When looking at the Anthropocene there are many factors to consider.  Are we humans ultimately responsible for conserving our planet for the next era of rulers?  That question is essentially what Vitousek and Kareiva try to answer.  Vitousek approaches the problem with vigor and is quick to point out all of the flaws of human intervention in the ecosystems of the world.  Kareiva, in turn, addresses the problems conservationists have in dealing with the harms that come with human technological advancement.

According to Vitousek, approximately 1/3 to ½ of the earth has been transformed by humans.  What have been the results of this involvement? Vitsousek cites examples of deforestation, hunting and fishing.  These are dangerous activities humans do that directly effect their respective ecosystems.  Vitousek goes on to state that many of these activities cause “irreversible losses of biological diversity.”  The examples of humans burning through forests for precious trees for a variety of needs from housing to paper paints the picture that we are effectively destroying the ecosystem.  We humans, are responsible for the close to 20% increase of CO₂ emissions caused by land transformation.  A consequence of this has been a global climate change.  An astounding statistic mentioned by Vitousek, Marine Fisheries discard 27 million tons of nontarget animals, essentially altering that habitat and ecosystem.  By taking these sea creatures out of the environment, both animals that are prey and predator will have population surges and declines, respectively.  The effect on humans is not recorded.

Overall Vitousek acknowledges that humans have touched every ecosystem and have transformed or destroyed as many as half of them.  Fossil fuel combustion adds about 5.5 billion metric tons of CO2 emissions to the environment annually.  Synthetic organic chemicals such as Polychlorinated biphenyls have decimated many large bird populations like the Eagle and Falcon.  Vitousek cites many of the problems and fallacies with human intervention and is rarely vocal about any conservation efforts.  Kareiva is much more moderate in his approach.

On a much different note, Kareiva, starts his article about how 13% of the world is actually protected.  What is surprising is that most of these lands are uninhabited by humans.  Conservationists have worked to create parks  and “protect” wilderness but now the question facing them is how to address landscapes and urban ecosystems.  What is an urban ecosystem?  Well, it takes all the work that conservationists have been doing away from humans and puts it in the direct path of  the mass population.  Urban ecology helps to address how government and organizations deal with pollution of air and water.  This is a much more practical solution to solving the problem at hand.

Kareiva concludes with how resilient nature is.  There is a new vision for conservation and organizations should team up with corporations to try to address this issue together.  The end all goal should be to enhance ecosystems so they benefit the widest array of people and serve them effectively.

-Chandrapaul Latchman

The Anthropocene, as regarded by Kareiva et al, is the time period during which humans dominate the Earth. There were times when sea life ruled the planet during the Paleozoic Era, there were times when the dinosaurs ruled the earth during the Mesozoic Era, and now it’s safe to safe that this is the era of the human. Time periods are usually regarded by the organisms that are at the top of the food chain or in command of the era; humans may be considered the most feared, most intellectual and most industrial species that the Earth has ever seen. There has never been an organism that can alter its environment in both positive and negative ways as much as humans can.

The human species is a rapidly increasing race that is up to over 7 billion. This influx in population means that more land is needed to sustain that life. This results in the cutting down of other organism’s habitats to expand he livable land for humans. Along with that, the industrial age has brought upon the Earth many hazardous such as rising Co2 levels as well as greenhouse gases that harm the planet. The recent BP oil spill off the Gulf of Mexico thousands of animals and millions of fish. Global warming has also become a rising issue. With recent temperatures rising to amounts that the planet has never seen, there have been questions as to how long life on Earth can live on. All these problems are exponentially worse considering the increasing human population and chemicals that we release into the atmosphere as well as unexpected catastrophic events that are amplified in probability with the number of humans.

Ecologists and conservatives have argued that the fragility of nature is exceptionally overstated. They argue that one even if one ecosystem is removed, it doesn’t put the entire ecosystem in as much danger as advertised. Nature is described as resilient that it can recover rapidly from even the most powerful destructions that humans bring upon it. As previously mentioned, even the large BP oil spill was degraded and consumed by bacteria at an incredibly fast rate, even though it did kill off a substantial amount of organisms. It was even resilient enough to survive the Chernobyl crisis.

What cannot be argued though, is that humans have the most say on with what happens to the Earth right now. They hold all the power either to expand to areas that are occupied by other animals or even kill off an entire species at will. Nature may be able to regenerate itself, but the potential harm that the human race can cause is second to none. With recent development of nuclear and chemical weapons at their disposal, the fate of the Earth is often described as on the tip of the finger.  Therefore, there is no choice but to call this the era of the human, or the Anthropocene.

The world is constantly changing due to human involvement. The overall health of our planet has recently been under much speculation due to the exponential increase of population and human economic development. Its is apparent that human interaction with the environment has brought on numerous negative effects causing changes the planet’s biochemistry resulting in phenomena such as global warming and the disappearance of many species.

Scientists have called this geological period as the “Anthropocene” which is literally translated as the human era. Anthropocene is defined by Kareiva et al. as a “new geological era in which humans dominate every flux and cycle of the planet’s ecology and geochemistry.” Similarly, Vitousek et. al see this era as a time of global transformation driven by human involvement. In fact, Vitousek et al state that human influence is so great that “even on the grandest scale, most aspects of the structure and functioning of Earth’s ecosystems cannot be understood without accounting for the strong, often dominant influence of humanity.”

The article “Human Domination of Earth’s Ecosystems,” by Vitousek et al presents the world as a fragile and sensitive area that is greatly affected by human influence. They explain the affects of land transformation, deforestation, alteration of the marine ecosystems, and many other forms of human influence cause great unbalance to the earth’s biochemistry by providing scientific and statistical analysis. The explained that it is estimated that 39-50% of the land had been transformed or degraded by humanity and that land transformation has gone far beyond affects to the land, it also “contributes about 20% to current anthropogenic CO2 emissions, and more substantially to the increasing concentrations of the greenhouse gases methane and nitrous oxide.” Although they provide a ton of concrete scientific data, they do little about explaining how it can be fixed or what our possible future might look like.

“Conservation in the Anthropocene” by Kareiva et al, on the other hand, presents the world as a tough ecosystem that is able to “fight back” and adapt to the harms that are brought its way. Right off the back, Kareiva et al state, “By its own measures, conservation is failing.” They explain that over the last 30 years, conservation practices involved evicting indigenous groups of people from their native lands, which often led to human vs. nature resilience from the side of the indigenous. Essentially they are saying that recent efforts of conservation have led to more harm than aid.

“Conservation in the Anthropocene” also gave several example of how, contrary to belief, when a particular specie of an ecosystem becomes extinct, the ecosystem can still continue unaffected. I addition they gave evidence of more resilience from the earth by explaining that after the Chernobyl meltdown, “wildlife is thriving, despite the high levels of radiation” and after the hydrogen bomb explosion in Bikini Atoll, which caused the water in the area to boil, the number of coral species have actually increased.

In the end, the question that has to be asked is, “If there is no wilderness, if nature is resilient rather than fragile, and if people are actually part of nature and the original sinners who caused our banishment from Eden, what should be the new vision for conservation?” (Kareiva et al) I believe it is imperative to understand whether we humans are causing the end to the world or we are just one of the many influences causing changed to happen. If wildlife of the world was able to withstand the first global warming after the Ice Age, than they should be able to withstand and adapt to the changes brought on by us.

The Anthropocene refers to the period of time during which the Earth’s ecology and geochemistry have come to be dominated by humans. Over time, mankind has transitioned from living off of the Earth to dictating life on Earth. If this trend continues, the planet’s ecosystems are in grave danger, yet “most aspects of the structure and functioning of Earth’s ecosystems cannot be understood without accounting for the strong, often dominant influence of humanity” (Vitousek et al). At this point, it seems we are at a standstill; there is no moving forward without destroying the planet and no moving backward because humans are too invested in their progress and contributions.

The article “Human Domination of Earth’s Ecosystems,” by Vitousek et al, discusses just how great of an impact humans are having on Earth. With any sort of development, we may be affecting anything from the land to the oceans to the CO₂ in the atmosphere to the various species with whom we share the planet. As humans continue to thrive on Earth, our harm to the planet will only get worse if we do nothing about it now.

On the other hand, Kareiva et al, in the article “Conservation in the Anthropocene,” looks at not how much damage humans are causing to the Earth but at the failure of conservation, which according to them is “the creation of parks and protected areas.” The article criticizes conservationists for holding to that definition and not compromising despite the fact that humankind is present and will continue to develop.

Both articles address the fact that something must be done to counteract the downward spiral that the Anthropocene has brought upon the Earth. Vitousek et al said, “maintaining the diversity of “wild” species and the functioning of “wild” ecosystems will require increasing human involvement.” Meanwhile, Kareiva et al said, “the fates of nature and of people are deeply intertwined.” Though the proposals sound quite similar, it seems to me as though Vitousek et al meant that we must fix and further avoid our past mistakes as we move into the future while Kareiva et al meant that we could only move into the future once we understood that we have to work as one with nature. In other words, Vitousek et al appear to believe that humankind should keep industrializing and simply keep the wellbeing of the planet in mind while Kareiva et al appear to believe that industrialization and the health of the planet should be of equal importance in all future endeavors.

As I see it, the method of finding a balance between conservation and human development offered by Kareiva et al –urban ecology – is the only way to go about saving the environment. If we lean too far towards conservation, we will have to change the way that most of the world’s population has grown accustom to living. If we lean too far towards human development, we risk forevermore losing the exquisite nature of the planet. In order for humankind to continue making progress without further wounding the Earth, development and nature must go forth together and never again overpower each other.

Anthropocene is defined as the significant impact that human have on the environment. According to Vitousek, it is clear that “all organism modify their environment, and humans are no exception.” Organisms are closely tied with their environment. Some organisms have the ability to adapt to their environment, while some are constantly changing their environment to fit their needs. Human are the most influential forces in the earth; it has the ability to change their environment in both positive and negative ways.

Human populations are constantly increasing, therefore they need more lands and foods to sustained their life. As a result, more forest are being cut down to build homes, and the species that live in the forest will lost their home, and eventually some of them may died out. This is related to the concept of land transformation. Land transformation is the use of the land to produce goods and services in order to benefit human kind. While human are constantly burning fossil fuels for industrial developments; more and more CO2 were emitted into the atmosphere. The accumulation of large percentage of CO2 in the atmosphere forms greenhouse effect, which is also known as the global warming. Human activities also have a direct effect on aquatic species. According to Vitousek, “many of the fisheries that capture marine productivity are focused on top predators, whose removal can alter marine ecosystems out of proportion to their abundance”. In addition, this article also suggests “as of 1995, 22% if recognized marine fisheries were overexploited or already depleted, and 44% more were at their limit of exploitation.” Because of human activities ecosystem lost many of its species, and a lot of them are now endanger.

In the article “Conservation in the anthropocene”, Kareiva argues that even though we may protect certain area, and reserve as parks, the rate of destruction will keep accelerating. Changing certain area into parks doesn’t really help to protect ecosystem, sometimes it may have an opposite effect. More species are lost because of conservationist’s effort of trying to change the landscape. Kareiva holds a different view from Vitousek, he believes that nature is stronger than what most of people thought, in which he address “nature is so resilient that it can recover rapidly from even the most powerful human disturbances.” While conservationists are trying to create parks, local people are forced to move to other places. Kareiva suggests that conservation shouldn’t just be about creating park and keeping human away from the nature, instead human are part of the nature.

Both articles agree that human has a strong influence on nature; every human activity will have a significant impact on the nature. In Kareiva’s article, “nature was described as primeval, fragile, and at risk of collapse from too much human use and abuse.” Human converted many places for its economic purpose, resulted in enormous loss of species. Some of these extinctions cause the whole ecosystem to lose its balance. In order to protect ecosystem, conservationists must find a different way to approach conservation not just by keeping human away from nature.

We are living in the era of humankind, in which humanity is dominating every measure of the earth’s ecology and geochemistry. It is actually impossible to find a “place on earth that is unmarked by human activity” (Kareiva et al). Historically, artificial changes in the environment have been to benefit the human species (e.g. deforestation for economic purposes) and/or are an unfortunate consequence of human activity (e.g. oil spill off the Gulf of Mexico, 2010). All human actions have had significant and sometimes even irreversible outcomes that individuals and societies have just recently begun to not only experience a deep nostalgia for pre-human landscapes and environments, but a longing to be more environmentally conscious and to ‘rewind’ some of the damaging consequences that certain ecological systems have suffered.

In Human Domination of Earth’s Ecosystems, Vitousek (et al) describes the human effects on the planet’s ecosystems. In general, land transformation is the primary force in the damage or loss of biological diversity on the global scale not only because it can affect the boundaries of changed lands, but also impact the climate of an area directly. Although, marine environments are more challenging to analyze than those of terrestrial ecosystems, there is still a substantial amount of damage—especially since most of the “human population is concentrated near coasts”. In the marine industry, the focus is on “top predators, whose removal can alter marine ecosystems out of proportion to their abundance,” leading to overexploitation or depletion of specific underwater species. Also, humankind has had a substantial impact on biogeochemical cycles. Although CO₂ is added into the atmosphere via human activities (e.g. mining and burning of fossil fuels), the high level of gas is contributing to the greenhouse effect. Changes in other gas such as N has also had consequences, including: an increase in reactive N gases, contribution to acid rain, and an amplified concentration of the greenhouse gas (nitrous oxide).

Other than alterations in the land, sea, and sky, human activity has affected animal life as well. Humankind has accelerated rates of extinction for many species—a process that is “wholly irreversible”. Although conservation attempts on individual endangered species has had some successes, the process is usually very expensive.

Kareiva (et al), however, suggests in Conservation in the Anthropocene of some examples of habitats unaffected by human activity. She states that “ecologists and conservationists have grossly overstated the fragility of nature” and that nature can actually be very resilient—recovering “from even the most powerful human disturbances.” For example, the Chernobly nuclear facility has thriving wildlife, in spite of the high levels of radiation. Orangutans in Indonesia, originally thought to survive only in unspoiled forests, have actually been found in “oil palm plantations and degraded lands” in large quantities. As humans destroy habitats, new ones are created in its place.

Human activity, which occurs to most importantly benefit the growth and success of the human enterprise, has had immense global consequences. Humans are changing the planet at an accelerated pace, and the rate of destruction of the earth’s ecosystems will continue to rise. A balance must be struck between harboring the growing/expanding scale of the human race with keeping different environments at their own natural pace, submissive to its own organic changes.

Human influence on the changes of the planet’s original ecosystem and landscape is undeniable. From the creation of the Earth in its pristine state and now having entered the era of the Anthropocene thousands of years later, its human inhabitants are dominating, transforming, and affecting every part of the planet’s natural systems. Vitousek in his Human Dominantion of Earth’s Ecosystems article, in an attempt to make an absolute point, goes as far as to say that “no ecosystem on Earth’s surface is free of pervasive human influence”. Absolutely none. None remains unaffected by humanity’s dominance. Kareiva, in her article called Conservation in the Antrhopocene, also poses a similar view. She writes, “humankind has already profoundly transformed the planet and will continue to do so” and “the effects of human activity are found in every corner of the Earth.” There is no question about it. Nature and people are very much intertwined.

And so consequently, I believe that understanding the interactions between nature and human activities become very important. Vitousek and Kareiva both describe some of the ways in which humans have affected the environment and the planet in which we live. Early conservation, which includes fencing and building protected areas of “wilderness” to parks, often resulted in resettling of many local people living in the area. And according to Kareiva, without human communities such special areas of wilderness became “no less human constructions than Disneyland.” Vitousek talks about how “humans use of land alters the structure and functioning of ecosystems, and it alters how ecosystems interact with the atmosphere, with aquatic systems, and with surrounding land.”

There has been an increase of CO2 in the Earth’s atmosphere. Why? Because of human’s daily use of cars, mining, and fossil fuel combustion, to name a few. Human Domination of Earth’s Ecosystems mention that “as many as one-quarter of Earth’s bird species have been driven to extinction”. How did that happen? The article’s answer to the question is, “by human activities over the past two millennia…” Right now, six percent of the rivers on Earth is evaporated. Why? Because of “human manipulation” on the water systems to meet the increasing demand for fresh water. As demonstrated above, human activities have direct effect on nature as well as its nonhuman inhabitants on Earth.  Humanity’s influence on Earth is immense and alters it at a much faster rate than it realizes.

As Kareiva mentions, trying to “undo” the damage already done or attempting to return to “prehumen landscapes” will be pointless and simply not possible. The more valuable task for us to complete is one articulated by Kareiva. It is to see “a new vision of a planet in which nature—forests, wetlands, diverse species, and other ancient ecosystems—exists amid a wide variety of modern, human landscapes.” Protecting and preserving nature while embracing human development seems to be the most reasonable and effective way to conserve nature and the Earth’s ecosystem.

The articles we read talk about the anthropocene that is occurring in this point in time. Anthropocene is the domination of the ecosystem by humankind. Humankind plays a big role in how the environment can change. The two articles that we read talk about the effects that result from how we interact with nature and the approaches we should take in response.

Kareiva and Vitousek, the authors of the two articles, both agree that humans are playing a big role in the ecosystems of the planet. However, they differ as to what can be done now in relation to our interactions. As Vitousek stated, humans have changed the Earth through its industries. Agriculture has called for deforestation and introduction of new species to the land. The amount of carbon dioxide gas has been rising through fossil fuel combustion of humans. We control how rivers flow for our own use, either by building dams or waterways. Rate of new species in an environment and extinction of species have both increased due to the work of humans.

Vitousek suggests three paths should take knowing how much we impact the Earth: slow the rate of change so ecosystems and species can adapt more effectively, understand the Earth and its ecosystems better and how they interact with us so we can change for the better and accept responsibility for it to help maintain the diversity of species and the functioning of ecosystems.

Kareiva believes that conservation is nearly impossible for practical reasons. Conservation is failing and is losing more it is saving. Examples of conservation would be parks preservations and wilderness areas. They will be protected and sealed off from the touch of the public except for sight seeing. Those sealed off areas will not change but they will not prevent the world from changing. The author states that nature exists amongst the changes in the world and brings up cases to back up his point.

As Kareica points out, is nature really that fragile that one change can change everything? While lost of one species has affected ecosystems, in most cases that doesn’t mean all of the other species in the ecosystem die and ecosystem dissolves. Rather the ecosystem and the species adapt to the change. Nature is resilient that it can recover from major human disturbances. Destroying habitats create new ones.

While I do believe people should make an effort to reduce the amount of fossil fuels used, and people should care about the environment, I am sure that not all people will collaborate with Vitousek’s plan because that is how we are. We don’t always listen even if the person makes a good point. Kareiva’s way of thinking will definitely be more appealing to a wider and important audience. Instead of asking, “How can we save nature?” the question that should be asked is, “How can we work with nature?” Although I believe humans should slow down the rate of change to the ecosystems, change is inevitable even if we slow it down, even if it we seal off one place to be untouched. The way we should be thinking is how we can make the change not only to accommodate us, but nature as well.

Anthropocene is defined by Kareiva et al. as “a new geological era in which humans dominate every flux and cycle of the planet’s ecology and geochemistry.” Similarly, Vitousek et al. describe anthropocene as “human-dominated ecosystem”, where not a single piece of land is free from human influence.  Both articles see the importance of anthropocene to human existence as it addresses poverty and advances our civilization.  However, the articles also describe the harms that urban developments and conservation are doing to nature. Further, they try to provide suggestions to correctly conserve planet Earth.

Vitousek et al. describe how the growth of human population leads to development of enterprises, then transformation of our environment, and then climate changes and loss of biodiversity. This article suggests several ways to reduce the adverse effects of urban development on Earth. It suggests us to reduce the rate of changing our environment, arguing that ecosystems and species can cope with these changes more effectively if they are slow changes. It also encourages the public to increase understanding of the Earth’s ecosystems and their interactions with different global changes caused by human enterprises. Lastly, the article suggests us to conserve the number of species and ecosystems as we change our environment to provide more flows of goods and services for humankinds.

Kareiva et al. discuss anthropocene in terms of conservation. Conservation is failing since biodiversity is declining although the effort for conservation is increasing. Although the effort toward conservation is increasing, the rate of destruction of our natural habitat is far greater. As described in the article, the creation of parks and protected areas are “no less human construction than Disneyland.” The value of untrammeled nature cannot be found in a park as native human communities are removed, hotels are installed, unwanted species are removed, desired species are supported, and wells are drilled for the water “wildlife”. If conservation remains focused on the creation of parks, more harm would be done to the natural habitat than good. We also create new habitats as we destroy some in urban development. Some species removed from an ecosystem are able to recover after the area is change by urban development. These species evolve to take advantage of the new environment, and are at risk only if the environment changes again. Since the article sees conservation as counterproductive, it suggests new ways for conservationists to do their jobs. One problem is that people view conservation as an enemy to human survival since resources are used to protect forests and create parks instead of supporting agriculture to feed the hunger population. Therefore, educating the public that the fate of nature and people are closely related. Conservationists should then support the right kind of developments designed to improve the economy and to benefit human beings while keeping the importance of nature in mind. We should also create natural spaces in the urban area for species and wildness to reside instead of trying to restore lands to “pre-European conditions”, which creates more disasters than benefits.

I find that combining the methods from both articles is feasible. We can educate the public about how closely related the wellbeing of nature and humankind is, as well as how human enterprises are changing the natural habitat in a fast rate. As both articles hint, we should try our best to keep the number of species and the population of ecosystems the same instead of trying to restore lands to the way it was before urban development. We can do that by creating natural spaces in the urban area for species to reside or slow down the rate of changing our environment by human enterprises. However, I do not think reducing the rate of destroying natural habitat by human enterprises is possible since capitalism is the drive of it. Hopefully, we can correctly conserve planet Earth for our future generations and for the fate of humankind.

The Anthropocene is the current geological age, where humans are the dominant species on the earth. In their respective articles concerning the Anthropocene, both Vitousek and Karevia make the claim that there is no ecosystem on Earth’s surface that is free from human influence. Hence, we live in an age where human modification on the environment has induced changes to ecosystems across the globe.

In “Human Domination of Earth’s Ecosystems,” Vitousek characterizes the Anthropocene as an era where human interaction with the environment has severe global consequences. For example, humans make land transformations and in doing so, divert resources and alter the habitat of surrounding organisms. Unfortunately, these consequences are not constricted to land. Vitousek makes it clear that our actions also affect the Earth’s geochemistry by altering biochemical cycles and spurring biotic changes. Marine ecosystems are no exception. According to Vitousek, many fisheries target top predators, which in turn changes the makeup of the ecosystem. In some cases, we have endangered species and made it difficult for certain organisms to survive in their original habitat. As a result, the idea of conservation has risen to prominence as a solution to preserving natural environments.

Conservation efforts are at an all time high. According to “Conservation in the Anthropocene”, Kareiva explains that approximately 13% of the earth’s land is protected. Yet, protected ecosystems are not beyond the scope of human influence. Kareiva also mentions that the pace of environmental destruction is also at an all time high. Meaning, human actions extend beyond our physical reach and as a result, our methods of conservation have proven ineffective. In trying to preserve these “pristine islands” amidst human development, we have ousted indigenous people, portrayed nature as fragile, and ignited a man versus nature battle. However, as Kareiva points out, nature is not fragile at all. It was resilient enough to have survived a nuclear meltdown in Chernobyl and deforestation in Indonesia. Hence, the more appropriate solution to avoiding environmental destruction is not to seal off wetlands, forests, and create parks. Instead, it is to see nature’s survival as something that is a part of human survival.

The continuous relentless actions of humans that have come to characterize this era as the Anthropocene, has taken its toll on nature. Dominance has blinded us to the fact that our survival is also dependent on nature, and that our actions directly influence ecosystems beyond our own. As a result, the more appropriate solution is one that Kareiva describes as an integration of nature’s benefits into our culture. The new version of the planet is one that will feature a designed mix of nature and humans where we work together, grow, and ensure survival. This is the future of the Anthropocene, where man is dominant but not disruptive.

The world has always been changing as a result of human interaction with their environment. However, with the exponential increase of population and increased economic development around the world, the effects of human influence have become more apparent and widespread than any other time period. Scientists have called the current geological era as the “Anthropocene.” The Anthropocene is a term that essentially indicates that humans are the dominate force that dictate how Earth’s current ecology have and will change. The articles “Conservation in the Anthropocene” by Kareiva et al and “Human Domination of Earth’s Ecosystems” by Vitousek et al both emphasize that human economic and urban activity has resulted in negative alterations in the planet’s ecology and geochemistry, but also recognize that because we exist in an Anthropocene, human involvement is vital to maintaining the world ecology.

The two articles both acknowledge the extent of human influence on the world, but have different views on determining the method that humans should involve themselves (or in some cases, detach themselves) in order to conserve ecosystems around the world. The Vitousek et al article follows a more traditional view of conservation (possibly due to it being written in 1997), where preserving the wild and understanding human interaction with these “wild” ecosystems should be the main goal of saving the world ecology. This approach views ecosystems around the world to be fragile and unadaptive to change, thus humans must be responsible for maintaining the changes. The Kareiva et al article takes an updated approach where, although wilderness conservation is still important, humans should focus on protecting an adaptive wilderness/nature while embracing the needs of human development. This approach aims to incite more change from the general human population by integrating economic interests with the interests of conservationists.

In the Anthropocene, the coexistence of nature and urban life is vital to the health of our world ecology. As city life grows larger due to economic development, the interaction between nature and urban environments, otherwise known as “urban ecology,” becomes more important to both humans and nature. Humans must find a way to preserve nature along with these urban environments in ways that are beneficial to the urban populations. By doing this, nature develops a place with our urban communities, rather than being destroyed. Yet, fast human development makes it hard for both nature and urban life coexist without damages to either side. What should be the next step for humans?

I find that in the Anthropocene, the updated approach to conserving nature is very useful in solving ecological problems. By following the traditional approach of preserving wilderness, we save several species and ecosystems around the world. However, merely barring humans from intervening in ecosystems is not efficient since the humans will not use the land while effects from urbanization like pollution destroy these ecosystems. There also lies the problem of funding conservation projects and having people adhere to the rules. However, by adopting some ideas from Kareiva et al, conservation is possible by incentivizing the protection of nature with projects that benefit humans, such as cleaning pollution in freshwater locations and saving locations where we rely on for food (like the ocean), funding for conservation becomes more accessible and humans are able to directly benefit. Whether it is possible for both economic development to grow along side conservation is up to human choices, since it is our geological era.

According to Kareiva in Conservation in the Anthropocene, the Anthropocene is the current geological era in which humans “dominate every flux and cycle of the planet’s ecology and geochemistry”. This definition is supported by the Vitousek’s article on the effect of human impact on the Earth’s ecosystems. While both articles talk about human impact on Earth, the authors of the articles have differing views on the significance of it.

Vitousek describes how humans have significantly altered all aspects of the Earth’s systems through land transformation, global biogeochemistry, biotic additions and losses, climate change and loss of biological diversity. Several examples are given for each including extensive water manipulation for human benefit to the point where “only 2% of the rivers run unimpeded” in the United States and very little water from major rivers reach the ocean.  Humans can also cause changes in an ecosystem by permanently taking out a piece of it when a species becomes extinct or introducing a new species. Overall, Vitousek gives an alarming picture of the overall power that humans have over the Earth’s ecosystems. The article suggests using resources more efficiently, slowing the rate of human impact and protecting the existing ecosystems.

Though Kareiva agrees that humans have made a huge impact on the Earth, he states that conservation is not a good option. Conservation cannot reverse what humans have done and bring the ecosystem into its original state. Kareiva brings up the topic of how “conservation” today is really a forced human construction that often is looked unfavorable upon. When trying to save an area, people who live on the land are often pushed out without being given fair compensation thus leaving them with a bad impression of conservation. Another difference from Vitousek is how nature is portrayed. In Vitousek’s article, nature seems quite fragile whereas Karieva shows nature to be rather resilient. Karieva uses several examples of nature overcoming human “disturbances” such as “thriving” wildlife near the Chernobyl nuclear facility despite high levels of radiation. In Conservation in the Anthropocene, nature is shown being able to adapt to difficult situations and survive. As opposed to the conservation method suggested by Vitousek, Karieva recommends saving nature by gaining support and offering a solution that includes humans instead of exclude them.

While both articles give strong arguments, the Karieva article seems to be something that more people would be willing to accept. The current method of conservation pushes people away from nature. Although human interaction with nature is not completely discouraged since there are paths within protected areas, it causes many other problems such as displacement, which may make the traditional kind of conservation seem distasteful. Instead, by working with people and giving them benefits while conserving nature, people are more likely to respond positively and embrace it. As a result, this method is more likely to be successful. The goal in the end is for both nature and people to coexist without harming the other.

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.

“Human Domination of the Earth’s Ecosystem” and “Conservation in the Anthropocene” are two very intriguing articles that offer differing viewpoints on the current state of the Earth and how human processes are transforming it. Whereas Vitousek et al in “Human Domination of the Earth’s Ecosystem” focus on the negative effects of human development on the Earth’s ecosystem, Kareiva et al in “Conservation in the Anthropocene” focus on the flaws of current conservation techniques. Vitousek et al argue that humans must reduce the rate at which they alter the Earth, while Kareiva et al argue that new conservation techniques must embrace development and human well-being while also protecting the Earth’s ecosystem. Although this is an interesting point, the article does not elaborate on how this can be accomplished. While Vitousek and his coauthors take a more panicked approach on the current state of the Earth’s ecosystem, Kareiva and his coauthors believe that nature is “resilient” and can “recover rapidly from even the most powerful human disturbances.” Vitousek believes in a more conventional approach to saving the planet, while Kareiva supports a more unorthodox model. Nevertheless, both articles help the reader grasp the concept of the Anthropocene.

According to these two articles, the Anthropocene is defined as the new geological era in which humans dominate the Earth’s ecosystem. More specifically, the Anthropocene focuses on the extent to which human activities affect the Earth’s habitat. Since the industrial revolution, nature has taken a back seat to economic progress. Humans have become more concerned with improving their lives at the expense of the Earth.  As stated by Vitousek et al, every ecosystem on Earth has either been directly or indirectly affected by humans since the industrial revolution. Since that time, humans have transformed the land to grow crops, increased carbon dioxide emissions tremendously, and introduced new species of plants and animals to foreign places. This, in turn, has led to climate change, restructuring of the food chain, and the extinction of certain species. Humans will continue to dominate the Earth’s landscape and as the population continues to grow, more and more of the Earth’s resources will have to be utilized. The alteration of the Earth’s ecosystem is a vicious cycle spurred by population growth.

The Anthropocene is an extremely useful concept because it is very relevant to today’s world. As the population continues to exponentially grow, and countries such as China continue to industrialize and release more harmful chemicals into the air, more of the Earth’s land and seas will be transformed. The effects of these human actions are already tangible. For example, global warming is posing a major threat by increasing worldwide temperatures and melting the polar ice caps. In addition, there have been changes in weather patterns, as shown by the overly active hurricane seasons in recent years. Although strides have been made to reduce pollution and greenhouse gases in the atmosphere, they are not enough. Like Kareiva et al argue, a balance must be found between protecting nature while also sustaining human communities. How to achieve this balance remains a mystery. However, I believe more regulations should be passed by governments around the world and more money should be raised by nongovernmental organizations to decrease the rate of deterioration of this beautiful planet.

The articles written by Vitousek et al and Kareiva et al each discuss the Anthropocene, the study of the era during which human existence and interference have dominated and the effects of this on the environment and various ecosystems. The Anthropocene isolates the era during which the changes that humans have caused as a result from a surge in both population and technology (Vitousek et al) have surged. From repurposing land for farming to tendencies for large numbers of people to live in a costal area, humans change the Earth both for themselves and for the other organisms that inhabit the area. The study of the Anthropocene helps humans see these effects, which may otherwise be unnoticeable, noticeable.

Scientific Magazine’s  “Human Domination of Earth’s Ecosystems” offers statistical data to demonstrate just some of the many changes that have occurred to the Earth. Authors Vitousek et al highlight some of the negative and more drastic effects that have come from human actions. For example, “at present, 11% of the remaining birds, 18% of the mammals, 5% of fish, and 8% of plant species on Earth are threatened with extinction” (Vitousek et al) as a result of human presence. Humans also introduced toxic chemicals in the form of pesticides into the environment back in the 1950s, many of which are still present, “accumulated in organisms, and magnified in concentration through food chains” (Vitousek et al). These chemicals, as well as non-toxic but synthetically formed chemicals, threaten the livelihood of not only humans but also other organisms that have been exposed to the chemicals as they continue to circulate the ecosystems. Without Anthropocene, it would be much more difficult to realize and understand the distance to which human actions travel.

Similar to Vitousek, Kareiva et al mentions some of the startling statistics that demonstrate the omnipresence of human activity on Earth. To show the widespread range of the effects of human activity, Kareiva et al also mention in the Breakthrough Journal “fish and whales in remote Arctic oceans are contaminated with chemical pesticides.” Kareiva also explores the unforeseen negative effects of some seemingly positive efforts to protect the Earth. Conservation, “widely viewed as the innocent and uncontroversial practice of purchasing special places threatened by development” (Kareiva et al), has not preserved natural lands and ecosystems so much as it has stripped it of it original elements and characters. While the original 19^th century intention for conservation was to protect the “transcendence-enabling idylls” (Kareiva et al) of Earth from increased urbanization in surrounding areas, the results of conservation often led to the uprooting of native people from their homes, and loss of hunting and agricultural land (Kariva et al). Humans’ actions are driven by the desire to both improve and protect land, and this drive overpowers the realization that lives are being unjustly disturbed and uprooted.

The Anthropocene gives humans a time to review, reflect on, and analyze their actions. It provides a time frame to examine all of the effects humans have imparted on the Earth, especially those that were unanticipated and unnoticed before. The Anthropocene highlights the long term and distant consequences that a growing population and dominating tactics have left behind. By acknowledging this era, humans can begin to acknowledge the direct and indirect impacts that the efforts to protect and better the Earth for their own well being have in turn, impacted the Earth for all other organisms as well.

In the Breakthrough Journal: Conservation in the  Anthropocene, anthropocene is defined as “a new geological era in which human dominate every flux and cycle of the planet’s ecology and geochemistry.” And just as the reading says, “The effects of human activity are found in every corner of the Earth.” This article explains the effects of the exponential growth of human activities on nature. As humans alter the lands and utilize nature’s resources for development, nature itself is deteriorating. This caused us to find ways of conserving the natural wildlife we have left. But as the future only shows the increase of human activity and development, it can be seen that such acts of conservation is fruitless. However, it is seen that the method of conservation should not just act around the thought of wanting to the change back patches of land back to when it was not touched by humans at all, but to modify it in a way where it will embrace human development. And this leads us to the urban ecology.

Human Domination of Earth’s Ecosystem revolves around urban ecology. Urban ecology is the study of the interaction between humans and the ecosystem in an urban environment. Urban ecologists study the nature within urban societies to research how being surrounded by an urban society affects it. This study travels deep into every aspect of the environments humans affect, such as oceans, land, and biochemical cycles.

Both Kareiva and Vitousek bring to attention the drastic effects of anthropocene and how it’s changing our environment today. This being the reason, people are now going “backwards” and want to see more green in their societies, when in the past they wanted more skyscrapers and suburban areas. As a result, areas in conservation have largely increased and so have the animals in captivity. But Kareiva also sheds light on the fact that we underestimate nature’s strength. He quotes ” But ecologists and conservationists have grossly overstated the fragility of nature…” He states that nature is stronger than we think it is, and we need to accept this. As soon as we do, we can alter the conservation plans to one that fits better for the actual way of conserving, which is to embrace human development. Conservation at a time of anthropocene is counteractive. Vitousek expresses his idea on the need to educate people about urban ecology. People need to have a better understand of how they affect their environment. That way, they will gain a greater duty of taking care of nature.

I agree with Kareiva on how people underestimate the strength and resilience of nature. Although the traditional method of conserving wildlife and forests is effective, it is not as efficient. By accepting the fact that nature can handle a lot more than we think, we can change around the conserving methods we hold to better help preserving nature in a new way that is more efficient. I also agree with Vitousek in the need to educate people about urban ecology. A greater knowledge would equal to a greater responsibility and if most of the world understands their effect on the world, they can change the way they live and develop. I would prefer these methods over the traditional method. Out with the old and in with the new.

Anthropocene is defined as human activities that have made an impact on the Earth. Both these articles clearly state how the Earth’s ecosystem is declining due to human beings. Vitousek goes on to say how the majority of the resources that the Earth provides is being used by humans. He says that we live on a “human-dominated planet.” The Earth has greatly changed due to humans. Urban ecology is essentially the interactions between the ecosystem in an urban area. Pollution greatly affects many parts of the environment in a city. Therefore, it is important to understand how humans affect the wildlife present in an urban community.

Vitousek explains that when humans use land, they change and alter the structure of the ecosystem. A large portion of land is being occupied by farm land or industrial factories. The large increase of carbon dioxide due to humans is also a contributing factor to the changing atmosphere. Humans have also altered the oceans. Many marine ecosystems have been destroyed by humans who live near the coast. Carbon dioxide has also played a large part in changing the Earth. Many things that humans do contribute to additional carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. Not only do we lose access to natural resources, humans are also increasing the rate at which extinction occurs.

Similarly, Kareiva also explains how humans have been harming the Earth. He also says how people believe that they should only save certain natural causes. Kareiva believes that conservation is a solution to the effects of human beings. However, even with conservation, the ecosystem can never be restored to its prehuman form. One method they used to conserve these places was to restrict the amount of people that were allowed to enter. Conservation also helps prevent threatened places. The problem is that the effects of human activity is all over the Earth. There is not enough resources to be able to protect all these locations. Kareiva stated that we entered “the Anthropocene” where humans dominate the entire planet’s ecosystem. The flaw with conservation is that it is occurring slower than the deterioration of these locations.

Both these articles agree that human activity is not going to make anything better. However, they both believe that solutions should be implemented to help slow the process. Vitousek believes that human dominance will continue and get worse. Kareiva wants to use conservation at a larger scale with many more people involved. Even though both of these articles state how serious an issue athropocene is, they provide solutions to the problem. The effect of humans on this planet has been devastating. It will take everyone’s effort in order to help remedy the problem. A lot of effort needs to be put in to make this successful, which begs the question, “will it ever be solved?”

Some people believe that we currently live in a human dominated time period, as many of our surroundings exist with mankind’s contribution. Since the beginning of technology, dating back to the Industrial Revolution, humans have begun to impact the environment. Human affect on the environment indicates their control over nature’s course in the future. For example, the creation of automobiles led to the use of fossil fuels, which contributes to the increase of CO2 in the atmosphere. According to Vitousek, there is “nearly a 30% change relative to the pre-industrial era…and will drive substantial climate change in the next century.” Currently rising CO2 levels are causing climate changes that are melting the polar ice caps and affecting other parts of the biosphere as well. Unless humans work to decrease their impact on the environment, such as decreasing CO2 levels by using more automobiles that do not run on fossil fuels, the rapid changes occurring in the environment will catch up to us just as fast. Vitousek believes that slowing the changing pace will allow the environment to accommodate to the changes with enough resources to uphold change. Although Vitousek is correct that human’s should slow down, it is not possible. People around the world are competing with each other, which forces people to quicken their lifestyle and compete not only with others, but also with time. Companies are always working to create a better innovative product than their rivals and to put them on the market first to meet consumers’ demands. The quick lifestyle is hard to change, but I agree with Vitousek that spreading information about how our lifestyle affects the biosphere will help encourage people to work towards decreasing their impact on the environment.

Similar to Vitousek, Karieva also believes that human impact on the environment should be changed. Karieva does not agree with conservationists that the way to save the Earth is to preserve it. She believes that working together with the environment is a better method as the environment has shown to adapt well from human domination and destruction. For example, she mentions how despite the Chernobyl nuclear facility meltdown spreading radiation in the environment, “wildlife is [still] thriving.” So, to keep the environment from depleting all its’ resources, humans need to work together with it instead of letting the environment work by itself through preservation. I agree with Karieva’s perspective. No matter how securely an area is conserved, it will still be affected by humans and will not be the same as it was before human impact. Even with attempts to maintain as much of its originality as possible, the world will keep moving and continue to affect it. For example, air pollution creates acid rain, which would reach the pristine area. Thus, I agree that the best way to save the environment is to work with it, not treat it like a museum artifact.

The earth has existed for centuries, during which many organisms and species have inhabited it.  However, over the span of billions of years the species that reigns supreme at this moment in time are the homo sapiens, or more commonly known as humans.  “Humans [now] dominate every flux and cycle of the planet’s ecology and geochemistry” (Kareiva 2011).  Our supremacy over earth’s vast regions has led to the creation of the term Anthropocene.  Anthropocene is a term created to define the current authority humans exerts onto the earth its inhabitants, and its many environments.

Our largest impact began with the Industrial Revolution.  We tore down landscapes, blew holes into mountains, and remade sceneries in our image for the purpose of corporation, transportation, and enterprise.  At that time though, the earth’s environments were all around and plentiful, making our adjustments seemingly minimal.  However, two hundred years later, with a population well over six billion, “one-third to one-hald of the land surface has been transformed by human action” (Vitousek et al 1997).  The question now is: Can humans live on this earth without causing the eventual extinction of non-man-made nature?

Right now, the answer is ambiguous, but it may be favoring no.  Since the twentieth century, efforts were made to protect lands from being destroyed or altered by man, such as the Yosemite National Park and the Grand Canyon.  Now almost “13 percent of the world’s land mass is protected” (Kareiva).  However, “we are losing many more special places and species than we’re saving” (Kareiva).  Our inability to prevent the destruction we ultimately cause to species and landscapes causes us to question our abilities to protect future lands.  For example, our capacity to “halt deforestation in the amazon [is questioned to be] feasible” or not (Kareiva).

“Since the early 19^th century, a number of thinkers have argues that the greatest use of nature is as a source of solitary spiritual renewal, describing nature as a place to escape modern life” (Kareiva).  However, to solve the problem we face now, we shouldn’t view the nature as something isolated from modern society, but rather attempt to coexist with it.  To do so, we must show people why conservation is a societal priority through “demonstrating how the fates of nature and people are deeply intertwined” (Kareiva).  In doing so, we can stop viewing the earth as the man-made vs. the natural and instead view all of earth as a “tangle of species and wildness amidst lands used for food production, mineral extraction, and urban life.”

We can achieve this is through the partnership of conservationists and corporations in a “science based effort to integrate the value of nature’s benefits into their operations and cultures” (Kareiva).  Then this type of movement could cause a trickle down effect, where workers and families begin to notice the overall change in the mindset of the corporations and acquire some incentive to protect nature.

In the end, we must do what’s right for both the world’s survival and our prosperity, and in doing so we can serve both worlds in a positive way, so that eventually they both meld into one.

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.

As discussed in class, the Anthropocene is the era of the human kind. Kareiva describes this era as a period when humans “dominate every flux and cycle of the planet’s ecology and geochemistry.” This means humans influence nearly every part of the world in some way. Many people consider this a negative idea since there is a popular belief that nature is fragile and humans are powerful and abusive. While there is evidence that humans are rapidly changing the environment, these changes are not necessarily terrible. Like Kareiva, I believe that people should recognize the strength of nature and they should focus on the relationship between people and nature instead.

Both Vitousek and Kareiva agree that humans are rapidly changing the world. Vitousek states that human activities, such as agriculture and fishing, have altered the Earth’s ecosystem. Similarly, Kareiva admits that humans have changed and destroyed some habitats around the world. While both agree on the general idea of human dominance on the world, Vitousek appears to focus more on the negative consequences of human interaction. For example, Vitousek states that land transformation is the most important cause of extinction, but he adds that even more species will be extinct if this continues. This implies that extinction only leads to more negative changes. On the other hand, Kareiva believes extinctions will continue to happen in the future, but nature is strong enough to adapt to these changes. The American chestnut went extinct due to a foreign disease. Even though the species went extinct, there were no major changes to the forest ecosystem. Kareiva further supports his argument of nature’s resilience by giving examples including the Chernobyl disaster and the 2010 oil spill. Nature responded to these changes and quickly adapted to these situations. Since nature has survived many changes and disasters throughout history, people should acknowledge nature’s strength and resilience.

Both Vitousek and Kareiva offer some solutions to slow the rapid changes happening around the world. Vitousek believes that humans should take greater responsibility in managing the planet. Unfortunately, this is probably difficult to do since there is already a large human population and an overreliance on technology. This means that humans will continue to use technology for their own daily lives and the technology will continue to alter the land, biogeochemical cycles, and modify species population. Furthermore, Vitousek published his article in 1997. The human population and technology have drastically changed since 1997. There is currently a greater demand for resources due to the larger population and greater reliance on technology. While Vitousek want humans to be more responsible with non-human environments, Kareiva suggests finding a conservation method to satisfy both human environments and non-human environments. Satisfying both environments is difficult, but people can start by analyzing the way urban environments interact with nature. Since this type of relationship appears in many human areas, studying this coexistence could give an insight to the conservation method. The coexistence of urban environment and nature is called urban ecology, which will continue to appear in many different areas in the future. Because this is the general direction we are heading, Kareiva’s solution is more likely to be successful.

The Anthropocene, as described by Kareiva in her article, “Conservation in the Anthropocene,” is defined as the new geological age that we have entered in which humans influence every part of the Earth’s natural system. This transition into the Anthropocene period is a result of the increasing amount of changes that humans have on the Earth. In the post-industrial world, we value economic gains and opportunities greater than we do nature. People transform land in order to help expand their business or clear trees to build roads to make transportation easier. However they do not think about the effect that their actions have on nature and the Earth’s ecosystems. This is particularly why the name Anthropocene makes sense since there is so much human impact on nature. In his article, “Human Domination of Earth’s Ecosystems,” Vitousek also claims that humans are making changes to natural habitats for economic purposes. He writes that “human use of land alters the structure and functioning of ecosystems, and it alters how ecosystems interact with the atmosphere, with aquatic systems, and with surrounding land.” This shows that people are making changes that effect many different parts of the Earth’s ecosystems. In her article, Kareiva claims that conservation methods are not going to be effective in the Anthropocene era because of the vast impact of humans on nature already. “The wilderness ideal presupposes that there are parts of the world untouched by humankind, but today it is impossible to find a place on Earth that is unmarked by human activity.” This shows that since humans have had an impact on all areas of the world and nature, conservation techniques are not really going to work because humans have already made changes to the land. I think that the concept of the Anthropocene is much better than our current conservation methods for the Earth’s ecosystem. Right now, we are setting land and creating parks in the name of conservationism, which is not really helping the biodiversity or ecology of the Earth. As Kareiva states in her article, as the number of conservations increases, nature has increasingly lost much of its biodiversity. I find her idea about having conservationists partnering up with corporations in a science-based effort to integrate the value of nature’s benefits into their operations and cultures. We cannot continue to blame capitalism for the condition of the Earth’s ecosystems since capitalism is the reason behind some of the greatest economies in the world. Our successful economic practices cannot change so, instead, we should try to combine conservationist tactics with corporation practices so that they can make necessary changes to reduce their harmful effects on nature. If conservationism is able to help poor countries better their economies some how, then there will be much greater overall support for conservationism around the world. Since developed countries have enough resources to give to conservation of nature, getting developing countries would make the conservation effort more of a global effort. The Anthropocene definitely addresses the main reason for the current state of Earth’s ecosystems, but our current conservation efforts are clearly not effective. With the growing population and increasing use of Earth’s resources, effective conservation solutions are needed.

The term anthropocene is clearly defined in Kareiva’s article Breakthrough Journal, Conservation in the Anthropocene. The article states that anthropocene is a term used to describe the current era in which humans control the planet’s ecology. Anthropocene’s ideology can also be found within Vitousek’s article Human Domination of Earth’s Ecosystems. The articles focus on the idea that humans directly affect nature. Human beings dominate the planet and further human growth is on-going. This same increased human growth will only lead to more human dominance over the world. This dominance gave way to the notion of urban ecology.

Urban ecology can be described as the newfound relation between the urban human society and nature. Human society has blended industrial and technological innovations within the confines of the planet, hence nature. This mixture of two forces result in a struggle to prevent annilation. Human growth depends on the enhanced future of urban ecology, but nature requires the opposite. In some cases, urban ecology prevents the survival of nature. In order to create new highways and fuel our cars, nature must be sacrificed. In this sense, urban ecology presents itself in a negative tone. Species become endangered or, as many already have, extinct. Species, including humans, suffer from the harmful by-products of urbanization. These can be found in the ozone layer, oceans, forests, and the very air that we all breathe. They come in various forms, namely pollution and poison.

Ecologists have attempted to prevent the negativity caused by the urbanized anthropocene society. Many blame the human society for seeking wealth by cutting down trees, mining ores, or harvesting natural gases. However, the two articles claim otherwise. Vitousek claims that the rate of human growth is increasing and in order to save nature, we must stunt human population growth, increase the understanding of the planet’s ecology, and for humans to take more responsibilities. I disagree with this solution. I believe that the increase of the human population cannot be feasibly controlled. The understanding of ecology may create more devotion towards saving the planet, however it will not necessarily prevent human society from wanting to progress themselves in an urban ecology. As time has shown, we have not downgraded in industry. We have only found more ways to pollute the environment, with the basis of survival in mind. I agree that more responsibility should be taken, but it is impractical. Humans generally would not consider taking on more responsibility, especially when it does not directly help them. I agree when Kareiva states that nature’s destruction is not entirely due to human destruction of ecosystems. Many examples are given to prove otherwise: a species of orangutan is near extinction due to humans hunting opposed to humans cutting down trees, the destruction of one species does not leave the entire food chain in disrepair, and studies that show the human attempt to create wildlife reserves and conservations fail to produce results and, as a matter of fact, show negative results where species tend to dwindle. The article goes even further and argues that it may seem as if conservation is of the utmost importance, but it hides several crucial elements from the debate. The creation of conservations has cost human lives due to the enforced evictions from selected areas. Another element is that a poor human class cannot help themselves survive without access to their only resource – nature. I believe that the solution to this problem lies in the way we view nature and urban ecology. We should not view the problem as if there were only one solution. Instead, we should focus on finding a solution to save both portions of urban ecology.

The anthropocene is the time period in which humans have an influence on all of nature. Peter Vitousek and other scientists describe the human impact on nature in “Human Domination of the Earth’s Ecosystems.” The most substantial and evident impact that humans have had on nature is the alteration of land. Humans often alter land to use its resources and provide services. For example, we cut down forests to create cropland and drill mountains to make highways. Activities like often destroys the habitats of many species, which leads them to die off in significant numbers.

Vitousek argues states that humans destroy biodiversity in the ocean. Humans often overfish to the point that a whole community of fish is on the verge of collapsing. Techniques like trawling the ocean floor for fish destroys the habitat in which they live in and leads to more fish dying. In addition, human activity has caused increased algal blooms, which create dead zones without oxygen that kill fish.

“Human Domination of the Earth’s Ecosystems” also provides evidence that human activity has altered many chemical cycles. The burning of fossil fuels for energy release C02 into the air. Since 1957, the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere has increased from 315 ppm to 362 ppm. The burning of CO2 increase the greenhouse effect, which raised the temperature on earth which in turn leads to the loss of biodiversity because several habitats depend on lower temperatures. In addition, the human use of nitrogen increases the amount of nitrogen in the atmosphere, which then comes down as acid rain or smog.

Michelle Marvier Peter in her article “Conservation in the Anthropocene” argues that the way many scientist try to preserve the environment is ineffective. Conservationists aim to create protected areas of land where no human development can take place. They try to get rid of non-native species and bring the area back to the way it was before humans dominated the area. However these actions do more harm than good. Setting up protected areas takes a lot of money and energy. In addition, native people are often forced to move out of their homes. Peter even says that the created parks are “no less human constructions than Disneyland.”

“Conservation in the Anthropocene” argues that we should embrace the resiliency of nature. Humans have made too many changes in nature to change it back to the way it was in the past. There is also evidence of nature adopting to live in big cities. The article argues that we should stop trying to create created parks and instead focus on making our cities more nature friendly.

I think that we should aim to make our cities more nature friendly but at the same time also create more protected areas. Building gardens in the city, using public transportation and alternative sources of energy will do wonders for our impact on the environment. However, protected areas like state parks provide beautiful recreational areas for humans to visit and are a safe environment for many wild animals. The best course of action is to live a more environmentally friendly lifestyle while also creating more protected areas for animals to live in.

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.