Holocene or Anthropocene?
- Lucylu
- Posts: 676
- Joined: October 1st, 2013, 2:32 pm
Holocene or Anthropocene?
Lately this has been refuted. Some say that we are now in a new epoch, called the Anthropocene epoch, characterized by the dramatic impact humans have on the planet's ecosystems and geology.
Do we deserve this self-imposed 'super power' status?
If so, when did the Anthropocene epoch begin? Obviously humans have been around much longer than 12,000 years.
And what are the consequences, if anything? (i.e what should we do about it?)
How do our evolutionary stages effect the Earth?
- Sy Borg
- Site Admin
- Posts: 14995
- Joined: December 16th, 2013, 9:05 pm
Re: Holocene or Anthropocene?
Humans are the largest biomass of large animals in the Earth's history. We have caused numerous extinctions in a fairly short time and are changing the planet's climate. No large animal has ever colonised the Earth to our extent. So yes, I think the Anthropocene proposition is valid.
It's fairly clear that the biosphere is becoming more intelligent. Aside from humans, today's sleek and refined mammals would run rings around their dull-witted ancestors. Further, they are becoming smarter from their interactions with humans. There appears to be a process of metamorphosis occurring in nature, and humanity's impacts seem analogous to encephalisation. That is, the biosphere appears to be growing a head and brain, and we appear to be it.
Humanity also seems to be functioning as a reproductive system; if Earth's biota is to persist elsewhere in space after the Earth becomes uninhabitable, humans appear to be joining microbes as the biosphere's best chance for continued reproduction.
Taking another angle, humanity is also shaping up as the biosphere's first ever possible defence against catastrophic asteroid impacts. That would make humanity an agent apoptosis, a brain, part of the reproductive system and a shield.
- LuckyR
- Moderator
- Posts: 7935
- Joined: January 18th, 2015, 1:16 am
Re: Holocene or Anthropocene?
I am not an expert in this area but my understanding is that there are two issues here: one is a relabeling idea, substituting anthropocene (human dominated) for Holocene (most recent). Personally I am not into labels much and have no opinion, it seems rather political to my ear. The other is whether or not humans are really the driver of changes in the earth. Classically since ancient eras were studied geologically, eras are described that way and to be truthful I don't think humanity has changed the geological status anywhere near as much as the ecological and climatory aspects.Lucylu wrote:Since approximately 12,000 years ago, since the last major glacial or 'ice' age, we have been in the geological age known as the Holocene epoch.
Lately this has been refuted. Some say that we are now in a new epoch, called the Anthropocene epoch, characterized by the dramatic impact humans have on the planet's ecosystems and geology.
Do we deserve this self-imposed 'super power' status?
If so, when did the Anthropocene epoch begin? Obviously humans have been around much longer than 12,000 years.
And what are the consequences, if anything? (i.e what should we do about it?)
How do our evolutionary stages effect the Earth?
- Sy Borg
- Site Admin
- Posts: 14995
- Joined: December 16th, 2013, 9:05 pm
Re: Holocene or Anthropocene?
Consider the distinction between biology and geology; there is no true hard line, just the arbitrary one we created.
- LuckyR
- Moderator
- Posts: 7935
- Joined: January 18th, 2015, 1:16 am
Re: Holocene or Anthropocene?
If the fossilized remains of biologic organisms are what is meant by "geology", then I have no problem with the renaming.Greta wrote:Lucky, the eons are largely marked by biology - http://www.ucmp.berkeley.edu/help/timeform.php
Consider the distinction between biology and geology; there is no true hard line, just the arbitrary one we created.
- Sy Borg
- Site Admin
- Posts: 14995
- Joined: December 16th, 2013, 9:05 pm
Re: Holocene or Anthropocene?
Unfortunately, the inhabitants at the time are no longer alive so fossil records are all we have. If you look through the eras you will see that each is delineated by the kind of life forms present at the time. It's rather misleading for the era to be referred to as geological, perhaps due to the Hadean era, which is assumed to have been unambiguously geological.LuckyR wrote:If the fossilized remains of biologic organisms are what is meant by "geology", then I have no problem with the renaming.Greta wrote:Lucky, the eons are largely marked by biology - http://www.ucmp.berkeley.edu/help/timeform.php
Consider the distinction between biology and geology; there is no true hard line, just the arbitrary one we created.
- Lucylu
- Posts: 676
- Joined: October 1st, 2013, 2:32 pm
Re: Holocene or Anthropocene?
This is a good point. Most labels were originated by white men, who considered themselves to be the paramount of 'God's creation'. Everyone and everything that differed in the slightest, was inferior. However, I think there may be value in labelling the period of life we are living in to gain perspective, and if need's be, to take responsibilty.LuckyR wrote:Personally I am not into labels much and have no opinion, it seems rather political to my ear.
There are many overlapping ages, eras, and epochs. Given the dramatic effects of man on the planet and our apparent supremacy, it seems reasonable that we acknowledge a new epoch.
Also I was thinking of the age when we began travelling extensively and moving species around the world.Greta wrote:It's a good topic; humanity needs to assess its role in the biosphere and Earth. The two main possibilities for the start of the Anthropocene era are the advent of agriculture and the industrial revolution, each of which was accompanies by extinctions as animal and plant habitats were supplanted.
You have a much more positive view of people than me. You seem to think we are symbiotic with nature whereas I feel we are in conflict with the elements. I don't really think of humans as being part of the planet. Perhaps due to our neurosis, we are more detached from nature and even our own bodies than other animals? Society certainly makes me feel that way. Its only when I am truly alone, in nature, that I feel in tune with my surroundings but in a city, I am only a human and nothing else. We are essentially users. When Earth is empty, we will move or die but I'm not sure that we will curb climate change for the sake of the planet; only ourselves. After all, the planet will go on and survive, come what may. It is humans we have to save but we seem unable to take action until we are truly in fear for our lives.Greta wrote:Humanity also seems to be functioning as a reproductive system; if Earth's biota is to persist elsewhere in space after the Earth becomes uninhabitable, humans appear to be joining microbes as the biosphere's best chance for continued reproduction.
- Sy Borg
- Site Admin
- Posts: 14995
- Joined: December 16th, 2013, 9:05 pm
Re: Holocene or Anthropocene?
Greta wrote:Humanity also seems to be functioning as a reproductive system; if Earth's biota is to persist elsewhere in space after the Earth becomes uninhabitable, humans appear to be joining microbes as the biosphere's best chance for continued reproduction.
In the past I was as misanthropic as anyone I've since debated this topic with. Then I saw the illogic of it. We are nature. We are as much a part of the biosphere as any other animal and, it seems, an exceedingly important part.Lucylu wrote:You have a much more positive view of people than me. You seem to think we are symbiotic with nature whereas I feel we are in conflict with the elements. I don't really think of humans as being part of the planet. Perhaps due to our neurosis, we are more detached from nature and even our own bodies than other animals? Society certainly makes me feel that way. Its only when I am truly alone, in nature, that I feel in tune with my surroundings but in a city, I am only a human and nothing else. We are essentially users. When Earth is empty, we will move or die but I'm not sure that we will curb climate change for the sake of the planet; only ourselves. After all, the planet will go on and survive, come what may. It is humans we have to save but we seem unable to take action until we are truly in fear for our lives.
The problem is that we don't like change. We are born into a particular environment and it's to that environment that we are usually best adapted and most comfortable. This, is why people become middle and old aged complainers about "new fangled" things, and especially judge younger generations, the main agents of change. So we don't like change but it's inevitable. Clearly for peace of mind we need to reconcile ourselves with change and be more mentally and emotionally adaptable. As they say, you can't fight city hall.
The elephant in the room is humanity's weirdness, our difference. Hence all speculative talk of us being aliens, despite our genetic and morphological similarities with other great apes. Also perplexing is our combination of destruction and construction. It seems to me that the Earth is becoming something it was not before, just as it did as it when it shifted from the Hadean to the Archean eons. What is a shift of eons in terms of the biosphere? Metamorphosis. How does metamorphosis work? Old structures are destroyed in a process called apoptosis, and they are supplanted by novel structures. In cancer there is cell death without a replacement organisation; the cancerous area becomes informationally very simple and chaotic. By contrast, humans deal death but fill the void with informationally rich structures, as is the case in metamorphosis.
Many workers know how it feels to be a small individual when large structures are restructured. The scale and stakes with the biosphere are very much greater, but the dynamic is equivalent. To those alive today, current events are about as welcome to them as the dinosaurs would have welcomes the asteroid that killed them off.
Just as we mourn our children getting older and losing their innocence, it seems that humanity generally is mourning the loss of nature, our evolutionary childhood. Yet, should we want to Earth to locked in a juvenile state forever? Just like us, the Earth is always growing, changing and evolving, even if those changes are awful from the perspective of current crop of conditioned inhabitants. Yes, something precious is lost but something even more precious is likely to emerge.
Whatever the changes bring, I hope it's less brutal than the wild today, with its currency of death and suffering.
2023/2024 Philosophy Books of the Month
Mark Victor Hansen, Relentless: Wisdom Behind the Incomparable Chicken Soup for the Soul
by Mitzi Perdue
February 2023
Rediscovering the Wisdom of Human Nature: How Civilization Destroys Happiness
by Chet Shupe
March 2023