Do We Humans Deserve to Have a Geological Period Named After Us?
Nature has been an integral part of human society throughout history—from religion to poetry to our very livelihood. Today the relevance of nature lives on, redressed in the language of science. One scientific concept linking humanity with nature is the Anthropocene, a proposed geological epoch that describes the current period where human activity has been the dominant influence on climate and ecosystems.
Yet not everyone is on board with the idea of a human epoch. In his article “The Anthropocene is a Joke,” Peter Brannen shows his disapproval of our growing affinity for the Anthropocene, dismissing it as a product of “our species’ peculiar, self-styled exceptionalism.” Geologically speaking, Brannen argues, the entire human history is irrelevant: if we were to “run a 26.2-mile marathon covering the entire retrospective sweep of Earth’s history,” the first five-foot stride would land us more than 150,000 years before humans appeared on Earth.
Not only is human history incredibly short on the geological scale, but also “very little of our handiwork will survive the obliteration of the ages.” Brannen goes on to raise the following question: when dinosaurs whose existence lasted 36,000 times as long as recorded human history barely left behind anything for us to see, what makes us think our legacy will be enduring enough to deserve an epoch named after us?
It seems pedantic, however, to be caught up in the specific details of what makes a period an epoch and whether human history has lived up to those requirements. Dismissing the Anthropocene as a “joke” just because human beings have not been around for long enough does not make a cogent argument. Consider two time periods: a relatively short period (say 5,000 years) when Earth went through a series of drastic changes and a relatively long period (say 50 million years) when barely anything occurred. Why is it that the latter deserves to be called an epoch but not the former? Determining if a period is an epoch based on time length is flawed—if we were to go by anything, measuring the extent of impact would clearly be a better choice.
Similarly, arguing against the idea of a human epoch because human impact won’t be enduring enough to “survive the obliteration of the ages” also seems very pedantic. The short-livedness of our influences in itself should not disqualify us from naming an epoch after ourselves. If we were to succumb to the mentality that something is not important if its impact won’t exist for a long time, then nothing really matters as anything that occurs, no matter how long-lasting or impactful it might seem to us, would be negligible geologically speaking.
A constructive discussion, then, calls for a shift away from a pedantic, strictly scientific view of what constitutes an epoch and toward an emphasis on making practical use of the term Anthropocene in the political arena. While the legitimacy of the Anthropocene as an epoch is debatable, what is undeniable and tangible is the direct impact that human actions had and continue to have on the natural world. As Kathleen McAfee warns in her article “The Politics of Nature in the Anthropocene,” the world is currently witnessing “overflowing carbon sinks and imminent climate catastrophe, disappearing species and vanishing ecosystems, and insufficient land, water, and food for a burgeoning humanity.”
Recognizing the Anthropocene, an umbrella term that serves to encompass the entirety of human effects on nature, would be a great first step to remedying the current situation. In his book After Nature: A Politics for the Anthropocene, Jedediah Purdy puts it best when he says, “The environment had to be named before people could join together to try to save it. The Anthropocene has to be named before people can try to take responsibility for it.” Popularizing an umbrella term like the Anthropocene could work wonders in politics.
Too often we see activist groups advocating for similar environmental causes end up being seen as completely unrelated to each other, leading to a lack of political momentum in their respective movements. After all, why would someone busy providing clean water for their hometown go out of their way to advocate for wildlife preservation? This is where the Anthropocene comes in handy: rather than presenting issues such as water pollution and wildlife preservation individually, the Anthropocene unifies them under one overarching category. By connecting a broad range of seemingly unrelated issues, the Anthropocene would help gain political momentum for environmental causes across the board, prompting us all to consider the big picture and reflect on our collective behavior.
The Anthropocene could also be used in politics to create an even ground for groups impacted differently by human-caused environmental upheavals. Of course, current repercussions in nature such as air pollution and sea level rise are worrisome for everyone. But for vulnerable, marginalized groups, the impact could be especially brutal. To make things worse, some groups are even benefiting financially from the continuous environmental destruction. It should be our collective responsibility to make sure that vulnerable populations are protected and that inhumane personal gains are eradicated.
In her review of the book The Politics of the Anthropocene by John Dryzek and Jonathan Pickering, Eva Lövbrand emphasizes the dire need for political leaders to “speak for vulnerable and marginalized environments that dominant institutions are so bad at listening to,” since we are now living in a world where “environmental risk and suffering often are disconnected and displaced from the centers of power and wealth in which they originate.” By discussing the Anthropocene in the context of politics more, we would be able to better identify and help those in our society who are hit particularly hard by the repercussions that we have collectively caused in the natural world.
The Anthropocene is a thought-provoking new concept that has different meanings depending on which perspective we are looking from. Exploring the Anthropocene in geological terms would lead to a scientific yet highly pedantic discussion where we don’t go much beyond debating the legitimacy of the Anthropocene as an epoch. However, used in the context of politics, the Anthropocene would be an enriching concept for thinking about human impact on the natural world, encouraging us to not only ruminate on human behavior as a whole, but also address the real-world consequences of our actions.
Work Cited
Brannen, P. (2019). The Anthropocene is a Joke. The Atlantic.
McAfee, K. (2016). The Politics of Nature in the Anthropocene. RCC Perspectives: Transformations in Environment and Society.
Purdy, J. (2018). After nature: A politics for the anthropocene. Harvard University Press.
Lövbrand E. (2019). The Politics of the Anthropocene, by John Dryzek and Jonathan Pickering. Environmental Politics.
