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.
