The Anthropocene

The idea of “the Anthropocene” was first formalized around 2000, although the concept itself had existed for years prior. Its common definition can be summarized as: “a distinct time period, one whose initiating event was driven by and whose planetary effects continue to be shaped by humans.” While its exact classification is contentious (some argue that it is an epoch unto itself, some maintain that it is a subdivision of the Holocene), very few scientists disagree that there have been considerable anthropogenic impacts on the planet—and that these impacts continue to increase in severity.

The Anthropocene is primarily defined by geologic time: it is discussed in terms of human impacts on geologic processes. Thus, to quantify its effects, we may look to the fossil record; core glacial ice and benthic sediments; analyze atmospheric conditions; or use any of a wide-ranging cohort of other clues. The hidden treasures to which these maps lead us are not entirely confined to geology. The fossil record shows us a sample of the flora and fauna that were once present. Ice and sediment cores function as both fossils and chemical records by preserving markers of environmental conditions that may have affected the organisms therein. Atmospheric conditions, such as the depth of the ozone layer, provide information on what sort of life was best suited to the planet.

Geologic definitions are useful, but not wholly applicable to environmental concerns. Within the narrower scope of conservation, the Anthropocene's definition can be revised as follows: “a distinct time period, one marked by significant anthropogenic effects on ecological and biological processes, and with an increased extinction rate when compared to non-catastrophic previous time periods”. This is, in many ways, a useful concept. It is often helpful to have a simple way to talk about the confluence of anthropogenic effects. However, the idea of “the Anthropocene” itself has more drawbacks than benefits, especially in scientific communication to members of the broader public.

“The Anthropocene” provides a convenient scapegoat upon which to place our ecological woes; it serves as an Atlas of environmentalism, stoically bearing the burdens of the world. The Google Scholar results for “Anthropocene conservation” reveal paper after paper pointing towards “the Anthropocene” as the culprit behind extinctions, ecological collapses, climate change, and myriad other negatives. It is certainly true that modern human development is a major driver of these things, especially climate change; however, when all the blame is pinned on “humans in the Anthropocene”, three things happen.

First, the public image of conservation and ecological remediation suffers. Most people dislike feeling like they are being blamed for something, especially when the issue in question manifests itself on a global scale and cannot have stemmed from any one individual or community. Many people also have a justifiable resentment towards being talked down to, or treated like they are lesser-than in any sense: morally, economically, intellectually, etc. So, if we just say “this is because of the actions of humans,” and we don't provide any compassion or understanding towards the humans who acted, we burn our bridges before they’re even built.

For example: poor people are often spoken of as though they are ignorant of or callous towards environmental degradation. However, they depend the most on the environments in question. Their surroundings may hold cultural, practical, or economic significance; in any case, once the resources are gone, the people who needed them suffer. They know this. We need to work with them to find sustainable solutions to their problems – ones that don’t negatively impact their lives. In general, Indigenous, rural, and developing communities are mostly excluded from the process of making decisions that directly affect them and their livelihoods. They see their needs dismissed in favor of conserving the environment in a way that they can’t work with. This often results in resentment and surreptitious rule-breaking. I’ve been told that, if you can speak candidly to landowners about the Endangered Species Act, it becomes clear that the phrase “shoot, shovel, and shut up” has real meaning.

In the past, this sort of behavior was nearly the entirety of the field. To many people, “conservation efforts” largely translated to “strangers coming to our homes to tell us what we’re doing wrong and say that they know better than we do.” Now, in the present, environmentalism is not helped when its proponents continue to fly the banner of “the Anthropocene”. We should be working to improve this negative perspective of our work, rather than continuing the patterns that have led to its development.

The second problem with blaming “the Anthropocene” is that it provides an easy way out of examining any deeper variables that affect any particular event or area. If there is an environmental issue such as contaminants in the drinking water, and we find that a factory upstream has been releasing chemicals from its waste, there are more factors at play than “ah, it's humans”. It's simple to write a report and say that it's an anthropogenic problem, but if we don't look further to discern the patterns behind the processes, we won't be able to make progress in combating the problem.

Why is the factory releasing these chemicals? It's because disposing of them properly is not a profitable option. Why isn't it profitable to be responsible? Is it because the chemicals cost a lot of money to handle? Is it because there aren't services available to handle them? Is it because the factory is already struggling to remain competitive in the market and, even if disposal were cheaper, it would drive up costs too much to remain in business? Is it because the factory owner is greedy and wants to get more cash at any cost to others? Each of these explanations requires a different approach. They are not mutually exclusive, either – and their combined interactions further complicate a scene that is already never as clear-cut as “people are bad and need to be regulated, threatened, or punished in order to do good.” Simply pointing towards “the Anthropocene” as the cause of these problems does nothing to move us towards a solution.

Finally, when we say “the Anthropocene,” we often imply that this state of the world was inevitable; that humans are an inexorable force that could not have been averted or taken a different path. This perspective directly leads to the thought that conservation is a battle being fought against human nature itself, which in turn leads to the aforementioned regulate-threaten-punish approach to environmental actions. This fosters resentment in the regulated-threatened-punished people.

Starting from the assumption that people don’t want to positively affect the environment means that we think of ourselves in the wrong way. We should consider ourselves environmental mediators, people who work to help bridge the gap between the needs of different parties; instead we see ourselves as law enforcement to a reluctant population, and act accordingly. This does nothing to endear the idea of conservation to non-conservationists. Sanctions and shame can be motivators, it’s true. However, incentives and understanding do much more to build trust and make it clear that we care about the wellbeing of the people we work with, rather than seeing them as an impediment to a healthy planet.

Because of the complex nature of humans and human interactions (with the environment and each other), a broad concept of “the Anthropocene” is not useful. It's difficult to accurately and usefully capture the nuances of environmental consequences and potential solutions when the only word we have is so general. And, as the old adage goes, “when all you have is a hammer… everything looks like a nail.” When all we talk about is “the Anthropocene,” everything can be traced back to humans and nothing else needs to be examined. In terms of conservation, this setup is inadequate at best. More often than not, it is actively harmful to our goals. As environmentalists, we have a duty to work with and for the broader public – not to work around or in spite of them.

Organizations talk a lot about stakeholders, or parties directly affected by the discussion at hand. When it comes to conservation, everyone is a stakeholder, and we have a responsibility to make our work as open, transparent, and accessible as possible. This is not a field that can be furthered solely by conversations between “certified scientists" -- if we can't give people a good reason to care, we can't make any progress towards our goals.