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.
