Taking responsibility for the anthropocene

The labeling of the current geological epoch as the Anthropocene is a useful concept, proposed by Crutzen and Stoermer in 2000^1,2 to draw attention to planetary-scale human-driven change. The idea has taken hold of the imagination of scientists as well as the public, and the name is likely to be formalized soon by stratigraphers and legitimized in geoscience.

The Anthropocene is the name given, first technically and now in the popular imagination, to the present epoch in geological time, characterized by physical, chemical, and biological characteristics that are driven by human activity and shaped by human influence. The concept is bold because it suggests a break with the geophysical and evolutionary past in which the planet’s immediate past (in geological terms) has been the result of human agency. Its onset has been variously dated from the earliest geological traces that reflect human activity, the adoption of practices that change ecosystems (such as setting fires to clear forest and promote species diversity), the invention of agriculture, or the Industrial Revolution, which, to be fair, have all occurred in an instant of geological time. Its future, for as long as can be imagined, will be the direct result of decisions made and implemented by people. Even places that are preserved are now mostly protected by human choice and therefore fall outside the force of unmitigated natural processes. Even these places have been bounded, touched by contamination, and encroached upon.

If unintentional human activity has already changed the planet, it follows that intentional restoration of some tolerable balance will require intervention and preservation on the same scale. The planet has lost its capacity to self-correct to a tolerable equilibrium (popularized by the Gaia hypothesis) and now requires active human management. This is a tragedy. It means taking responsibility for managing a planet that has been managed first unconsciously, then unintentionally, and now irresponsibly.

To change course means taking responsibility for the current state of the planet and more importantly managing its future, because it can no longer manage itself as it has over geological time. The world will of course equilibrate but at extremes that may not be tolerable to human life and continuity of contemporary society. Like it or not, humankind must increase the control it exerts because it now has to run the planet actively and with intention.

For reconciliation and recompense, the first step is to admit responsibility. How difficult this is, is amply demonstration by the failure of leadership in the single most important country in accelerating the Anthropocene, the United States, to admit that climate change is even real. Thus, it may be necessary to skip this step in order to proceed, although to do undermines the consensus on moral grounds that action must be taken. The admission that climate change exists and that human agency is driving the world toward an unacceptable condition, for human beings no less than other species, will be made tacitly, in the form of actions taken on other grounds (such as disaster mitigation or reforestation), by the marketplace (such as the demise of coal) or with no explanation required (as, in the United States, contingency planning by the military to accommodate climate change-induced flooding).

And going forward, will we take responsibility for the future of the Anthropocene? How would such an effort be governed (in terms of setting goals, deciding on viable action, financing projects, and coordinating interventions), what would be its goals, who has a voice, and whose values decide?

The sociotechnical solutions required to manage a planet have implications for solving other problems, either as a natural consequence, such as gains in health, or by design, such as reducing inequity.³ As climate change approaches crisis, consensus on sociotechnical solutions may be forced, probably not always to our liking. However, anticipating and planning to avoid impending crisis does not seem to be particularly successful either, either historically or at present; the crisis itself seems to be required before action can be agreed upon. If crisis is averted, will the same root causes of the problem reassert themselves? How can survivability be sustained?³

Protecting what is left and restoring some tolerable natural equilibrium will require far greater scientific understanding and data collection than ever before. Sustaining planetary management will be fraught with conflicts of values and contested goals. No human institution or civilization has demonstrated the capacity to resolve these conflicts and to sustain massive intervention on this scale. Could the unifying values ultimately emerge from health (personal motivation), protection of our children (collective motivation), self-interest (the Pareto 80% solution of market economics and democracy), and technology (applying values of empiricism: objective assessment, pragmatism, and performance evaluation to particularistic solutions)?

Managing the Anthropocene actively, with intent and a goal of a habitable planet, is the only way forward. We humans have created causes with no capacity to manage the consequences.³ We have not controlled the forces we have unleashed. However now we must and that means knowing exactly how the system works in real and concrete terms, and that means science.

Tee Guidotti
Editor Emeritus
[email protected]