Geoscience Reference
In-Depth Information
both endure harmful patterns of environmental
change and to adopt new practices and processes
that ensure their future wellbeing is not com-
promised. On these terms, it is becoming increas-
ingly clear that it is the poorest in the world (and
in particular those who rely on dryland agricul-
ture) that are going to be most vulnerable to the
consequences of climate change. However, it
appears that those living in more economically
developed countries will be able to invest most
heavily in adaptation measures (from flood
defences to new crop technology) and protect
themselves from the worst effects of living in the
late Anthropocene (Hodson and Marvin, 2009).
Although thinking about the Anthropocene
appears to require us to place the human subject
at the centre of environmental studies, there are
inherent dangers within this anthropocentric
perspective. At one level, studying the Anthro-
pocene, and the tremendous environmental
changes that humans have initiated, can have a
slightly triumphal feel. Consequently, while we
may worry over the long-term environmental
impacts of human development over the last 6000
years, some may take solace in the fact that humans
are now in charge of the biosphere and are better
placed than ever to address the ecological problems
they have created. But this immodesty can lead us
to forget that humans are still only
one part o
f the
planetary system they are transforming so rapidly.
Failing to acknowledge the natural limits that exist
to human development could have dreadful
consequences for both the health of the planet and
human wellbeing. At another level, however,
discussion of the Anthropocene can be a fertile
breeding ground for misanthropy (the hatred of
humans). Those of a deep green perspective, for
example, argue that the response to the current
imbalances in the global ecosystem should involve
a return to a natural balance, in and through
which the needs of the environment are prioritized
over those of humans. But if the Anthropocene
illustrates anything at all, it is the fact that we
cannot go back to nature (even if we wanted to).
The global environment is now an irrevocable
product of society and nature. The best we can do
is to find a way of living as sustainably as we can
in the brave new world we have created.
In a recent article for the journal
Nature
,
Rockström et al (2009) consider how we could
chart a just and sustainable course through the
Anthropocene. On these terms, they establish
what they call
safe operating limits
for different
environmental processes, including climate
change, oceanic acidification, stratospheric ozone
depletion, the nitrogen and phosphorous cycles,
global freshwater use and biodiversity loss,
inter
alia
. Rockström et al's analysis indicates that
biodiversity loss, climate change and the global
nitrogen cycle are already operating outside of safe
limits. They also point out that failure to address
these overshoot areas may lead to environmental
change in other areas transgressing safe limits (the
most obvious example being climate change
resulting in accelerating patterns of land-use
change in the form of desertification). While the
thresholds identified by Rockström et al are
obviously open to question, it appears that if we
are to create a safe operating global system for
humanity we will need to understand the nature
of human-environment relations in ever more
sophisticated ways.
