Did the Anthropocene Begin in 1950 or 50,000 Years Ago?

[thelerner]

Feel free to edit this out, but I've reading about the Anthropocene and thought of you.  An era we're at the birth of (maybe)-http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/did-the-anthropocene-begin-in-1950-or-50-000-years-ago/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+ScientificAmerican-News+%28Content%3A+News%29

 

Did the Anthropocene Begin in 1950 or 50,000 Years Ago?

Scientists debate whether hunting, farming, smallpox or the nuclear bomb define the start of irreversible human impacts on our planet  April 2, 2015 |By David Biello

• Happy Earth Day! Welcome to the Anthropocene
• How Long Have Humans Dominated the Planet?

The lethal pairing of hunting and burning is just one of the ways humans have been changing the world for millennia. Another is planting crops such as corn or wheat, which now cover most of the world's arable land. Chickens, cows and pigs have become the dominant megafauna, thanks to ranching and herding. Forests have been cleared to make room for agriculture and the mass expansion of the rice paddy may have led to enough greenhouse gas emissions to stave off a long cool-down into an ice age starting 5,000 years ago.
 
Each of these world-changing actions should be considered when choosing a start date for the Anthropocene—a potential new geologic epoch that begins when humankind started significantly altering Earth—according to a new report published in Science on April 3. So should more recent human inventions, such as widespread burning of coal or detonation of the atomic bomb. Given the long spans of time separating each of these possibilities, "we suggest simply using the term 'anthropocene' informally," says William Ruddiman, a "semiretired" paleoclimatologist at the University of Virginia and lead author of the new report. That would "allow room to recognize the millennia-long, rich history of anthropogenic changes," he says.
 

Courtesy of William Ruddiman

But the scientists in the Working Group on the Anthropocene are currently considering which of a number of proposals might best define a more precise start date for a formal Anthropocene epoch. The ideas range from the nadir in atmospheric carbon dioxide concentrations caused by the regrowth of CO2-absorbing forests in Africa and the Americas following mass deaths from human-introduced smallpox around 1610 to when scientists exploded the first atomic bomb in the New Mexico desert on July 16, 1945.

 

The latter time frame, around 1950, is perhaps the most popular choice. "Sometime around the mid-20th century seems on current evidence to be where the stratigraphic markers are clearest, most widespread and most nearly synchronous," explains Jan Zalasiewicz, a geologist at the University of Leicester in England and chairman of the working group that is evaluating whether or not to incorporate the Anthropocene into the geologic time scale. That includes new data showing that fly ash from coal burning spiked around 1950, accelerating a steep rise in atmospheric CO2 levels. The spike of ash is preserved in sediment cores pulled from lakes around the world, although mostly in Europe.
 
Similarly, the 20th century’s two world wars introduced new geologic features to the landscape, shaped by bombardment and other military actions, that are likely to be preserved for millennia, along with all those mines, oil and gas wells and even the cracked rock, plutons and radioactivity that will mark where nuclear bombs exploded underground. Atmospheric CO2 concentrations surpassed 310 parts per million around 1950, too—roughly the highest levels that occurred during the entire duration of Homo sapiens’s existence on the planet. Concentrations have now reached 400 ppm, higher than any time in the last 800,000 years, at least.
 
A more recent start date to a formal Anthropocene would omit perhaps the largest changes humanity has wrought on a global scale, however: cutting down forests and plowing grasslands for farms. University of Maryland Baltimore County ecologist Erle Ellis, a co-author on this new report, has found that humans have been impacting most land on the planet for at least 3,000 years, mostly by farming. As Ruddiman asks: Would historians tie the start date of the settling of the North American West to the building of the Sears Tower in Chicago in 1973? "Not likely—it would omit too much of the actual history," he says.
 
Cutting down forests is reversible, however; witness the regrowth of trees in the eastern U.S. and Europe as well as the massive reforestation after Europeans invaded the Americas, precipitating massive loss of people from smallpox and other diseases. "The impact of farming could only be clearly seen as a global change to the Earth system when it stopped across a continent," argues Simon Lewis, an ecologist at the University of Leeds and co-proposer of a 1610 start date.
 
A shift in geologic epoch is meant to signify an irreversible change. For example, the Pleistocene endured for more than 2.5 million years despite a cycle of general freezing and thawing that represents swings of 6 degrees Celsius in global average temperatures, 120 meters of sea level rise and fall and at least 80 ppm changes in CO2 concentrations, along with the repeated growth and retreat of glaciers. "We must treat human changes in exactly the same way as natural ones so we can really understand the extent and magnitude of our impacts," argues Mark Maslin, a professor of physical geography at University College London and co-author with Lewis of an earlier paper proposing 1610 as the best start date. "Defining the Anthropocene means officially recognizing that humans are a major geological superpower and that, at this moment in time, we are the most important force shaping and changing the global environment."
 
In the end, whether the Anthropocene is formally designated as a new geologic epoch or not, the concept "helps us understand this rather remarkable interval of recent Earth history by putting it in a deep-time perspective," Zalasiewicz says. It shows "what is really novel in planetary evolution and what is déjà vu, and gives us some sense of scale and tempo." Humans may have been transforming parts of the planet for millennia but fossil fuels, nuclear weapons and other modern marvels helped us pick up the pace.

[dawei]

Feel free to edit this out, but I've reading about the Anthropocene and thought of you.  An era we're at the birth of (maybe)-

 

Moved this here

 

I personally am not sure if its worthwhile to devote so much energy to this kind of thing... unless they think it will help the next reboot of humanity should another mass extinction occur.    

 

There were many mass extinctions without our help but its possible that we're contributing to the next one... but it will probably happen with or without our help at some point.

[thelerner]

Its not just about extinctions but the arrogance of naming a new epoch for man's influence on our planet.  The realization that instead of celestial or geological phenomena, We are the prime movers and changers of our planet's evolution.  Cue Godzilla theme.  

 

 

Anthropcene- the period during which human activity has been been the dominant influence on climate and the environment.

Edited April 6, 2015 by thelerner

[dawei]

Its not just about extinctions but the arrogance of naming a new epoch for man's influence on our planet.  The realization that instead of celestial or geological phenomena, We are the prime movers and changers of our planet's evolution.  Cue Godzilla theme.  

 

 

Anthropcene- the period during which human activity has been been the dominant influence on climate and the environment.

 

I didn't want to say it, but now I understand your point... in bold...  I agree with the arrogance aspect and why I related it will happen at due time, regardless of human influence.

 

Maybe we should consider if it happens due to human influence... but is accelerated by the gods who want to just get the human extinction over with 

[thelerner]

 

 

Maybe we should consider if it happens due to human influence... but is accelerated by the gods who want to just get the human extinction over with 

Or are We the gods..  Collectively?..  not the brightest ones, but powerful creatures nontheless.  We knock down mighty mountains and extinctify whole species with a fork. 

 

Yet, I'm still optimistic or at least open minded that future while not utopian could well be brighter then it is now.  

[Nungali]

I thought an age depended on what geological evidence was laid down?  Maybe deep site radioactive waste burial ( that may be scarce although around a long time { I am about to start some work with Bismuth, that has a radioactive half-life longer than the age of the Universe } )  or plastic deposits on the ocean floor ?

 

In any case, it may not matter, in geological time, a few 10,000 years this way or that.  The future will work it out.  Maybe far in the future, whoever finds it, will declare it was the age when billions of human skeletons, cars, concrete, computers and mobile phones and garbage are all compressed together in a layer.

 

Also, sorry to be critical, but your Godzilla theme was off, if I may cut and reinsert ...

 

 

cue Godzilla theme : 

 

 

[thelerner]

I thought an age depended on what geological evidence was laid down?  Maybe deep site radioactive waste burial ( that may be scarce although around a long time { I am about to start some work with Bismuth, that has a radioactive half-life longer than the age of the Universe } )  or plastic deposits on the ocean floor ?

 

In any case, it may not matter, in geological time, a few 10,000 years this way or that.  The future will work it out.  Maybe far in the future, whoever finds it, will declare it was the age when billions of human skeletons, cars, concrete, computers and mobile phones and garbage are all compressed together in a layer.

 

Also, sorry to be critical, but your Godzilla theme was off, if I may cut and reinsert ...

cue Godzilla theme : 

 

If the dinosaurs and godzilloids became oil I wonder what we'll become  (yeah I know it was grass trees other carbon stuf)

perhaps some sort of drug, that'd be cool.

& thats the worst Godzilla song I ever heard.  Whats she trying to do, date him??

Edited April 7, 2015 by thelerner

[Nungali]

If the dinosaurs and godzilloids became oil I wonder what we'll become  (yeah I know it was grass trees other carbon stuf)

perhaps some sort of drug, that'd be cool.

& thats the worst Godzilla song I ever heard.  Whats she trying to do, date him??

 

Ah! There is karma for ya! maybe we will end up replacing all that oil that we used  

 

As far as the music goes, what? ... you didnt know the Japanese love Godzilla ?  Even when he flies off after destroying their city they wave handkerchiefs and cry (well, they did in one movie I saw).  Actually <hangs head in shame> one of the movies I worked on was a Godzilla movie      .... it was fun when they dropped a huge concrete block from a very high crane on to a car though .... whhhhhhhhhosh!  splat   < 'photoshop' in Godzilla foot > .

 

Ahem .... sorry, now, back on topic.

 

Love ?  They worship him ! 

 

and now ... in stereo ;

 

Edited April 7, 2015 by Nungali

[Nungali]

WTF was that! ? 

 

(Sorry, I spun myself out then   )

[Geof Nanto]

Human activity, like all processes, are a function of the Dao. (To use Daoist terminology.)  Consequently there is no central planning that took us in this direction - just countless billions of human / environment interactions over time. Similarly, the future will continue to unfold as it will. We human like to think we have some capacity to centrally plan and control, but this is largely an illusion - as the climate change debate dramatically demonstrates.

 

To my mind a better description than the anthropocene of our current epoch is the age of machines. Machines are a new form of 'life' that present new problems for our environment because environmental processes have not evolved around them. Although we like to think machines are our servants, really the reverse has more truth. Life now is more machine-like than ever. We live faster, 24/7 lives, totally divorced from natural rhythms such as the seasons and day and night. Sure, machines expand our capacities, but only in ways that machines are capable of.

 

Basically, this epoch is a time of rapid change. Our planet has evolved hyper-complex systems of interactions over billions of years of gradual evolution. Machines present a massive challenge for integration into these living systems - perhaps as apocalyptic for existing life forms as the great oxidation event of around  2.3 billion years ago.  We humans and machines and in the process of developing a complex symbiotic relationship in conjunction with all other environmental systems on our planet. Or at least, only those relationships that entail sufficient symbiosis to survive will survive long term. And who knows how that will look. 

[dawei]

Human activity, like all processes, are a function of the Dao. (To use Daoist terminology.)  Consequently there is no central planning that took us in this direction - just countless billions of human / environment interactions over time. Similarly, the future will continue to unfold as it will. We human like to think we have some capacity to centrally plan and control, but this is largely an illusion - as the climate change debate dramatically demonstrates.

 

To my mind a better description than the anthropocene of our current epoch is the age of machines. Machines are a new form of 'life' that present new problems for our environment because environmental processes have not evolved around them. Although we like to think machines are our servants, really the reverse has more truth. Life now is more machine-like than ever. We live faster, 24/7 lives, totally divorced from natural rhythms such as the seasons and day and night. Sure, machines expand our capacities, but only in ways that machines are capable of.

 

So there is a 'we' in this age of machines... we made these machines... 

 

Is this human [mechanistic] determinism?   Human reconstruction in terms of a mechanistic society...  

 

I don't think that is the point... but rather the arrogance of human influence.  

 

So your point is the influence is MACHINES?

 

Is that a societal influence or a global influence?

 

For example: Does it change the planetary orbits?

[Geof Nanto]

From your response we seem to be approaching the topic from incompatible perspectives. Mine is underpinned by non-anthropocentric systems theory - and especially the social systems theory of Niklas Luhmann.  

 

So there is a 'we' in this age of machines... we made these machines... 

 

My implication is that 'we' are all processes within the patterns of the Dao.

 

Is this human [mechanistic] determinism?   Human reconstruction in terms of a mechanistic society...  

 

Mine original comment actual negates any suggestion of any type of determinism.

 

I don't think that is the point... but rather the arrogance of human influence.  

 

I agree about human arrogance and hubris. These are issues addressed at a fundamental level by radical sociologists such as Luhmann. 

 

So your point is the influence is MACHINES?

 

Is that a societal influence or a global influence?

 

For example: Does it change the planetary orbits?

 

This seems to entirely miss my point about the evolutionary interactions over time of hyper-complex systems, as expressed in my final paragraph above. It's correct, though, that I'm only addressing issues on our planet and that's obviously insignificant when taken in relationship to the whole universe.

 

 

Basically, this epoch is a time of rapid change. Our planet has evolved hyper-complex systems of interactions over billions of years of gradual evolution. Machines present a massive challenge for integration into these living systems - perhaps as apocalyptic for existing life forms as the great oxidation event of around  2.3 billion years ago.  We humans and machines and in the process of developing a complex symbiotic relationship in conjunction with all other environmental systems on our planet. Or at least, only those relationships that entail sufficient symbiosis to survive will survive long term. And who knows how that will look. 

 

. 

Edited April 7, 2015 by Darkstar

[dawei]

From your response we seem to be approaching the topic from incompatible perspectives. 

 

This seems to entirely miss my point about the evolutionary interactions over time of hyper-complex systems, as expressed in my final paragraph above. 

 

I just asked a few questions to see your point.   Thanks.

[Geof Nanto]

I just asked a few questions to see your point.   Thanks.

 

No problem. I'm relieved I haven't got myself embroiled in a dispute I never meant to start in the first place.

[Nungali]

What ? The Anthropocene age is over already !    Blinked and missed it.  It makes sense though.

 

Correct my above to ' a very thin layer of bones and garbage, overlaid by a thicker one from the Mechanacene period. '