http://www.tomdispatch.com/post/174949/mike_davis_welcome_to_the_next_epoch

Although the idea of the "Anthropocene" -- an Earth epoch defined by the emergence of urban-industrial society as a geological force -- has been long debated, stratigraphers have refused to acknowledge compelling evidence for its advent.

At least for the London Society, that position has now been revised.

To the question "Are we now living in the Anthropocene?" the 21 members of the Commission unanimously answer "yes." They adduce robust evidence that the Holocene epoch -- the interglacial span of unusually stable climate that has allowed the rapid evolution of agriculture and urban civilization -- has ended and that the Earth has entered "a stratigraphic interval without close parallel in the last several million years." In addition to the buildup of greenhouse gases, the stratigraphers cite human landscape transformation which "now exceeds [annual] natural sediment production by an order of magnitude," the ominous acidification of the oceans, and the relentless destruction of biota.


It goes on in that vein.

This century is going to be full of mischief and hilarity.

Well, I don't know about global warming, and I don't know much about the acidification of the ocean, but mankind has been changing the landscape for hundreds of years. Didn't a large portion of either northern Italy or southern France used to be marshes until the Romans drained them?

For thousands of years humans have cut down trees, this has lead to the creation of many of the arid and inhospitable places in the world now. I do not what your exact point is NOG but I am going to assume the worst. Just because man have destroyed (or changed but most of the changes tend to lead to negative consequences in the long run) our environment for millenia it doesn't mean we should continue to do so. It is about time we break the age old human tradition of wrecking our habitat.

Well, I don't know about global warming, and I don't know much about the acidification of the ocean, but mankind has been changing the landscape for hundreds of years. Didn't a large portion of either northern Italy or southern France used to be marshes until the Romans drained them?

Not the point. The point is that the Geological Society of London unanimously thinks we've entered an epoch in which human activity is the defining geological force.

Not the point. The point is that the Geological Society of London unanimously thinks we've entered an epoch in which human activity is the defining geological force.

Thanks for clarifying as I couldn't quite get what they were talking about.

When we can stop volcanos from erupting, hurricanes, earthquakes, and only make it rain at night from 2am to 5am then I'm willing to believe we are defining geological forces.

Levelling mountains is pretty heavy defining geological force.

A few billion human beings in cities are a defining geological force.

The ability to irradiate the whole damn planet few times over is a pretty damn strong geological force.

Levelling mountains is pretty heavy defining geological force.

A few billion human beings in cities are a defining geological force.

The ability to irradiate the whole damn planet few times over is a pretty damn strong geological force.

1.) LEVELING I think is still a bit out of our practical abilities, though we can certainly re-shape them.

2.) When you look at the environmental impacts, yes, but not the geological ones. This generally doesn't re-shape the surface of the earth any more than moving around some small hills. Earchquakes can easily do more than that.

3.) Again, not really a geological force, but also not one that's actually happened yet. Let's stick to what we've done.

All in all, my point is that, even on the environmental level, we're really only becoming one of the major forces, but on a geological level we're barely more than overactive ants. Mind you, I'll agree the direction of our force needs to change. We need to move from 'doing whatever to make ourselves comfortable' to actively being responsable stuarts of the environment.

All in all, my point is that, even on the environmental level, we're really only becoming one of the major forces, but on a geological level we're barely more than overactive ants. Mind you, I'll agree the direction of our force needs to change. We need to move from 'doing whatever to make ourselves comfortable' to actively being responsable stuarts of the environment.

What did the biosphere look like a few hundred years ago? What does it look like now? If there was a dramatic shift (and, y'know, there was), what caused it?

To put this another way, what did North America look like in 1492; what does it look like now; what prompted the change?

Human activity. Or, as one of the passages from the paper reads,

the combination of extinctions, global species migrations and the widespread replacement of natural vegetation with agricultural monocultures is producing a distinctive contemporary biostratigraphic signal. These effects are permanent, as future evolution will take place from surviving (and frequently anthropogenically relocated) stocks

We have radically altered the trajectory of evolution, on a global scale. Our activities have had and continue to have vastly more impact than the volcanoes, hurricanes, and weather Snook points to.

That's a big deal. Especially since--and I don't expect anyone to disagree on this point--our impact has been, mmm, almost entirely negative.

Ah, but 'extinctions, global species migrations and the widespread replacement of natural vegetation with agricultural monocultures' aren't geological issues. They are ecosystem issues. Geological issues would be present when turning swamps into plains, when builing or destroying islands, when raising or leveling mountains, but not even wiping out a whole species counts as a geological issue (as I understand the term).

Especially since--and I don't expect anyone to disagree on this point--our impact has been, mmm, almost entirely negative.Oh sure I'll disagree. It depends completely on your POV of course, but from a Human race perspective, I'd have to say our impact is almost entirely positive.

Ah, but 'extinctions, global species migrations and the widespread replacement of natural vegetation with agricultural monocultures' aren't geological issues. They are ecosystem issues. Geological issues would be present when turning swamps into plains, when builing or destroying islands, when raising or leveling mountains, but not even wiping out a whole species counts as a geological issue (as I understand the term).

from the article

The London Society is the world's oldest association of Earth scientists, founded in 1807, and its Commission acts as a college of cardinals in the adjudication of the geological time-scale. Stratigraphers slice up Earth's history as preserved in sedimentary strata into hierarchies of eons, eras, periods, and epochs marked by the "golden spikes" of mass extinctions, speciation events, and abrupt changes in atmospheric chemistry.

BTA, in the short term, perhaps. But, well, like the wiki (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Erosion) says:

Approximately 40% of the world's agricultural land is seriously degraded.[1] According to the UN, an area of fertile soil the size of Ukraine is lost every year because of drought, deforestation and climate change.[2] In Africa, if current trends of soil degradation continue, the continent might be able to feed just 25% of its population by 2025, according to UNU's Ghana-based Institute for Natural Resources in Africa

Which isn't good for anyone. At all. And that's just one topic; it isn't as though we're lacking areas in which the long term environmental effects of present human activities are, um, not so good. For us, not Tony the Tiger.

Humans have been around for around 200,000 years; that's pretty long term. There are more Humans than ever and the population is still growing. All the doom and gloom assumes Humans will not change their current ways, which has never been the case. When things get bad enough, Humans adapt and change the way they do things. I don't expect that to change in the near or long term :)

When things get bad enough, Humans adapt and change the way they do things. I don't expect that to change in the near or long term :)The problem in this case is that we may pass the point of no return before enough people consider things bad enough. Ideologues have driven the masses to act in their worst interest many times in the past and, while I mostly share your optimism, vigilance is still necessary. If enough newly industrialized nations decide not to adhere to reasonable pollution standards in the name of "progress", they can ruin it for the rest of us for quite some time.

AMaster, I stand corrected. Those events are indeed geological issues. I'm still not sure we're that big of a deal, but we're certainly in the running.

Humans have been around for around 200,000 years; that's pretty long term.

Sorry, I wasn't clear; I specifically had in mind the shift that came with industrialization. In the short term, air conditioning is sweet. In the long term, the ozone layer is sweeter (yeah, we solved that issue, but you get the point).

All the doom and gloom assumes Humans will not change their current ways, which has never been the case. When things get bad enough, Humans adapt and change the way they do things.

No, that's not the assumption. Think of Smith's invisible hand; the market (that is, human activity relating the environment) will pretty much self-correct. It's just, y'know, sometimes the process of crash-correct is really painful. The purpose of governmental intervention in the market (that is, efforts to curb our environmental impact) is to make crash-correct cycle less painful.

'Painful' in this context is more than a slight understatement.