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.
