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.
