Reading: 8/30/12
The term “Anthropocene” refers to the human population’s increasing impact on the Earth’s environment, the processes that allow it to function and the species that inhabit it. The human population’s presence on Earth and our daily activities can have destructive effects on the environment. These activities, such as building dams and cutting down trees, are increasingly threatening to our environment and the species that populate Earth’s land and water.
In order to improve on the issues that “Anthropocene” addresses, it is imperative for us to focus on the source of the problem and then work to install a long-term and sustainable solution. The Science Magazine article suggests that we “must reduce the rate at which we alter the Earth” and make sure we have an “understanding of the Earth’s ecosystems,” emphasizing that we “cannot escape responsibility for managing the planet” (Science Mag). Although the aforementioned techniques sound rational and make sense, the article entitled “Conservation in the ‘Anthropocene’” approaches this issue in a very unique and promising way that could be more practical to execute. In the Breakthrough Journal article, the authors bring up the idea of “nature exist[ing] amid a variety of modern, human landscapes”, an idea parallel to “urban ecology”. In order to make conservation a “societal priority” we must make sure people “believe conservation is in their own best interests” (Breakthrough Journal). We must therefore mix modern ideas of improvement and innovation with ideas of conservation, paying attention to the condition of our environment and the species that inhabit it while still enjoying modern development.
The way in which we view this issue is most important. We cannot speak of the environment in a far-reached sense, but rather as an issue that is relevant and familiar to humans worldwide. It is out of human nature for people to care about the “health and prosperity” (Breakthrough Journal) of their friends, families and themselves. In order to make conservation a priority, we must do what the Breakthrough Journal suggests and “intertwine” nature and people to recognize that the status of one’s health depends on the status of the other (Breakthrough Journal). It is essential for this connection to be made by all at an early age.
The Breakthrough Journal article suggests a unique approach to issues such as rising CO2 levels and deforestation that the article in Science Magazine thoroughly discusses. The idea of urban ecology and an approach that depicts the issue of conservation in a more optimistic light will be beneficial towards improving current conditions. We need to adhere to a mindset that encourages us to continue searching for ways to improve and refrain from giving up.
A hopeless perspective towards the issue of conservation could serve as a potential self-serving prophecy. By viewing the environment as a hopeless cause, we are in turn discouraged to do anything productive to remedy the situation, escalating the very problem we are trying to solve.
Weekly Reading 8/30
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.
Vitousek and Kareiva
The Anthropocene, as described in Vitousek’s and Kareiva’s articles can be defined as the new geological era we are living in now, where humans have come to dominate every aspect of Earth’s nature and ecosystems. This in turn, gave way to an urban ecology – the relationship developed between nature and an urban setting, which so much of the world is dominated by today.
Both articles shed light on just how large the footprint humanity has left on Earth’s ecology is. As Kareiva points out, “today it is impossible to find a place on Earth that is unmarked by human activity.” Vitousek’s article talks about how humans have come to dominate the water supply, using more than half of the world’s runoff water that is fresh and reasonably accessible. Additionally, he mentions how humanity is also responsible for the extinction of one quarter of Earth’s bird species, and how we have transformed much of Earth’s land into agricultural and urban industrial areas. While Kareiva’s article seems to be less pessimistic about the Anthropocene, making a point that Earth’s ecosystem’s have been altered and dominated by humanity for as long as we’ve existed, both articles recognize that there should be new ways of looking at our ever-changing ecology, and pose the question how should we handle this new ecology and what conservation efforts should be put in place?
Both articles seem to provide answers to the questions they beg. Vitousek’s article asserts, for example that we should work to reduce the rate at which we alter the Earth’s ecology, suggesting that perhaps our ecosystems can adapt to certain changes if those changes are slow. Vitousek also offers up a few suggestions, claiming that conservation movements should work with the changing world and it’s technologies to enhance our natural systems to benefit everyone. It should embrace the new age, instead of clinging to old beliefs and habits – which I think is the way to go.
Richard Chan: Post 8/30/12–Anthropocene
Antrhropocene: the era of humanity. Specifically, anthropocene refers to the industrial and post-industrial era of humanity, when people around the world began to take over land, as well as sea, that had been previously untouched or unhindered by humankind, and began reshaping those regions for their benefit. Ecologically, that definition would be modestly adequate, as undoubtedly humans have done their fair share of destruction of—as well as have been destroyed by—nature long before, but it was during this particular time in human history when we the people stepped on the accelerator.
As Vitousek and others point out, major changes and fluctuations occurred during our collective quest for more oil, more fuel, more food, and, well, more of everything. Resources of every sort were and are literally uprooted from their habitats, and in its place are exhaust and runoff. Atmospheric carbon, nitrogen, and sulfur levels have relatively skyrocketed, and along with the damaging of the ozone layer due to chlorofluorocarbons, the global meteorology has in turn returned the damages back as acid rain and scorching ultraviolet harm. Humans are able to actually displace the air, the sea, and the earth around them, and in part due to naiveté and part to necessity, they have done exactly that.
Then, as Kareiva and his colleagues explain, humans became conscious to their work, and instead of a fairy-tale righting of past dues, an odd conundrum—and ensuing chaos—occurred. As people preserved natural habitats they displaced people; as people preserved people they displaced the natural habitats. It is realized, then, that an antebellum status quo of nature would be impossible, if not impractical, to achieve. Humans have simply done too much; even if they do not directly interact with the ecosystem they believe is untouched, their global actions—namely the continued usage of fossil fuels and massive depletion of resources, such as deforestation and overfishing—can still negatively affect, if only slightly alter, said ecosystem. Instead, Kareiva suggests, humans should adapt to the resilience and adaptability of nature itself, to understand the resistance of ecosystems to change, and to encourage that advancement instead of preserves and parks.
That is urban ecology. Urban ecology is the meshing and proper coexistence of the natural and the industrial. It is the construction and/or maintenance of ecosystems, micromanaged and global, that can be sustained with and despite human interference. It does mean a significant sacrifice on part of humanity; for one, humans cannot continue to see the world as their giant sandbox. It is finite, and as humans continue to grow they will find it to be increasingly finite—that is, scarce. For another, people were the reason for the destruction or displacement of species and terrain alike; if they have the power to cause such disrepair, then they should have the power to do the opposite. Indeed, one testament to humanity’s power of construction of such a scale is the projects intended to build artificial islands. Surely, if people can build islands, then they can otherwise reshape the Earth in any fashion they desire. It may take green technology, solar panels, transitioning into gas-sipper-cars, international agreements, and something with a little more weight than a monkey wrench, but it is entirely possible for humanity to survive in the era of urban ecology. The next era that humankind should make is the polisopocene.
Dominance
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.
Vitousek and Kareiva
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.
Anthony’s Blog Post 8/30
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.
David’s Weekly reading 8/30
By reading the two articles I felt like they were taking different perspectives on how humans affect the Earth. Regarding the Vitousek article I have to say that I admire how they started off saying this, “This article provides an overview of human effects on Earth’s ecosystems. It is not intended as a litany of environmental disasters, though some disastrous situations are described; nor is it intended either to down- play or to celebrate environmental successes, of which there have been many. Rather, we explore how large humanity looms as a presence on the globe.” This is basically saying that the purpose of the article is not to bash humans or say they destroyed nature, rather the point of the article is to say that this is what we have discovered through our research, whether you think humans are ruining nature or not is your decision to make. Furthermore this article brought a good point near the end regarding extinctions and invasions. The article said that even without human involvement on Earth animals would still go extinct but at a much slower pace. The same could be said about invasions, these would also happen without human intrusion, however humans make the process a lot faster. As for the Kareiva article I liked the fact that the visage of nature being weak was broken. I mean when you think about it if mankind does in fact alter the earth so much, to the extent where humans can no longer live on Earth. We would really just be hurting ourselves, because if humans become extinct nature will remain and will adapt. Another reason I enjoyed the Kareiva article is because of the way that it described the problem with modern conservation. I personally think that it is a good idea to have set aside land for wildlife to have. I mean after all humans have to share the world with animals so why not give them their own little area where they can live without us bothering them. However, the article showed me that this thought process has flaws and instead of living in such a manner where we are separate with nature we should live in accordance with nature. So to finally answer the question as to whether or not the Earth is in a new era, I think the Kareiva article says it best, “The wilderness ideal presupposes that there are parts of the world untouched by human kind, but today it is impossible to find a place on Earth that is unmarked by human activity. The truth is humans have been impacting their natural environment for centuries. The wilderness so beloved by conservationists — places ‘untrammeled by man’ – never existed, at lest not in the last thousand years, and arguably even longer.” In other words the scientists were right when they claimed that we are entering a new world era, the age of humans, and as both articles clearly state humans do have a great influence on the world.
Weekly Readings: an introduction
Each week, you’ll write posts about assigned weekly readings — both discussion questions and summaries. Each reading has its own category, so don’t forget to categorize your posts accordingly.
