Caroline McArdle

PHIL 3990

Professor Van Buren

February 7th, 2018

Blog Post 3

Those who have an anthropocentric view believe that humankind is now acting as the

most important geological agent, changing nature in unprecedented and possibly irreversible

ways. Our disconnected attitude towards nature has caused us to focus on ourselves as the center

of the earth, forgetting our reliance on nature and its fragility. Further, we have become

overpopulated as a species and will continue to do so, outgrowing the Earth’s limited resources.

Now, we are presented with the question of how to live sustainably, how to create a “good

Anthropocene,” a well-engineered planet, or this is possible. The answers to these questions and

the future of the planet rests entirely in how we

choose to proceed and the what we prioritize in

the coming years.

The Anthropocene, as defined by

Wikipedia, is “a proposed epoch dating from

the commencement of significant human

impact on the Earth’s geology and

ecosystems.” The word Anthropocene literally means human (anthro) and new (cene), implying

a new, human-centered age of earth. The word was in use during the 1970s, and after many years

of controversy as to whether humans have truly transitioned from the Holocene, the previous

epoch, the idea of a new Anthropocene was finally widely accepted in the 2000’s. In 2016, a

Figure 1, https://img.newatlas.com/anthropocene-1.jpeg?auto=format%2Ccompress&ch=Width%2CDPR&fit=crop&h=347&q=60&rect=0%2C0%2C1079%2C607&w=616&s=a0202cf85e0e49c0f93bfd8174a6ed43

report showed significant “signatures of human activity in sediments and ice cores” which

suggested that the era since the mid 20th century marked the departure from the Holocene into a

new, human-dominated earth.1

Humans continue to leave an increasingly large footprint and are now causing harm to

ecosystems, biodiversity, and species extinction. The largest indicator of the Anthropocene is

human’s impact on biodiversity. According to Wikipedia, we have now entered Earth’s 6th major

extinction, with the rate of species extinction 100-1000 times greater than normal. (Figure 2) A

study observing the extinction of Hawaiian snails “led to the conclusion that the biodiversity

crisis is real, and that 7% of all species on

Earth may have disappeared already.” 1 Other

effects of the Anthropocene can be observed in

biogeography and changing distributions of

organisms, changing climate due largely in part

to the combustion of fossil fuels, calthemite

formations, erosion due to agriculture, litter

forming “technofossils,” and visible trace

elements in sediment composition from events such as atomic weapon testing and the burning of

fossil fuels.

In sum, we are effecting our planet in ways both harmful to biodiversity, our atmosphere,

and eventually ourselves, and these must be addressed. In 1992, the Union of Concerned

scientists released a “World Scientists’ Warning to Humanity,” 2 warning society of the current

1 The Anthropocene. Wikipedia. Accessed February 4, 2018. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anthropocene1

22 Union of Concerned Scientists. World Scientists’ Warning to Humanity. Cambridge, MA: Union of Concerned Scientists, April 1997. Accessed February 4, 2018.

Figure 2, https://62e528761d0685343e1c-f3d1b99a743ffa4142d9d7f1978d9686.ssl.cf2.rackcdn.com/files/85760/area14mp/image-20150619-3347-1btwpy0.png

state of our planet due to human behavior and what must be done. These warnings included a

damaged atmosphere and enhanced ultraviolet exposure at earth’s surface, air pollution and acid

rain causing injury to animals and crops, unsustainable exploitation of groundwater implicating

food production, water shortages, water pollution, overfishing over maximum sustainable yield,

toxic soil eroding into sea, loss of soil productivity causing land abandonment and land

degradation and less food production per capita, deforestation causing some types of forests to

disappear altogether, and a predicted loss of species by 2100 that may implicate 1/3 of all living

species. In addition, the scientists pointed out that fossil fuels alter climate on a global scale, and

these effects could cause collapses of biological systems whose interactions lie beyond our

understanding to fix. It is of utmost importance that we recognize that the earth is finite, and so

are its abilities and capacities to withstand our harmful activities. The scientists warn that we are

approaching these limits, and that “we all have one lifeboat.”2 There are five general goals the

group of scientists pose to prevent further destruction to our home: stop environmentally

damaging activities to protect earth’s systems we depend on, manage resources crucial to our

welfare effectively, stabilize population, improve social and economic conditions, reduce or

eliminate poverty, and to ensure sexual equality and guarantee women control of their

reproductive decisions. The warning recognizes that developed nations, while the biggest

polluters, are also those who have the most resources to live more sustainably, and hence must

aid the developing nations. It is also important to reduce violence and war, as these significantly

detract from nations’ budgets that could otherwise go to helping the environment – what should

be the number 1 priority. But first, we must recognize that we need a “new ethic,” a new attitude

https://www.ucsusa.org/sites/default/files/attach/2017/11/World%20Scientists%27%20Warning%20to%20Humanity%201992.pdf2

towards our responsibility for ourselves and for the earth, and we need to motivate everyone we

can to participate in this movement.

Last year, “A Second Notice” was released from another group of scientists, following up

the first warning to humanity issued 25 years ago. This one recognized that we have not done

enough to heed the warning of the scientists, and that things are in fact getting worse. Most

troubling, they say, is the potentially catastrophic changes in climate we may observe due to

rising GHG’s from burning fossil fuels, deforestation, and agricultural production. In order to

prevent further damages and transition into a more sustainable way of life, they suggest many

possible steps that may be taken, including halting conversion of forests, reducing food waste,

promoting dietary shifts to more plant-based foods, reducing fertility rates and ensuring women

are educated, revising our economy to reduce wealth inequality, and estimate a sustainable

population limit for the human race. Once again, they stress that “Earth with all its life is our

only home.”

The reason it is of utmost importance to consider our implications on the earth and all the

resources and life that it hosts is because we need them. We rely heavily on the resources and

services the earth provides us with, and the existence of these resources directly or indirectly

impacts our well-being. In 2005, the Millennium Ecosystem Assessment (MA) was conducted to

“assess the consequences of ecosystem change for human well-being and to establish the

scientific basis for actions needed to enhance the conservation and sustainable use of ecosystems

and their contributions to human well-being.”3 3 Ecosystem services can be defined as “the

benefits people obtain from ecosystems, including provisional services (raw materials, food,

water), regulating services (things that ecosystems self-regulate like air quality, pollination),

3 3 Millennium Ecosystem Assessment, 2005. Ecosystems and Human Well-being: Synthesis.Island Press, Washington, DC. Accessed February 4, 2018. https://drive.google.com/file/d/0BzKbjVLpnX0RdjJJVzQ3Ymszczg/view

cultural services (aesthetic, recreational and spiritual elements) and supporting services (habitats,

photosynthesis, etc). The MA found a strong link between some ecosystem services and factors

of human well-being, indicating that those ecosystem services we rely on heaviest may have a

medium to high potential to be fixed before it is too late. The study discusses 3 major problems

and a list of possible solutions to these problems, intended to help the “decision makers” in

power better grasp the consequences at hand. The most significant of the MA’s findings were

first, that “approximately 60% of the ecosystem services examined during the MA are being

degraded or used unsustainably.” 3 Second, “there is established but incomplete evidence that

changes being made in ecosystems are increasing the likelihood of nonlinear changes in

ecosystems.. including irreversible changes that have important consequences for human well-

being.” 3 Third, that “the harmful effects of the degradation of ecosystem services are being

borne disproportionately by the poor, are contributing to growing inequities… and are sometimes

the principal factor causing poverty and social conflict.” 3 The good news, the MA says, is that

substantial changes in the way we live and govern ourselves can mitigate some of these damages.

These changes could include economic policies and incentives, technology, integration of

ecosystem management goals into businesses, and the incorporation of non-market values of

ecosystems and their services in business and management decisions.

In short, we must learn to look at the earth as our life boat, as the scientists suggested all

those years ago. We cannot keep putting our interests of money or convenience over that of the

planet, especially when the consequences of our actions are deeply impacting the well-being of

people from developing nations. This raises questions of our own well-being and our duty to

preserve others’. Many philosophers like Kant have stated that we must treat others always an an

3

3

3

end in themselves and never only as a means. Mill proposed perfect and imperfect duties that we

must fulfill – perfect duties concerning rights, imperfect concerning preferences. When our

duties are perfect and concerned with our rights or the rights of others, we have no choice but to

fulfill them. The Earth is the property of everyone who lives on it – legally binding or not,

everyone lives somewhere. And when a person’s property – the Earth – is destroyed, that

concerns a right. We are carelessly destroying the Earth and this threatens to take life, liberty and

property away from all humans. What’s worse, it’s the poor who are bearing the most effects (as

discussed in the millennium ecosystem assessment). This can hardly be considered fair. We must

fulfill our perfect duty to the thing that allows us these rights in the first place – our home, Earth.

Word Count: 1575

Question:Did we ever have a circular economy? How can our waste grow capital than destroy it? What’s an example of a product that does this now?