EMAIL SIGN UP!
Most Popular This Week
Popular content
Today's Top News
Earth 'Entering New Age of Geological Time'
The Earth has entered a new age of geological time – the epoch of new man, scientists claim.
Humans have wrought such vast and unprecedented changes on the planet that we may be ushering in a new period of geological history.
Earth has entered a new age of geological time Photo: BARCROFT Through pollution, population growth, urbanisation, travel, mining and use of fossil fuels we have altered the planet in ways which will be felt for millions of years, experts believe.
It is feared that the damage mankind has inflicted will lead to the sixth largest mass extinction in Earth's history with thousands of plants and animals being wiped out.
The new epoch, called the Anthropocene - meaning new man - would be the first period of geological time shaped by the action of a single species.
Although the term has been in informal use among scientists for more than a decade, it is now under consideration as an official term.
A new working group of experts has now been established to gather all the evidence which would support recognising it as the successor to the current Holocene epoch.
It will consider changes human activities have brought to Earth's biodiversity and rock structure as well as the impact of factors including pollution and mineral extraction.
It is hoped that within three years, their case will be presented to the International Union of Geological Sciences, which would decide whether the transition to a new epoch has been made.
The theory has been proposed by a group of scientists, including Paul Crutzen, the Nobel Prize-winning atmospheric chemist, in the journal Environmental Science & Technology.
They conclude: "The Anthropocene represents a new phase in the history of both humankind and of the Earth, when natural forces and human forces became intertwined, so that the fate of one determines the fate of the other. Geologically, this is a remarkable episode in the history of this planet."
Dr Jan Zalasiewicz, of the University of Leicester, co-author of the paper, added: "It is suggested that we are in the train of producing a catastrophic mass extinction to rival the five previous great losses of species and organisms in Earth's geological past."
Comments
Note: Disqus 2012 is best viewed on an up to date browser. Click here for information. Instructions for how to sign up to comment can be viewed here. Our Comment Policy can be viewed here. Please follow the guidelines. Note to Readers: Spam Filter May Capture Legitimate Comments...
112 Comments so far
Show AllVast and unprecedented changes? I hardly think so. Besides being a badly misnamed species, homo sapiens flatters itself out of all proportion. The planet has survived many more catastrophic changes since its molten rock originally cooled, and it will again.
If it's recorded at all, the entirety of human development, including its "Anthropocene Era", will be an insignificant blip in geological terms. Perhaps the cockroaches and other much longer enduring species in the evolutionary chain will do a better job this time around.
The geological eras, unless I'm mistaken, traditionally have been designated in relation to fossil evidence. If we follow the same path, the major extinction we are now experiencing will certainly the beginning of a new geological era. And the extinction is without question largely the result of human activity. In addition, the rise in CO2 levels in the atmosphere by 25% or so since the beginning of the Industrial Revolution (causing major atmospheric, oceanographic, and biospheric changes) can also be attributed largely to human activity.
Not very flattering, it's true, but significant nonetheless.
Valid point. I suppose I was reflecting more on the time scales (human versus planetary geology) than anything else. I don't think most other eras have been named after the relatively brief and transient events that preceeded them. But I agree with the general thrust of your comment.
//I don't think most other eras have been named after the relatively brief and transient events that preceeded them.//
That's because those most of those eras were named long before it was understood why the changes came about that made them distinctive. Many of them were named for type localities.
And the Anthropocene /begins/ with homo sapiens (or with the birth of agriculture, depending on how you figure it). How long it will last, no one knows. If it is defined by things like atmospheric and oceanic chemistry, the Epoch could long outlast us.
You are absolutely correct.
I agree that it is "Not very flattering, it's true, but significant nonetheless."
Thanks for your comment, Arry.
This week I attended a presentation which showed photos of an extremely rare plant in my region that had survived since the last ice age. A local botanist, Shan Walsh, dedicated his life to documenting all plant species within this protected wilderness area. Within the past 15 years, that rare plant vanished, leaving only the photos to verify its existence.
Okay, let's go with this: A toxic dump, called planet earth, with a massive loss of biodiversity. Remaining: cockroaches and a few democrats and republicans who make speeches about how the cockroaches must 'tighten their belts' because their jobs have been outsourced and the economy is in a tailspin...
I'm probably guilty of wishful thinking, but I was kinda hoping that the anticipated "mass extinction to rival the five previous great losses of species and organisms in Earth's geological past" might include the democrats and republicans.
What a great idea, RV.
Never fear: it will.
That's a trite brush off and evasion to the fact that humans are actually effecting climate which may effect ecological stability for the whole planet and that we quite literally blow up mountains, cut thousand year old trees for frivolous pattio decks, have destroyed many rivers and lakes to make them uninhabitable for their prior eco-systems, and have poisoned entire ground water systems with industrial agriculture. Have you ever actually seen a clear cut? It looks like an eroded mars scape and turns a lush temperate rainforest into a desert. I find hand waving dismissals of vast ecological change to be childish and vile.
Edit lots of posts slipped in making my same basic point.
Oh, lighten up. I was responding according to the "geological history" context of the article itself.
Yes, I've seen a clear cut. Several of them, in fact, and I deplore the consequences of human planetary depredations as much as anyone. I also deplore the exaggerated homocentric sense of self-importance whereby man claims a "god-given" right to unfettered dominion over the entire earth all other species in it.
It's really quite simple. Either humankind will very soon learn some humility or the planet will teach the lesson to its insignificant tormenter in very emphatic terms.
Is that enough of a serious non-hand waving non-dismissal for you?
And with uranium half life of 4 BILLION years, nucular bomb and "power" contamination LITERALLY to the ends of the earth!
The Antihopescene epoch will likely feature some very interesting elements. I've been adjusting my karma in hopes of returning as a cockroach. I have info for others who wish to join me...only $49.95.
I'm sure that we will go the way of the dinosaurs before too long. The only sad part of that is that we will take so many species with us when we go.
The next wave, in a few billion years, may be the tube worms, etc., that dwell in the ocean depths near volcanic fumaroles. They have chemistry that possibly would thrive in a Venusian atmosphere, which seems to be the way we are headed.
RV
You're logic is strange. You say that homo sapiens
"flatters itself" by thinking that it has had such great influence on the planet. Then you speak of how the planet will survive the our speices. Yeah, that's probably right, it will. But the whole point of our concern and study and hopefully, action on this subject, is that WE WILL SURVIVE ALONG WITH HER (EARTH). In other words, we are or should be working to change our influence or stop our influence to help our selves be able to stay alive and prevent the horrible suffereing that already exists because of our stupidity AND to prevent the terrible suffering if we begin the long and miserable event of extinction, ourselves.
I hope you get what I'm saying. It makes me really mad that some responders say something similar to what you have said. The whole point of working to solve global warming is to keep our planet alive AND our selves.
I agree with you, whole heartedly. Too many people seem to take a blasé above-it-all stance as though the agonies and deaths of billions of innocents would be of no importance. That seems pathological to me.
If my logic is "strange", I simply responded in the same planetary terms as the article itself which refers to humankind's supposedly extraordinary significance in the context of "geological history."
"but we can be tranquil and thankful and proud,
for man's been endowed with a mushroom shaped cloud
and we know for certain that some lovely day
someone will set the spark off
and we will all be blown away!"
The Kingston Trio
This is the way the world ends
This is the way the world ends
This is the way the world ends
Not with a bang, but a whimper.
T.S.Eliot
Blimey! Cheer up Mairhead! Thomas Stearn was on a bummer that day and died a long time before Thatcher/Regan/Bush Snr/Bush Jnr.
What about:
Row, row, row your boat
Gently down the stream
Merrily, merrily, merrily
Life is but a dream
Or:
Stop lamenting what may never happen
On a useful common dreams stream
When there are more people than you can have believed
Fighting to change the course of this reported theme
Just a thought...
Tarai kara
tarai ni
utsuru chimpunkan
From first washing-up
to the very last --
it's all just rigamarole
Anthropocene - meaning new man. Really the words also mean "Stupid Man"
Then it's perfect!
The fact that so much doubt has been successfully seeded by highly paid and trained manipulators of the consciousness (ie: those who are adepts in the science of advertising/greenwashing/selling their souls for filthy lucre) so that many still are deniers of global warming is deftly struck aside by this article. The reason being, the focus is taken away from global warming per se and focusses on the utterly undeniable facts:
1. Our economy is driven by continual growth and continual profit but that relies on an utterly finite resource: Planet Earth.
2. By continually spewing filth into our atmosphere, poisoning our seas and turning our earth into a toxic wasteland, something has to eventually go wrong.
If some people have still been suckered by the lucrative industry of creating doubt or outright denial, those above two facts lay waste to their vile practice. As does the article in the Telegraph, which is - for you good sons and daughters of the US - a highly respected paper in the realm of the right!
The article is in a danger of feeding another fantasy, that there's nothing we can do. In the same way that mindless crap from the world of conspiracy theorists also serves the purpose of disarming hope and castrating any fiery desire to get of our collective arses and do anything about it.
Wrong.
Whether the 'inner circles of power'/illuminati/alien lizards masquerading as world leaders exist or not is utterly beside the point. History shows that all powers can be brought down by mass people power.
There were only 5,000 of us on December 15th at Copenhagen, trying to push through to the Bella Centre. If there were 50,000 we would have broken through and joined those people in the Bella centre who were trying to break out at the same time. That would have made the climate conference memorable for other reasons than their current legacy of the Nothing Doing Conference.
If the article is anything to go by - and if you have a poetic mind - it is a call for all of us to be there next time from the Earth herself. Being in the UK, www.climatecamp.org.uk is the best current movement for us over here. Climate Justice, which is US in origins, is the umbrella organization that makes most sense.
See you next time?
"Time wounds all heals" - John Lennon
"If you are in advertising, shoot yourself now... No, really. kills yourself now." Bill Hicks
Good post, more activism, less blase denial please.
Great post.
I'm working with you on this side of the pond.
Then it really is no more than a pond Lily_otv!
In Copenhagen your compatriots were stunning. The Yes Men provided a fantastic action early on by posing as a Canada ready to apologize for their abhorrent crimes against nature, the main NGOs trying to break out and join us were US led. The 5,000 that marched on the Bella Centre on December 16th had a large US contingency. Climate Camp has now spread to the states. Use those techniques, they have been developed by older folk from the Reclaim The Streets days and they work. RTS are a group that inspired Klein to write No Logo. You can watch the Dec 16th day here: www.reelnews.co.uk
We have managed to gain a high profile in the UK in only five years, take the police to court several times and win consistently, rooted out all agents provocateurs/false flag scum and at the same time, get a clear point across to the wider world without once giving the corporate press the chance to find any evidence of violence. Even when they have smashed our skulls. In fact, the one thing we are most proud of is the fact that at the end of a week long 'flash camp' peppered by daily actions on a well chosen target, we have the best parties I have ever been to and I am an old feller.
The average age is 22 in Climate Camp. The best version of the future is germinal in that movement. I say germinal as there is still a lot of work to be done. But nevertheless, this movement is the best antidote to being overtaken by the horror, that I have ever experienced.
www.climatecamp.org.uk
All power to you and the shortening of the pond!
What a contrast to the nineteenth and early twentieth centuries! The world was a fruit for the plucking and personal flying machines were just around the corner. Now we huddle in fear or else strut in denial as the predictions of science come true, one by one. We humans will adjust--there is no choice--and the only question is--will we come down with terrifying crash bringing down the rest of the biosphere with us or will we come down with a gentle bump? Given the greed and heartlessness of the wealthy, the first possibility seems most likely. The rich will never give up their overconsumption, their pandering to the the worst elements in ourselves, their deception through propaganda, their hoarding and exploitation of natural resources, and their access to men and arms to protect their tawdry empires. Alas for them, though: the Earth will exact payment from them as well as from us all.
Earth is going to bite back and the toll is going to be unforgiving -- millions upon millions of dead people.
You talk like this is a tragedy when taking into consideration the grand scheme of things. Spock's immortal words, "The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few" were never more appropriate than now when the the very extinction of the human species is a distinct possibility. To paraphrase, "The needs of the billions outweigh the needs of the millions."
PERILS OF GLOBAL WARMING NEGLECT
The misinformation campaigns, disputing the concerns of global warming and our contributions to it, by Fox News, Rush Limbaugh, and other disciples of the energy cartel typifies their destructive wars against our planet.
They attack the credibility of the dedicated international scientific community--who have concluded that global warming concerns are as close to certain as science can be. They exaggerate some inaccuracies from the reams of data developed by community, reminiscent of the earlier e-mail thefts to undermine progress at Copenhagen, to bolster their allegations,
They dismiss positive indicators such as unprecedented melting of the glaciers, Arctic ice, and Northwest Passage Their assertions that the recent unseasonable snow storms disprove warming, when they actually support it, underscores the fallacies of their claims.
Even if warming were no issue, its mitigation measures would be necessary to curtail other crucial environmental problems such as poisoning of our air, waters, and lands; as well as our dangerous dependance on foreign oil-- all of which will worsen if we continue to abuse our planet.
If those who impede mitigation of carbon pollution had to suffer as much from it as the billions who live on marginal means, the world outlook would change.
Excellent post -- the next to the last paragraph makes a very important point.
Bobferroform, Drosera and all those who are getting set to lay down their erudite contribution to an important debate.
Is that enough? To just be erudite? To write compelling posts? Does that satisfy your need to feel you are doing something?
Do not take this as a criticism, as you are in fact doing something. But it is those people who understand completely what is happening but who still do nothing actively, do not put their life and liberty at risk by braving the front lines of direct action, who have become - to use the satanic advertising industry term - our target audience.
We need people like you to actually turn up. To be active. To take risks.
Deeds Not Words makes as much sense now as it did 100 years ago.
If you feel insulted, then I have written this without enough care to semantics. It is not my intention.
We really want to know where are all these consummate, erudite commentators when the actions take place?
Respect.
"It is not civil disobedience that is the problem, it is mass civil obedience" Howard Zinn
A lot of people here are direct action activists, don't assume people are doing nothing, I have been arrested for locking down to a saw mill gate that was milling old growth Redwood trees, spent time locked down *under* a logging road, slept a 150 feet up in a Redwood tree in a net woven of parachute cord, have been pepper sprayed protesting Bush inaugural, canvassed for Greenpeace for years, have gone to dozens of peace marches, etc. You are kind of preaching to the choir here IMO.
Others have done far more than me, thats's just an example FYI.
Good to hear, Stereohead. In fact, www.actforclimatejustice.org is testament to that fact. Never sure if all the choir drink from the same bottle of alter wine.
Much respect!
Judging others creates inefficiencies in our move to change for the better. It is better, in my opinion, simply to state what I am doing. I have taken steps to minimize my impact on the environment. I shop for clothes at Goodwill or consignment shops. I repair instead of replace. I have drastically cut back on driving. My home has been super insulated for thirty years and I very high efficiency heating and cooling systems and I use those as sparingly as possible. I do not use chemicals on my land or gardens. I plant heirloom seeds. I plant wildflowers indigenous to the area to assist the bees. I use less of everything and make things last as long as possible. When I must purchase something I purchase locally. I avoid big box stores and corporate franchise operations in favor of local mom and pop's. I make many of my own medicines in the form of tinctures and transdermals from local wild plants. I try to live above the strain by living simply and in right relation with all things. I am always searching for how to live relatively comfortably with less. I use as few electric or gas run tools as possible. Rakes, brooms, and shovels work as well now as they always have. I also slow down the pace of living. Learning to live simply and slowly is a process that is learned and cannot be switched on and off. If you have not yet begun I encourage everyone to begin immediately. Note, the first thing you must drop is your ego.
All central points SM but I didn't mean to judge and hopefully that's not how it reads. In view of this shocking article, I am just wondering how many people who are aware of this utterly horrific future - that the corporate led governments are being allowed to get away with - are prepared to do anything about it other than talk?
On the one hand, your life choices are utterly admirable, of course, as they are singularly clear enactments of Gandhi's "Be the change that you want to see" speech and as a result, I salute you!
On the other hand, many activists rally under the belief that the time has gone when that is enough, summed up by a common call to arms: Don't change your light bulbs! Change your leaders!
In my opinion, I can only see both lines of approach to the problem being efficacious in the long run. That is to say, I have seen plenty of 'activists' slipping off for a Big Mac or flying off on a package holiday which stinks. But, I have also encountered many folk who live green, recycle, eat vegan and tread lightly on the mother earth but then shy away from joining actions. And I am not calling a police sanctioned march from A to B an action. Actions are more along the lines of what Stereohead describes.
Few people have the time, education or affluence to live the way that you do. In this profoundly unjust economic system, most people can't afford a green life. It's a tiny minority that can. Green living simply is not cheap, of course, much of the lifestyle choices you describe are free but those on the breadline don't have the ability to develop such lifestyle strategies. This does not mean that those that can - and do - are somehow misguided, they are to be applauded. But in my tiny green arrowed opinion, we have gone past the time when a minority of people living green will make any difference. Akin to rearranging the deck chairs as the Titanic goes down.
Again, if I am seeming to be judgmental or plain rude, the point is somehow being missed. This simply is not an ego thing. I'm not listing the actions I have done, the risks I have taken and the beatings I have had. I am speaking from the view of someone who wants to instigate a debate about what is - literally - The Best Thing We Can Do in the face of such shocking facts as relayed by this article.
Respect
Green Arrow, we are making a stew and the ingredients are different. Each person acts in the way that they are called to act. You are not speaking to everyone, you are speaking to warriors and it is warriors who will rise to your call. Some of us are old warriors. Old warriors have a different calling than younger warriors. Some people are not warriors at all but peacemakers and engage in civil resistance. Some follow the path of Spirit only. Respect for all lifeways lived in right relation is important. A calm and grateful spirit is important. All ways that lead to peace are good ways. Greed and militarism have been long in the making and is unlikely to have a short term correction. Life is a gift and for me, I try to live it well and enjoy it each day. I choose not to let the corruption of others steal the minutes and hours of my life. In my life I am restful in knowing that I have done all that I could have been expected to do over many many years. I did not shrink from responsibility even when the cost was financially ruinous. Each of us has our own story and each must guide their own path. Follow your path and be thankful for those who choose to follow you.
I do part company with your idea that only the well off can be green.
There is only one thing to be done. It's the root cause of every social problem we have. Reduce the population. Dramatically! The earth simply cannot sustain this many human beings. This large a population requires huge amounts of energy for mass transportation of food, water and shelter.
Unless someone comes up with free, completely non-polluting, infinite energy, this kind of civilization will destroy itself simply by doing what it does.
Mass sterilization now. It's the only way.
Reduce the population? Perhaps, but better yet, reduce the consumption. Imagine a planet with six billion people, all Amish...
So if we reduce consumption, what consumption will be reduced? Can you cut your driving in half? Can you cut your eating in half? Can you cut your living space in half?
The world population will double in a very short time. In my lifetime alone the population has increased from about 5 billion to 7 billion. If the population is left unchecked, how long before the dwindling resources are gone? Then what?
Even the Amish consume wood products, metal products, food........are we "intelligent" enough to manufacture food from air? Polluted air at that? How about water? There's already not enough to go around. Aquifers are diminished and polluted. Glaciers are melting.
I agree that 6 billion Amish-like people would be a wonderful world. But humanity seems to have a propensity for violence and domination. Very few can be satisfied with killing the meat that they eat, growing the vegetables that they eat, hauling the water that they drink, heating water with wood to take showers, making the soap that they use to stay clean, reading by candle light, making candles, sawing the lumber after cutting down the trees that they need to build their shelters........think about everything you have and everything you use in a day. How much of it did you create directly from nature? How much energy did you use that is directly renewable? Think about the pollution from manufacturing and discarding batteries, solar panels, wire, nuts, bolts, motors, windmills..........
Most people do not think of these things. The natives of this continent knew how to live a low impact life. We modern and enlightened people destroyed them and their way of life. Can we go back to that way of living? I would. But very few others would even consider such barbarism.
You say this population can not be sustained; I feel we are sufficiently clever enough to figure it out.
"Mass sterilization now. It's the only way."
(You really don't believe that, do you?)
I am not a fan of this train of thought. Quite heartless if you ask me.
Who determines and what are the criteria for those who will be allowed to reproduce?
Mass sterilization of Everyone! The next generation is started with test tube babies.
Is this more heartless than mass starvation? And starvation is already happening.
"The next generation is started with test tube babies."
I want you to think that one through.....
Now for the second time: Who plays god?
I am not a fan of this train of thought. Quite heartless if you ask me.
Who determines and what are the criteria for those who will be allowed to reproduce?
----------------------------
What's heartless would be "letting Nature take its course".
As to who determines? The only viable way is absolute fairness: 0.5 live birth per person, then snippety-snip. Any male who impregnates more than one woman loses his dangly bits completely. No special pleadings. Your kid dies? A tragedy, and you can go on the list for adoption. You get twins? Okay, you got 2 kids. You're sterile without artificial insemination? You can go on the list for adoption. Your religion says you can have more than one? Find a new religion.
That is a joke, right?
Of course it isn't. If you think there's something unfair about fairness, try to make your case.
That challenge is sophomoric. We are not dealing with inanimate numbers or machines,
we are dealing with human beings, and to impose limitations as if we were dealing with an accounting ledger is flat out wrong (not to mention, immoral and impossible to execute).
I repeat: try to make your case, or be an adult and acknowledge that you have no case. Your implicit claim that fairness is self-evidently unfair is just nonsense.
I did make my case. Your sophomoric implementation of "fairness" is immoral. Thus not worthy of any consideration.