The Anthropocene, as described in Vitousek’s and Kareiva’s articles can be defined as the new geological era we are living in now, where humans have come to dominate every aspect of Earth’s nature and ecosystems. This in turn, gave way to an urban ecology – the relationship developed between nature and an urban setting, which so much of the world is dominated by today.
Both articles shed light on just how large the footprint humanity has left on Earth’s ecology is. As Kareiva points out, “today it is impossible to find a place on Earth that is unmarked by human activity.” Vitousek’s article talks about how humans have come to dominate the water supply, using more than half of the world’s runoff water that is fresh and reasonably accessible. Additionally, he mentions how humanity is also responsible for the extinction of one quarter of Earth’s bird species, and how we have transformed much of Earth’s land into agricultural and urban industrial areas. While Kareiva’s article seems to be less pessimistic about the Anthropocene, making a point that Earth’s ecosystem’s have been altered and dominated by humanity for as long as we’ve existed, both articles recognize that there should be new ways of looking at our ever-changing ecology, and pose the question how should we handle this new ecology and what conservation efforts should be put in place?
Both articles seem to provide answers to the questions they beg. Vitousek’s article asserts, for example that we should work to reduce the rate at which we alter the Earth’s ecology, suggesting that perhaps our ecosystems can adapt to certain changes if those changes are slow. Vitousek also offers up a few suggestions, claiming that conservation movements should work with the changing world and it’s technologies to enhance our natural systems to benefit everyone. It should embrace the new age, instead of clinging to old beliefs and habits – which I think is the way to go.
