Opinion: Enough 'Anthropocene' nonsense – we already know the world is in crisis

Opinion: Enough 'Anthropocene' nonsense – we already know the world is in crisis
We don’t need future geological evidence to tell us nuclear tests are bad. Credit: US Department of Defense

At a public seminar at a respected university in Scandinavia on how to promote cross-disciplinary research last year, the dean of one of the faculties passed the comment that "now we are living in the Anthropocene, everything we see around us, everything in our environment, we realise is the result of human activity".

This, of course, is nonsense. The reach of is demonstrably profound, affecting nearly all within the Earth system, but to attribute all the changes we observe to human activity is wrong; humanity has no control over the output of solar radiation by the sun, the astronomical position of the Earth, or the internal processes that drive plate tectonics and . All three profoundly influence humans but operate entirely independently from human activity.

I could have chosen many other examples. The sad fact is that the adoption of the term Anthropocene – informal, as yet, but nevertheless clearly viral – is misleading. But it is worse than that; it has stimulated a redundant, manufactured, debate that displaces more important scientific research and genuine discussion on climate and environmental change. It is a fad, a bandwagon, a way of marketing research as cutting-edge and relevant. At its worst it can be seen as a disingenuous means of harvesting citations under the guise of serious endeavour.

The beginning of the term

The term Anthropocene was first proposed back in 2000 by atmospheric chemist Paul Crutzen and Eugene Stoermer, a biologist, to denote the recognition that humans are now profoundly altering the Earth's climate system and environment. So profoundly, in fact, that Earth scientists should name a new epoch of to register this impact.

Opinion: Enough 'Anthropocene' nonsense – we already know the world is in crisis
Do we need to add to this already? Credit: US Geological Survey

The naming of chunks of geological time was necessary, particularly so before the dawn of radiometric dating and other ways of directly measuring the age of rocks. Back then, there was no choice. Names such as "Cambrian" and "Pleistocene" were invented and the time period they represented were defined in layers of rocks.

All this remains important. But it is always only a means to an end, a methodological step that ultimately helps Earth scientists to do what they should be doing; that is, to understand the fundamental processes and mechanisms that make the Earth what it is. Studying and naming layers of rock – stratigraphy – is not an end in itself, though reputations are made, and medals won, in deciding how the cake should be cut and what all the individual pieces should be called.

The term is now up for formal ratification by a subcommision of the International Commission on Stratigraphy (ICS) which requires the Anthropocene's base – when it started – to be defined. So there is now a "debate" to decide where this base should be.

Is it the transition from hunting to farming, the moment Columbus arrived in America, the industrial revolution, or perhaps atomic weapons testing in 1960?

Without such a defined base, there can be no epoch. No doubt this debate will run and run and an Anthropocene Working Group is considering the matter and their latest contribution – a lengthy review that rehearses the various candidates for the base of the Anthropocene – has just been published in Science.

Quite apart from the difficulty of defining the base – the issue that so obsesses the anthropocenists – the term serves no useful purpose since it is not necessary for defining the rock record. There are plenty of ways of measuring time and establishing stratigraphies for the epoch when humans have progressively impacted the Earth system, such as measuring tree rings, radioisotopes introduced by atomic weapons testing, or counting annual layers in ice cores. We use these tools on a daily basis and have no need for the new term.

And while the anthropocenists rearrange the deck chairs, other scientists are getting on with the business of trying to understand, and do something, about the crisis we face.

Explore further

The Anthropocene: Hard evidence for a human-driven Earth

Journal information: Science

This article was originally published on The Conversation. Read the original article.
The Conversation

Citation: Opinion: Enough 'Anthropocene' nonsense – we already know the world is in crisis (2016, January 18) retrieved 20 July 2019 from https://phys.org/news/2016-01-opinion-anthropocene-nonsense-world-crisis.html
This document is subject to copyright. Apart from any fair dealing for the purpose of private study or research, no part may be reproduced without the written permission. The content is provided for information purposes only.

Feedback to editors

User comments

Jan 18, 2016
I have learned over the years to be cautious of those who declare themselves humble or wise. Therefore, in light of how the human species is destroying its home planet through pollution, population and over consumption, I believe it is time to correct the species name of Homo sapiens sapiens to something more appropriate.

Please sign in to add a comment. Registration is free, and takes less than a minute. Read more