Great Anthropocene Essay

In “The Changing Nature of Nature: Environmental Politics in the Anthropocene” environmental politician Paul Wapner depicts the human impacts on nature, and their significant intervention in ecosystem dynamics. His research outlines the “end of nature” (Wapner, 37) and aims to put emphasis on the beginning of the Anthropocene, suggesting that we are finally realizing that nature is not merely a material object. With this in mind, Wapner argues that the ways in which we protect nature should be significantly different, this, justifying his study. In order to form an argument, Wapner begins by summarizing a general piece of academic research, and through this is then able to provide an organized overview of the logic of his argument. The alternation

Ecomodernist’s believe that modernization is the major tool to resolving environmental issues. Ecomodernist’s feel as though society needs to always progress and that humanity cannot ever slow down or else development would stop completely. Ecomodernist’s view modernity as the human separation from mastery over nature (Taylor). This perspective stresses the idea of using our technological and

As Professor Foster explained the core of the needed ecological revolution is in viewing the world ecologically, which involves recognizing that modern human societies are ecosystem-dependent and thus rejecting the assumption that societies are “exempt” from the forces of nature. The wrong conceptual thinking that our technology and economic system can find solutions to our problems, recalls the Midas Effect in which Gold (THE CAPITAL) becomes more important than Life (Human beings and Planet Earth), where “the logic of capital accumulation runs in direct opposition to environmental sustainability” (The Ecological Rift, Foster,

“The End of Nature,” by Bill McKibben is a startling book of non-fiction depicting the future in store for the environment and humans. His somber yet hopeful approach allows readers to sense the real intensity of this situation of mass environmental changes whilst remaining expectant of the advancements in the

Humanity is confronted by multiple environmental challenges which threaten to undermine the advances in health achieved over recent decades. The Rockefeller Foundation/Lancet Commission on Planetary Health showed how climate change, loss of biodiversity, land use change, ocean acidification and overfishing, nitrogen and phosphorus loading and environmental pollution more generally all have the potential to adversely affect health through a range of pathways1. A recent joint publication by WHO and Convention on Biological Diversity articulated the myriad connections between biodiversity and health and the threats to both posed by environmental change2. The dramatic changes in the global environment have led many scientists to conclude that we are living in a new geological epoch – the Anthropocene – in which the activities of one species – homo sapiens -have become the dominant driving force transforming the Earth’s natural systems3. These natural systems provide food, clean water and air and modulate the global temperature within limits in which humanity has been able to flourish for around 11,500 years during the preceding Holocene epoch.

“Many current discussions about sustainability focus on the ways in which human activity...can be maintained in the future without exhausting all of our current resources… there has been a close correlation between the growth of human society and environmental degradation - as communities grow, the environment often declines” (603).

Do we have hope for our resources and our environment? I think it truly depends on all of us as the upcoming generation to make sure that our resources are used properly. For me it means using the resources, while not depleting all of them. The Earth doesn’t have to be raped, for us to live comfortably. Sustainability is made up of multiple different parts not just a single part.

In the scientific community, climate change is practically undeniable and its universal importance not trivial. However, in respects to a new concept called the Anthropocene, debate has waged over the struggle of its classification. In the article The “Anthropocene” epoch: Scientific decision or political statement?, California State University geological sciences professor Stanley Finney and U.S. Geological Survey geologist Lucy Edwards unmask the current representation of the Anthropocene and explain its implications of being recognized as a geological unit to the ICC. Finney and Edwards examine the basis of the Anthropocene’s validity and lead the reader towards potential political and social motives for proceeding in admitting the Anthropocene

According to the article “The Anthropocene: Can Humans Survive A Human Age?”, our society is now passing through a new geological age so called Anthropocene, characterized by a centralization of the human being in the society. However, looking at the humanity today, it does not seem to be so. I would rather say money is the center of the world nowadays; in fact, everything turns around it: it is a limitless loop that walks with us for our entire life. Because of the people’s careless toward the earth, our home, Anthropocene will be maybe remembered (if it will be even a way to be remembered) as the darkest era for the human species. In fact, the climate and the environment change take hold in this era and they are strictly linked to the bad

Though, stratigraphic conventions presently place the modern world in the Holocene epoch, it is unlikely this classification persists for much longer. As human environmental impacts continue to grow exponentially, it has become increasingly obvious that mankind is no longer a captive participant in the global ecosystem. Instead, throwing off the shackles of environmental determinism, humans have fundamentally altered their relationship with nature, becoming agents of environmental change unlike any the world has witnessed before. This new era, defined by our environmental actions, christened the “Anthropocene,” has become progressively more popular since its inception in the late 1800s. Yet, despite its pervasiveness in today’s scientific literature,

Modernism represents an optimistic view of human impact on the environment that has been the dominant viewpoint for the last 200 years. The knowledge that mankind holds the ability to control the environment heavily stresses why climate change is not such a problem to worry about. One of the core beliefs of the modernistic perspective is that people have no need to fear future environmental disaster because the next technological advancement that will prevent it is right around the corner. Furthermore, those who share this view do not include themselves in their image of the ecosystem, believing they are detached from it. Lastly, a laissez-faire approach is taken to environmental problems, focusing on progression through technology, stressing that as long as progress is made in this area all problems will be fixed. For a modernist, climate change is nothing to worry about. This may be a real situation, but it will be solved with advancements in technology before one’s way of life is changed. What people should be worrying about is ensuring a laissez faire approach to the market with sponsorship to new technologies. As a result of reusable energy technology already existing, modernists believe that the problem of climate change has been solved and without disrupting free market system these technologies will be further implemented. As long as there are people given the opportunity to innovate, some will focus on and ultimately solve the concern of climate change. The issue of

NGS integrates greenhouse into other major policy initiatives, such as the Natural Heritage Trust, and launches new measures to increase greenhouse emission reduction activities across the Australian community. It provides the strategic framework for an effective greenhouse response and for meeting current and future international commitments. It will provide a fresh impetus for action by governments, stakeholder groups and the broader community and set directions for that action into the next century.

Solar energy is the most plentiful and purist renewable energy source available. Because it is completely natural, it is considered to be a clean energy source. It does not disrupt the environment or threaten the Eco-systems the way oil and some other energy sources tend to. Nor does it cause greenhouse gases, air or water pollution. Solar energy is an immensely important aspect of life and has been since the beginning of time. Increasingly, we are learning how to harness this important resource and use it to replace traditional energy sources. Modern technology can utilize this energy in a variety of ways, such as; generating electricity, providing light or a comfortable interior environment, and heating water for domestic, industrial, or commercial use. One day solar energy may well become our primary form of energy. This would lead to a clean environment, less money spent on utilities, and a healthier world. It is highly important because it has the potential to allow technology and nature to co-exist peacefully.

U.S. Conditions like Florida and other states with a high range of hot spells are perfect

Environmentalism is not a new concept. It is a social movement that aims to protect and improve the health of the environment. While humans have accepted this view of environmentalism for the Holocene epoch, political environmentalist Paul Wapner proposes a renewed definition of environmentalism that has emerged in the Anthropocene epoch. Wapner sees the Anthropocene as an epoch of human geological influence, where humans have inflicted a signature on the earth, leaving it “independent of human experience” (37). That is to say, humans have embedded themselves into the earth systems, resulting in a new form of nature that is not autonomous, but rather defined by a hybrid human-nature relationship. This concept of a human-nature hybridity is the foundation for Wapner’s argument of an environmentalism that embraces the post-nature age and calls for a “more sustainable, just and ecologically healthy” (50) future.