nahid bakhtari

According to the articles, anthropocene can be defined as our present geological era marked by the advent of the Industrial Revolution, where humans have had a massive and dominant impact on earth’s various ecosystems. People have argued the negative and positive impact of the anthropogenic imprint, and how we must also understand urban ecology, human interactions with nature in urban communities, to solve the many problems we have. Both articles argue opposing sides to the “conservation of nature” argument; Vitousek arguing that “human alteration of Earth [has been growing so substantially]” in a detrimental way that it may lead to an extinction of our natural world unless extensive conservation is practiced, while Kareiva claim that the human population is growing and needs the natural resources on earth, and there is no slowing down these rates.
Vitousek et al point out in their article as they discuss the impact human dominance has had, and the facts they give are compelling enough to want to begin your own conservation movement. Almost 39 to 50% of the land has been transformed or degraded, a large percentage compared to the few hundred years it took to change it. Since I have a penchant for marine life, the fact that “commercial marine fisheries around the world discard 27 million tons of non-target animals annually” is upsetting, and a cause I would fight for. I also love to eat fish, but “as of 1995, 22% of recognized marine fisheries were overexploited or already depleted, and 44% more were at their limit of exploitation” makes me want to avoid fish even more than the mercury factor. Extinction of animals has also been severe with almost 20% of mammals going extinct and 11% of birds.
Though Vitousek makes good points, I do not completely agree with him. His article had been written about fifteen years ago during a time when people were stringent about our need to conserve natural ecosystems, and also enough time to change the mindset of most conservationists. That is why I like and agree more with the recent article Kareiva et al article that claims that we have made significant changes in the past decade conserving the earth, and human starvation is a bigger problem. And their idea that it is best to use the Earths land and resources to help the starving in developing worlds is better than leaving them untouched for the few who can access preserved (gated) areas.
Scientists have seen the effects of the damage we have done in the past centuries, and action has been taken. We now have solar, wind, water, and other cleaner sources of energy. The only problem is for making these sources of energy more economical. And another point that Kareiva et al brings up is the fact that the Earth knows how to heal itself. The damage we have done has been cleaned up like the oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico (which I was surprised would happen). Rather than preserving natural landscapes to be untouched, I think it is better to use the resources to help mankind.