion, many of the conservation projects and attempts to save the nature seem to be ineffective. Instead of solving problems of the damages that has been already done, I think it is important to change in order to avoid furthermore damages of the Earth. The ocean and the forest will recover rapidly by other conservation projects. However, same thing might happen in the future and our children can be the one to destroy the nature that we brought back. My conclusion is that we need to make sure that people know the consequence of the damages. As the articles say, people dominates the earth and power to change it.

Anthropocene, the word itself, is of Greek origin literally meaning “human era”. The Anthropocene can be defined as the geologic period in which man is both dominant and intensely influential over the Earth’s ecology—the relationships between organisms and/or their natural environment. This current epoch contrasts what was the Holocene, the previous era in which humans had a lesser effect upon their ecosystems, and a state in which conservationists work to preserve. The Anthropocene though, is the reality in this day and age with the ever-increasing population and man’s involvement in and alteration of the environment. More specifically, the term urban ecology refers to the interaction or relationship between organisms in an urban setting—communities with higher population density. As discussed in the two articles, by Vitousek and Karieva respectively, humans both negatively and positively effect ecosystems. There seems to be much controversy over which effects outweigh the others; are humans as detrimental to the Earth’s environment as we’ve been led to believe? Maybe humanity benefits or assists Earth’s natural life and natural progression.

Both articles made clear the effects of man on both terrestrial and aquatic ecosystems. Vitousek covered all the bases in terms of where and how humanity has made alterations. Many of those exposed effects were negative, including land transformation and fragmentation, which is directly related to a loss of biological diversity. Oceanic ecosystems and biotic changes have been affected by or linked to man, as well. The most prominent alterations discussed are those of biogeochemical cycles, including the modern increase in CO₂, which shows the results of the Anthropocene. Increased levels of CO₂ benefit flora and fauna, but in turn results in poorer food quality for other organisms. Ultimately, it’s clear that man’s existence has had a huge general effect on Earth’s ecosystems, and specifically a huge negative effect. But, in my opinion the Anthropocene is a welcomed and natural change in evolution and should not be seen as purely detrimental

Vitousek states, “…Most aspects of the structure and functioning of Earth’s ecosystems cannot be understood without accounting for the strong, often dominant influence of humanity.” Thus, a question posed is how exactly to go about “conserving” the environment and various ecosystems? How best to do conservation? And Kareiva answers, “Instead of trying to restore remote iconic landscapes to pre-European conditions, conservation will measure its achievement in large part by its relevance to people, including city dwellers… Protecting nature that is dynamic and resilient… that sustains human communities.” The strength and resilience of nature, he says, must be respected and the conservation of such an environment should be done with consideration to the people who benefit, alter, and depend on it. Karieva also mentions that, “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.” This instinctively made me think of Darwinian theory—adaptation and survival. The Anthropocene must be the most pronounced example of evolution to date. Do humans inflict more harm on the environment than good or are they simply surviving among their environment and in the process causing alterations and new adaptations? I believe, it is the latter.

According to the articles, the Anthropocene is the current era in time we live in or in other words, an era where the world is completely dominated by humans and human activity. Many different ecosystems all over the planet are affected in some way by either direct or indirect human influence. An example of a direct influence is farming. With farming, humans decide what crops grow in a designated area. This could introduce species to an environment that they would have never been a part of before if not for this human interference. An indirect influence caused by humans can be shown with things like CO₂ emissions from human activity. These emissions can lead to the degradation of ecosystems all over the world. The articles also made it clear that it is not only terrestrial ecosystems that are affected by the Anthropocene, but ocean ecosystems as well. Fishing is an example of a direct influence caused by humans in that the mass slaughter of a certain species of fish, can throw off the food chain and cause negative changes in the populations of other species. The Anthropocene is something that affects every ecosystem no matter the location or type, on the planet.

In my opinion, the term Anthropocene is a relevant way to describe the time we are living in. It roughly translates to “era of humankind” which is a truly accurate way to label this time period. There has never been an era before this when mankind had such a high population as well as such a strong influence on the world around them. The number of things that we as a species do that affect the world’s ecosystems is massive. They include farming, fishing, deforestation, hunting, driving cars, and countless other everyday activities. While the activities that affect the environment are vast and innumerable, so are the changes that they lead to. According to the Vitousek article, “the current loss of genetic variability, of populations, and of species is far above background rates.” This means that the populations of certain species are dwindling and are going extinct at rates we have never encountered before. This correlates with the massive increase in human population and activity in the last few hundred years. The term Anthropocene is adequate for this situation because the human population is dominating that of species it comes in contact with. While the human population is growing every year, the populations of other species dwindle and even go completely extinct in some cases. There is no clearer indicator of a planet dominated by human life than the extinction of various species as a result of human activity.

It is quite clear that we are living in the Anthropocene; an era dominated by humans. The human population has a stranglehold on the planet’s resources and ecosystems and is slowly changing it with its various actions to promote growth and human life. Although it is difficult to avoid living in an Anthropocene with the population as high as it is, it is clear that changes need to be made so that we as a species don’t have such a negative affect of the species around us.