Available via license: CC BY
Content may be subject to copyright.
1Volume 115| Number 7/8
July/August 2019
Leader
https://doi.org/10.17159/sajs.2019/6428
The concept of the Anthropocene has been buzzing around for nearly
two decades. The first reference to the Anthropocene as a name for the
current geological epoch arose in February 2000 during a meeting of the
International Geosphere-Biosphere Programme (IGBP) in Cuernavaca,
Mexico. On that occasion, Paul J. Crutzen, the Dutch, Nobel Prize-winning
atmospheric chemist, and then Vice-Chair of the IGPB, had become
increasingly impatient with his colleagues’ repetitive use of the word
‘Holocene’ and exclaimed, ‘Stop using the word Holocene. We’re not in
the Holocene any more. We’re in the…the…the…[searching for the right
word]…the Anthropocene!’1 Later that year, Crutzen (b.1933) and Eugene
F. Stoermer (1934–2012), limnologist at the University of Michigan who
had originally coined the term in the 1980s (in a different context), co-
authored the initial scientific publication on the topic in the IGBP Newsletter.
In it, the authors noted prior recognition of the damage that humans were
inflicting on the planet. In 1864, for example, American diplomat and
thinker George Perkins Marsh (1801–1882) published his groundbreaking
Man and Nature; in 1873 Antonio Stoppani (1824–1891), geologist and
palaeontologist, referred to the ‘anthropozoic’ era; while in 1926 Russian
geologist Vladimir I. Vernadsky (1863–1945) took note of the ‘noosphere’,
the growing human power over the total biosphere.2 But Crutzen and
Stoermer concluded that the impact had reached geological proportions.
As a new epoch, the notion of the Anthropocene intrigued geologists.
In 2009, Jan Zalasiewicz and Mark Williams of the University of Leicester
formed the Anthropocene Working Group (AWG) in the Subcommission
on Quaternary Stratigraphy within the International Union of Geological
Sciences. The AWG comprised almost 40 members, among whom at
the time was a South African, Professor Mary Scholes. The aim was
to succeed Sir Charles Lyell’s Holocene (‘recent whole’), suggested
in 1833 and formalised in 1885, with the Anthropocene. Numerous
meetings and publications aroused considerable excitement as well as
debate. Anticipation grew when South Africa hosted the International
Geological Congress in Cape Town in August 2016 at which the issue
would be discussed. Many believed that the entire geological community
would then accept the ‘Anthropocene’ for the modern geological epoch.
That did not happen. There was not, apparently, sufficient consensus
on the markers of the Anthropocene and its commencement date. As
Waters et al.3 explained, ‘To constrain the Anthropocene as a potential
formal unit within the Geological Time Scale, a spectrum of indicators
of anthropogenically induced environmental change’ must be present
and must include signals that are stratigraphical and include the
lithostratigraphical and the biostratigraphical.
By 2019 the matter was no closer to resolution and in May this year, the
AWG voted whether to disband because of irreconcilable disagreements
within the group, or to proceed with formal recommendation for the
Anthropocene with required markers and date. A majority favoured
the second option. Thus, the AWG will continue to hunt for a Global
Boundary Stratotype Section and Point in the mid-20th century that will
pass stratigraphical muster for an interval of geological time.4 As AWG
member, environmental historian John McNeill, observed in a personal
email (21 May 2019), it will be a slow process.
However, as a metaphor, the Anthropocene has fired the imagination of
people well beyond the geological community. The multidisciplinary
literature is large and growing, except, perhaps (regrettably) in and from
South Africa where the Anthropocene has a low profile. There have
been no themed museum exhibits, art exhibitions, readings, theatre
and other cultural engagements to inform South Africans through other
disciplines of the many human-induced permanent changes to the
earth. In addition to the geological and chemical, these are the multiple
aspects of global and climate change, enduring pollution, species mega-
extinctions and landscape-scale transformations. The establishment
in 2014 of the scholarly journal, The Anthropocene Review, led the
way for a transdisciplinary conversation. Sociologists, philosophers,
environmentalists and historians elsewhere have also written about many
of these issues. The Anthropocene has been dissected as a ‘capitalocene’
and a ‘plantationocene’, linked to justice and equity as well as to geology.5
Not everyone is pleased to have the Anthropocene so widely interpreted
in this manner.6 AWG secretary Colin Waters was concerned that ‘…
the term has come to mean different things as it has spread to different
groups, a situation that can only end in headaches … We need a common
understanding’7. Nonetheless, together with museum displays in Europe,
Australia and the USA, there have been multidisciplinary readings and
writings, workshops and conferences that have enabled citizens in those
places to conceptualise and better understand the era in which we live and
also to envision the future. Doing so requires no official scientific approval,
and total engagement with the Anthropocene as a whole may become a
tool for common action, not solely a description of the state of the planet.8
References
1. Steffen W. The Anthropocene. In: Robin L, Sörlin S, Warde P, editors. The future
of nature: Documents of global change. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press;
2013. p. 486. https://doi.org/10.1558/jsrnc.v10i4.31456
2. Crutzen PJ, Stoermer EF. The ‘Anthropocene’. IGBP Newsletter. 2000 May;
41:17–18. Available from: http://www.igbp.net/download/18.316f183213
2 3470177580001401/1376383088452/NL41.pdf
3. Waters CN, Zalasiewicz JA, Williams M, Snelling AM. A stratigraphical basis
for the Anthropocene? Special publication 395 Geological Society of London.
London: Geological Society of London; 2014. https://doi.org/10.1144/sp395.18
4. Anthropocene Working Group. Results of binding vote by AWG released 21st
May 2019 [document on the Internet]. c2019 [cited 2019 Jul 10]. Available
from: http://quaternary.stratigraphy.org/working-groups/anthropocene/
5. Davis J, Moulton AA, Van Sant L, Williams B. Anthropocene, Capitalocene, …
Plantationocene?: A manifesto for ecological justice in an age of global crises.
Geogr Compass. 2019;13(5), e12438. https://doi.org/10.1111/gec3.12438
6. Zalasiewicz J, Waters CN, Head MJ, Poirier C, Summerhayes CP, Leinfelder R, et
al. A formal Anthropocene is compatible with but distinct from its diachronous
anthropogenic counterparts: A response to W.F. Ruddiman’s ‘Three-flaws
in defining a formal Anthropocene’. Prog Phys Geog. 2019;43(3):319–333.
https://doi.org/10.1177/0309133319832607
7. Waters C in Sample I. Anthropocene: Is this the new epoch of humans?
The Guardian. 2014 October 16;Geology [updated 2014 Oct 28; cited
2019 Jul 10]. Available from: https://www.theguardian.com/science/2014/
oct/16/-sp-scientists-gather-talks-rename-human-age-anthropocene-holocene
8. Robin L. Environmental humanities and climate change: Understanding humans
geological and other life forms ethically. WIREs Clim Change. 2018;9(1), e499,
18 pages. https://doi.org/10.1002/wcc.499
The Anthropocene
HOW TO CITE:
Carruthers J. The Anthropocene. S Afr J Sci. 2019;115(7/8), Ar t. #6428, 1 page. https://doi.org/10.17159/sajs.2019/6428
