
We Are Living in the Anthropocene - huihuiilly
http://bostonreview.net/forum/jedediah-purdy-new-nature
======
thaumaturgy
This topic is honey for political junkies, but there are reasonable geological
arguments in favor of this, and many of the arguments opposed to it are
political or ideological in nature (the "but man is natural" argument for
instance).

Epochs are defined by noticeable, large-scale changes in rock strata in lots
of places around the globe: glaciation, extinction events, increased
volcanism, movement of the continents.

It's inarguable that humans have had an impact on the planet which will be
measurable in the rock strata for millions of years to come. We've tweaked the
isotopes found in the air (the atomic age), we've spiked the carbon content of
the atmosphere in a very short period of time, and our dominance of the planet
has brought the extinction of many, many other species. These are facts which
stand regardless of personal politics.

Maybe the best non-political argument against an anthropocene is that it makes
the Holocene epoch almost meaninglessly short. I dunno.

Anyway, adopting, or not, this new definition will have basically zero impact
on anyone's life who isn't a geochronologist, but here we are.

~~~
jason__
The new definition is a conscious acknowledgement of our (humanity's) impact
on our surroundings at a global scale.

It is good for us to be aware of this when we make our decisions,
geochronologist or not.

------
callekabo
I rarely come across a piece I disagree with so vehemently, at such a core
level.

My conclusion is rather: The politics of the Anthropocene will be democratic
and horrible.

This article has pushed me more firmly into the re-naturalization camp of
politics, economics, and nature.

I enjoyed reading it though, nice to see someone actually thinking about these
things and not just being touchy-feely.

------
jrochkind1
Nature is no more or less "natural" than ever. Humans (and non-human animals!)
have always and forever effected the ecosystem(s) they participate in.
Sometimes in drastic ways.

It's true that we've increased the scale by an order of magnitude. or two. And
it's probably true that it's not going to be pretty.

But it's no more or less "natural" than ever. "Natural" is probably not that
useful a concept in general, it doesn't really mean anything in general, just
like it doesn't mean anything on your food label.

> Both politics and the economy remain subject to persistent re-naturalization
> campaigns, whether from religious fundamentalists in politics or from market
> fundamentalists in economics.

Indeed, the whole concept of "the natural" is arguably always a right-wing and
reactionary one. Used by people generally under a fantasy about what things
_really_ "used to be" like, and that it was "always" that fantasy from forever
until recently. I don't think it's a useful concept, I think it's downright
dangerous when the fudamentalists start thinking they know what's "natural"
(and thus, they assume, "good") and what isn't. But "sustainable" might be a
useful concept for evaluation. As well as simply "good for humans", which is
obviously subjective and a political question (a question of values and
interests), instead of the feigned objectivity of "the natural". There's
values and interests in the "re-naturalization" programs of fundamentalists
and radical reactionaries too, despite their protestations to the contrary.

tldr: I think things are going to shit too, but thinking there's such a thing
as 'the natural' _and you know what it is_ , tends to make it worse.

~~~
the_jeremy
The reductionism take seems to be fairly popular on HN in general, and it's
kind of frustrating.

You can technically make that argument that humans are natural and therefore
all of their impacts are also natural, but the fact remains that when shown a
picture of a forest and a cityscape, everyone will instinctively know which
one is more natural.

Nature is a useful concept. There are mental health benefits to being around
nature[0], there are physical benefits of being around less pollution, there
are future-of-the-human-race benefits to keeping things closer to the status
quo than we're on pace to do with global climate change. We are changing our
planet, in some ways positively and in some ways detrimentally, but it's
pedantic to argue that this change is "natural".

[0][https://www.washingtonpost.com/national/health-
science/study...](https://www.washingtonpost.com/national/health-
science/study-being-around-trees-and-other-greenery-may-help-teens-stave-off-
depression/2018/01/19/252df102-fc92-11e7-ad8c-ecbb62019393_story.html?utm_term=.e70665481eb6)

~~~
ar-jan
The issue is that even a huge ecosystem like the Amazon, which we tend to
consider "natural", has in fact been heavily shaped by humans.

~~~
dwaltrip
I see your point... However, fortunately, we are still able to tell the
difference between a city block and the Amazon rainforest. The distinction
between the two is still meaningful.

------
polotics
The brief timespan of the Cretaceous–Paleogene extinction event does not get a
"-cene", let's maybe wait a few million years and see what/who's left before
branding ourselves anything but an extinction trigger.

------
blaze33
Is this natural or artificial? Ever asked if a part of the rainbow is black or
white?

Ultimately, let's not forget the name of the game: survival of the fittest.
Unless free-will allows the choice to play another game ;)

Edit: apologies for my first downvoted comment, never meant to bring negative
value to the discussion, especially on a topic that I'm glad to see here. Any
improvement tips to share? :)

------
RcouF1uZ4gsC
Humans are a part of nature. Everything we do and all our technology is based
on the laws of nature. Therefore by definition, everything we do is natural.
Animals in general try to create an environment that is suitable for them -
whether it be be birds building a nest, or beavers building a dam. Humans are
just really, really good at modifying their environment, but we are still a
part of nature.

~~~
yummypaint
This line of reasoning appears frequently, but it misses the concept people
are referring to when they say nature. Words are defined through their use,
and no person would describe a parking lot or the inside of a building as a
natural environment.

I think most people picture a place without human activity at all when they
imagine a fully "natural" environment, like an island thats never had people
on it. In this interpretation, people living naturally would cause their
environment to deviate minimally from how it would be in their absence.

We are currently the direct cause of an ongoing mass extinction. We have
yanked the surface of the planet so far from equilibrium that it may never
return to its previous state. We are from being a part of nature.

~~~
whytaka
I agree with this definition of words and their utility, but I also agree with
GPs definition of nature. Now we have two running definitions and they
contradict, thus a debate ensues. Political debates are often a matter of
warring sides trying to establish their meaning of a word over the other's.

Thankfully, we also have a reasonable expectation in the use of words in that
they map to something real. The broader the internal consistency of that word,
the more 'authoritative' it should be - although, admittedly, this is just my
opinion. (Politics will surely have some say about this.)

On defining nature, we have witnessed two definitions.

1\. Not human.

2\. All of the cosmos.

Those who appreciate the theory of evolution, I think, will have a harder time
determining where the threshold between human and nature would be.

~~~
ravenstine
> Those who appreciate the theory of evolution, I think, will have a harder
> time determining where the threshold between human and nature would be.

All human terms are subjective that way. The universe is relative and
probabilistic. Ideas like "nature" can be useful, but that's not to say the
universe has a boolean type called "Nature" that actually exists in any
objective sense.

Yet we keep having these sorts of debates year after year. Nothing exists in
the ways that most people think them to be. I could care less whether
something is "natural" if the conclusion has no use.

