It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

The Anthropocene: The Earth's new geological era?

page: 1
13

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 19 2016 @ 10:25 AM
link   
An article for ATS which discusses a new Geological Era and the debate among scientists about whether humans are about to enter it or already have entered this new era. Anthropocene is a word which comes from anthropo for 'man', and cene for 'new' however I don't know why this supposed new era is called Anthropocene and what this distinction means for current humans.



'Welcome to the Anthropocene' A number of recent studies argue that we are already in the Anthropocene, but the definition is fairly drastic. Earth scientists define the Anthropocene as “the very recent rupture in Earth’s history arising from the impact of human activity on the Earth system as a whole”. In order to officially mark the beginning of a new epoch, changes must be apparent in the atmosphere, the water cycle, in plants and animals, and in rocks.

Thanks to the dramatic increase of carbon dioxide and methane in the atmosphere, reaching some of the aforementioned criteria will be easy. Global temperatures have increased by an average of one Celsius in a little over a century. A warming world: July marks 'hottest month on record' Glaciers have melted, the temperature of the oceans has risen and their acidity has altered. A number of animal and plant species have become extinct, and corals have suffered a number of devastating bleaching events. Plastic rubbish, widely used nitrogen fertilisers and smoke from the burning of fossil fuels will remain visible within the Earth's rock formations for millions of years. The idea that we are now living in the Anthropocene has been gaining ground in recent years, and soon we will discover if geologists agree that the new epoch has truly begun. The start of a new geological age, however, is not a time to celebrate. As Clive Hamilton, professor of public ethics at Charles Sturt University in Canberra, Australia, told Nature magazine: “Some scientists even write: 'Welcome to the Anthropocene'. At first I thought they were being ironic, but now I see they are not. And that’s scary. The idea of the Anthropocene is not welcoming. It should frighten us. And scientists should present it as such.”


What does ATS think?Have we entered a new Geological Era and the degradation of the environment right before our eyes is the proof? Something's going on behind the scenes. If so, what happens to current humans already here? Are we about to relive what's happened before? What says ATS?

www.aljazeera.com...




posted on Aug, 19 2016 @ 10:46 AM
link   
a reply to: lostbook

Having read about this previously, though admittedly I'm still scanning your link, I've heard the anthropocene's beginning defined as the time when we first scarred the geological record by testing nuclear weaponry, leaving a recognizable global layer in it.



posted on Aug, 19 2016 @ 10:59 AM
link   
a reply to: lostbookAnother guilt trip bought on by sanctimonious "experts". These "expert" geologists can't even agree when man (that's homo sapiens) first appeared on Earth. Some say 20 thousand years ago, some say 60 thousand and some even say a million years ago. You must remember the Earth is a vibrant, always changing entity and as such has had at least 5 big extermination events (without mans help) but people only know about the extinction of the dinosaurs. Every time the Earth recovered and was different, different species and flora. So what about man. SO BLOODY WHAT!!! After man has gone the Earth will go on its own way and do what it wants.



posted on Aug, 19 2016 @ 11:00 AM
link   
a reply to: lostbook


Well whatever it is, if it involves humans you know it's a bad thing.

"Anthropocene" has a funeral-ish ring to it, don't you think ?



RIP planet Earth, and thanks for all the fish.

Sorry we weren't better tenants.




posted on Aug, 19 2016 @ 12:26 PM
link   
a reply to: lostbook


I'd say yes, we are in a new era of "man".

Resources that are not found in nature are now found in nature, namely plastic. We already have so much plastic on the planet that people of the future could date things with it by the degradation that happens to it over time. It will take a long time for all that plastic to disappear. For the next 1000 years estimate we will find plastic and micro-plastic everywhere in nature, more so as it decomposes.



posted on Aug, 19 2016 @ 12:33 PM
link   

originally posted by: CranialSponge
a reply to: lostbook




RIP planet Earth, and thanks for all the fish.

Sorry we weren't better tenants.



Lol! "Thanks for all the fish." I want the t-shirt!



posted on Aug, 19 2016 @ 12:57 PM
link   
a reply to: crayzeed

The age of man depends on a few things and to top it off we are always finding new links.

The history books say our version of man ( architecture and farming) is around 7500- 5000 years old. Tools have been found dating up to 3.6 million years.

Basically you have an issue with classification, our era of human is an era we have no evidence of ever occurring before, the synthetic age. An age where one species has had an effect on all others, if we continue our ways our presence will always be noticeable, plastic is a great example of that said presence.

You can see man's presence from space and I'm not talking cities or lights, I'm talking about a great big rubbish island floating in the Pacific, it's been there a while now... Guilt tripping aside, you cannot deny our activities are screwing the planet up. Yes nature always rebounds eventually but I don't think one specie has ever threatened the delicate balance we live in as much as us. We are enhancing change.



posted on Aug, 19 2016 @ 02:54 PM
link   
a reply to: RAY1990

For things to change I think those in power need to have the will to change things. As I see it now, I just don't think those who have the power do something about man's negative influence on Nature are willing to do anything about it; especially when it affects their profit margins.



posted on Aug, 19 2016 @ 05:55 PM
link   
a reply to: lostbook

I'm not sure we can blame our leaders, after all they are backed by the majority... The only true effort has been to monetize "global warming" and I'm not saying man's influence isn't adding to global warming. I'm saying it's sad, sickening and I guess hurtful the way the world has come together to tackle our issues.

If money must be involved, make it reparations. It would not be hard to find out how many plastic bottles of Coca-Cola has been sold and charge them accordingly. Companies for too long have pushed products out without a care for the environmental issues and it isn't just plastic.

Honestly?

Something like minimizing our presence here must be grass-roots so to speak, it could never work from the top down. Think about national parks or recreational ones, they ALL blab on and on about litter but it lands on deaf ears, the people who make a real difference are people who respect the environment. For instance a good trekker will leave nothing but footprints, then you have the poor louts who feel it's their duty to clean up after others, in essence the park only cares about the cost of cleaning.

So no, top down ethics I don't think would work. I really think people just need educating more on the subject of man and litter. It's literally a growing issue after all.
edit on 19-8-2016 by RAY1990 because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 20 2016 @ 01:48 AM
link   



posted on Aug, 20 2016 @ 05:04 AM
link   

originally posted by: FlyingFox


Ha-ha! Nuff said.........



new topics

top topics



 
13

log in

join