I'm sending you again my brief 'exchange' with Dr Paul Crutzen. You can post
it, as it should be part of a public debate, but should not be used or
printed in other way without permission from Dr Crutzen.
Best
Rasheed
Living in the Anthropocene
Toward a New Global Ethos
Paul J. Crutzen and Christian Schwägerl
It's a pity we're still officially living in an age called the
Holocene. The Anthropocene — human dominance of biological, chemical
and geological processes on Earth — is already an undeniable reality.
Evidence is mounting that the name change suggested by one of us more
than ten years ago is overdue. It may still take some time for the
scientific body in charge of naming big stretches of time in Earth's
history, the International Commission on Stratigraphy, to make up its
mind about this name change. But that shouldn't stop us from seeing
and learning what it means to live in this new Anthropocene epoch, on
a planet that is being anthroposized at high speed.
For millennia, humans have behaved as rebels against a superpower we
call "Nature." In the 20th century, however, new technologies, fossil
fuels, and a fast-growing population resulted in a "Great
Acceleration" of our own powers. Albeit clumsily, we are taking
control of Nature's realm, from climate to DNA. We humans are becoming
the dominant force for change on Earth. A long-held religious and
philosophical idea — humans as the masters of planet Earth — has
turned into a stark reality. What we do now already affects the planet
of the year 3000 or even 50,000.
Changing the climate for millennia to come is just one aspect. By
cutting down rainforests, moving mountains to access coal deposits and
acidifying coral reefs, we fundamentally change the biology and the
geology of the planet. While driving uncountable numbers of species to
extinction, we create new life forms through gene technology, and,
soon, through synthetic biology.
Human population will approach ten billion within the century. We
spread our man-made ecosystems, including "mega-regions" with more
than 100
It's no longer us against 'Nature.' It's we who decide what
nature is what it will be.
million inhabitants, as landscapes
characterized by heavy human use — degraded agricultural lands,
industrial wastelands, and recreational landscapes — become
characteristic of Earth's terrestrial surface. We infuse huge
quantities of synthetic chemicals and persistent waste into Earth's
metabolism. Where wilderness remains, it's often only because
exploitation is still unprofitable. Conservation management turns wild
animals into a new form of pets.
Geographers Erle Ellis and Navin Ramankutty argue we are no longer
disturbing natural ecosystems. Instead, we now live in "human systems
with natural ecosystems embedded within them." The long-held barriers
between nature and culture are breaking down. It's no longer us
against "Nature." Instead, it's we who decide what nature is and what
it will be.
To master this huge shift, we must change the way we perceive
ourselves and our role in the world. Students in school are still
taught that we are living in the Holocence, an era that began roughly
12,000 years ago at the end of the last Ice Age. But teaching students
that we are living in the Anthropocene, the Age of Men, could be of
great help. Rather than representing yet another sign of human hubris,
this name change would stress the enormity of humanity's
responsibility as stewards of the Earth. It would highlight the
immense power of our intellect and our creativity, and the
opportunities they offer for shaping the future.
If one looks at how technology and cultures have changed since 1911,
it seems that almost anything is possible by the year 2111. We are
confident that the young generation of today holds the key to
transforming our energy and production systems from wasteful to
renewable and to valuing life in its diverse forms. The awareness of
living in the Age of Men could inject some desperately needed
eco-optimism into our societies.
What then does it mean to live up to the challenges of the
Anthropocene? We'd like to suggest three avenues for consideration:
First, we must learn to grow in different ways than with our current
hyper-consumption. What we now call economic "growth" amounts too
often to a Great Recession for the web of life we depend on. Gandhi
pointed out that
To accommodate the Western lifestyle for 9 billion
people, we'd need several more planets. "the Earth provides enough to
satisfy every man's needs, but not every man's greed." To accommodate
the current Western lifestyle for 9 billion people, we'd need several
more planets. With countries worldwide striving to attain the
"American Way of Life," citizens of the West should redefine it — and
pioneer a modest, renewable, mindful, and less material lifestyle.
That includes, first and foremost, cutting the consumption of
industrially produced meat and changing from private vehicles to
public transport.
Second, we must far surpass our current investments in science and
technology. Our troubles will deepen exponentially if we fail to
replace the wasteful fossil-fueled infrastructure of today with a
system fueled by solar energy in its many forms, from artificial
photosynthesis to fusion energy. We need bio-adaptive technologies to
render "waste" a thing of the past, among them compostable cars and
gadgets. We need innovations tailored to the needs of the poorest, for
example new plant varieties that can withstand climate change and
robust iPads packed with practical agricultural advice and market
information for small-scale farmers. Global agriculture must become
high-tech and organic at the same time, allowing farms to benefit from
the health of natural habitats. We also need to develop technologies
to recycle substances like phosphorus, a key element for fertilizers
and therefore for food security.
To prevent conflicts over resources and to progress towards a durable
"bio-economy" will require a collaborative mission that dwarfs the
Apollo program. Global military expenditure reached 1,531 billion U.S.
dollars in 2009, an increase of 49 percent compared to 2000. We must
invest at least as much in understanding, managing, and restoring our
"green security system" — the intricate network of climate, soil, and
biodiversity. To reduce
We must build a culture that grows with Earth's biological wealth
instead of depleting it. CO2 concentrations in the atmosphere to safe
levels, we need to move towards "negative emissions," e.g. by using
plant residues in power plants with carbon capture and storage
technology. We also need to develop geoengineering capabilities in
order to be prepared for worst-case scenarios. In addition to cutting
industrial CO2 emissions and protecting forests, large investments
will be needed to maintain the huge carbon stocks in fertile soils,
currently depleted by exploitative agricultural practices. For
biodiversity, green remnants in a sea of destruction will not be
enough — we need to build a "green infrastructure," where organisms
and genes can flow freely over vast areas and maintain biological
functions.
Finally, we should adapt our culture to sustaining what can be called
the "world organism." This phrase was not coined by an esoteric Gaia
guru, but by eminent German scientist Alexander von Humboldt some 200
years ago. Humboldt wanted us to see how deeply interlinked our lives
are with the richness of nature, hoping that we would grow our
capacities as a part of this world organism, not at its cost. His
message suggests we should shift our mission from crusade to
management, so we can steer nature's course symbiotically instead of
enslaving the formerly natural world.
Until now, our behaviors have defied the goals of a functioning and
fruitful Anthropocene. But at the end of 2010, two United Nations
environmental summits offered some hope for progress. In October, in
Nagoya, Japan, 193 governments agreed on a strategic plan for global
conservation that includes protecting an unprecedented proportion of
Earth's ecosystems and removing ecologically harmful subsidies by
2020. And in December, in Cancún, countries agreed that Earth must not
warm more than 2 degrees Celsius above the average temperature level
before industrialization. This level is already very risky — it
implies higher temperature increases in polar regions and therefore
greater chance of thawing in permafrost regions, which could release
huge amounts of CO2 and methane. But at least, Cancún and Nagoya
turned out not to be cul-de-sacs for environmental policy. After years
of stalemate and the infamous Copenhagen collapse, there is now at
least a glimmer of hope that humanity can act together. Between now
and 2020, however, the commitments on paper must be turned into real
action.
Imagine our descendants in the year 2200 or 2500. They might liken us
to aliens who have treated the Earth as if it were a mere stopover for
refueling, or even worse, characterize us as barbarians who would
ransack their own home. Living up to the Anthropocene means building a
culture that grows with Earth's biological wealth instead of depleting
it. Remember, in this new era, nature is us.
Dear Paul Crutzen
I am sorry you couldn't come to London to participate in the talk
organised by Gabo Guzzo on 31st May 2012. I'm aware of your health
problem and I pray for your good health and long life. Humanity needs
you. I hope your health has now improved.
It was very kind of you to send us your paper which I found extremely
interesting and inspiring. You have in fact highlighted all the issues
within the context of the Anthropocene and to recognise urgently the
need to resolve these issues. I totally agree with your central
thinking that "we must change the way we perceive ourselves and our
role in the world", and then your emphasis on "humanity's
responsibility as stewards of the Earth. It would highlight the
immense power of our intellect and our creativity and the
opportunities they offer for shaping the future". You are absolutely
right when you also quote: "The Earth provides enough to satisfy every
man's needs, but not every man's greed".
The problem of climate change is of course global and it needs a
global solution – as you have pointed out. It is also important that
United Nation representing the world community takes a lead in this
respect. It has indeed taken some steps towards "protecting an
unprecedented proportion of Earth's ecosystems and removing
ecologically harmful subsidies by 2020." But how can it implement
this? In view of most observers the recent 'World Summit' in Rio was
a failure; even its host country continues persisting on constructing
at least ten large dams in the Amazonia, which means the destruction
of a large part of its rain forest. If we look at Africa, for example,
there is a massive land grab going on. Many rich countries as well as
multinationals are now busy buying land there, not only then turning
it into the production of GM crops for the bio-fuel, but also
depriving the local communities of the land which was used for the
food production by organic methods. And there is not much the United
Nation can do in this respect.
Most governments of the world can of course get together and agree on
a resolution regarding the environmental problems, but when they
return to their countries they have no choice in practice but to carry
on with what in fact is causing the environmental damage. No
government can commit to the reduced economic growth and reduced
consumption, in opposition to the very basis of their economy. My
point is that governments cannot and will not do anything which will
stop or reduce economic growth and what you have rightly called
"current hyper consumption" – the roots of the problem – and we should
not therefore look towards only the world governments for the solution
of environmental problems. It is also, if not more, important that we
pay attention to the tremendous public awareness that now exists about
these problems. This awareness in fact can be the tremendous force in
shaping the future.
Let me now return to what you have yourself rightly pointed to: the
human ability to change things. Indeed we do have "the immense power
of our intellect and our creativity, and the opportunities they offer
for shaping the future". But are they not constrained by being
contained within the academia or the institutional space? If it is
the masses who have been seduced into accepting what is fundamental to
the perpetual economic growth and the conspicuous – if not invidious –
consumption, but who are now also aware of the danger of the lifestyle
they have thus adopted, shouldn't they be the ones themselves to
change this lifestyle through their own efforts and save the planet
from the impending catastrophe? But can they do this when they are
deprived of the knowledge which is fundamental to "our intellect and
our creativity" and without which awareness alone is of little use?
What we therefore first need is collaboration between different
disciplines (art, science, engineering, social sciences, philosophy,
and so on), so that their work is pooled together, but in such a way
that all this knowledge together reaches and understood by the
ordinary people without whose awareness and creative involvement
little will change. In other words, what we need are number of small
pilot projects as models which can be replicated globally, by bringing
different but necessary disciplines together, and, more essentially,
in which ordinary people are also involved through their own
understanding and productivity. If, for example, it is an organic farm
as a pilot project, it must be based on scientific ideas and specific
technology required combined with the traditional knowledge on which
organic farms were run in the past (collectively) and which many
communities all over the world still posses.
However I fully recognise the importance of your work, with all your
profound thinking, reflections and the proposals. They are in fact
fundamental to the solution of the problem. But can they be realised
and implemented without a process which not only brings different
disciplines together but also harnesses the creative potential of the
masses, and in which public is involved with its own productivity?
Regards and best wishes
Rasheed Araeen
6 August 2012
notice
I'm sending you again my brief 'exchange' with Dr Paul Crutzen. You can post
it, as it should be part of a public debate, but should not be used or
printed in other way without permission from Dr Crutzen.
Best
Rasheed
_______________________________________________
Yasmin_discussions mailing list
Yasmin_discussions@estia.media.uoa.gr
http://estia.media.uoa.gr/mailman/listinfo/yasmin_discussions
Yasmin URL: http://www.media.uoa.gr/yasmin
HOW TO SUBSCRIBE: click on the link to the list you wish to subscribe to. In the page that will appear ("info page"), enter e-mail address, name, and password in the fields found further down the page.
HOW TO UNSUBSCRIBE: on the info page, scroll all the way down and enter your e-mail address in the last field. Enter password if asked. Click on the unsubscribe button on the page that will appear ("options page").
HOW TO ENABLE / DISABLE DIGEST MODE: in the options page, find the "Set Digest Mode" option and set it to either on or off.
