1. What's the archaeological perspective on when to mark the onset of the Anthropocene?
2. Why are humans the "ultimate ecosystem engineers"?
3. What's another name for knowledge gained by social learning?
4. Why were American and Australian megafauna "not so lucky"?
5. What are increasingly recognized as the bio-cultural legacies of long histories of prior human land use?
6. What controversial hypothesis by Ruddiman remains under serious consideration, and is supported by multiple lines of evidence?
7. What "discovery" created the first truly global system of exchange?
8. From an archaeological point of view how long has the human world been anthropogenic?
9. What's the etymology of ecology?
10. What is the Pristine Myth?
11. Current extinction rates exceed the historical baseline by what factor-range?
12. What is the Homogocene?
13. What are anthromes?
Discussion Questions:
- Should any particular disciplinary perspective be privileged, in assessing the impact of human activity on natural systems and proposing solutions to the problems engendered by it?
- Is it good, bad, or simply a fact, that humans are capable of altering ecosystems? Can you relate your response to Stewart Brand's statement about our being "as gods" and needing to get better at it?
- Do you think humans are mostly co-evolving with other species now, or over-running them?
- Does it matter when humans began to impact natural systems, or should our focus be more on the future ("fruits, not roots," as the pragmatists say) and how we should monitor and correct our potentially deleterious impacts going forward?
- What purpose is served by distinguishing original from "civilized" nature?
- Add your discussion questions
Brand's Whole Earth Discipline (originally subtitled "An Eco-pragmatist Manifesto")...
Extinction rates (the “science” behind estimates)
ReplyDeleteThe following link is to a article published at the Yale School of Forestry & Environmental Studies.
https://e360.yale.edu/features/global_extinction_rates_why_do_estimates_vary_so_wildly
This is an interesting read on some of the methods that have been used to estimate current species extinction rates. It does not talk about the “truth” of extinction rates, just how different scientist have approached the issue and made their estimates. You make your own judgements.
AT
• Is it good, bad, or simply a fact, that humans are capable of altering ecosystems? Can you relate your response to Stewart Brand's statement about our being "as gods" and needing to get better at it?
ReplyDeleteGood and bad are so subjective that to answer this question I feel that I must define how I am using those words. I frame good and bad by effectiveness. (Defined by the Oxford Dictionary as: “the degree to which something is successful in producing a desired result; success.”). So what is good for a fish (breathing air) is bad for a dog (drowning). Likewise, I think we must define what the goal is before we apply a judgement of good or bad.
Optional goals (and judgments of humans altering ecosystems):
A) Preserving nature defined as pre-human influence (bad….too late already)
B) Preserving nature defined as current status (bad)
C) Forcing evolution in currently existing species (good)
D) Increasing human survival rates through farming, ranching, water purification, and building shelters (good)
E) Increasing human standards of living (good)
F) Preventing some of us from having to move in the future (bad)
G) Potentially making the US Mid-West less of a dead brown field (could be good?)
H) Saving Florida (That one is good or bad depending on if you like people from Florida)
So what is our goal? Because “saving the world” does not really define anything. What “world” are we trying to save?
AT
Even though Florida is too hot for me and I do not prefer to go there on vacation, I would still like to be able to have a system in place for the extreme happening in any worst case scenario-such as hurricanes, naturally, in this case. I believe in any scenario we should plan for the worst to happen: food reserves, shelters, emergency vehicles for safe passage to the shelter, ect. In our world, sometimes people are okay with being unprepared so we must have plans in place for individuals who choose to do so because in any case, you may appreciate that being done for you. Maybe saving the world is broad but I can imagine how grateful I would feel if my home were lost to some natural event and the community came together with food, supplies, dog food or even a kind hug. My world is my family, pets, and items I have that I hold dear to me, so any sense of preparation is my goal and hopefully a little bit of my local government's goal as well.
DeleteIs it good, bad, or simply a fact, that humans are capable of altering ecosystems? Can you relate your response to Stewart Brand's statement about our being "as gods" and needing to get better at it?
DeleteI see it as simply a fact. Where the question of good or bad comes into play is how we are altering them. I agree a lot with what AT said, it is all subjective. What is good for people is not necessarily good for other species. Although, I do believe we have both the ability of changing ecosystems for the worse and for the better. I would define better as being that the changes that are made are what's best for the greatest amount of species. I wouldn't necessarily say humans are "gods". If this was true we would be able to change things with a snap of a finger. We would not have to put any effort into it, and changing things takes effort. Our attempts to better our quality of life and ease of daily living has not come without effort. The issue is, that it has also come with consequences. We must not make the effort to better the living conditions of other species. We have reached a satisfactory level of comfort and now we must redirect our efforts to help other living beings. In this, we will also help ourselves.
• Does it matter when humans began to impact natural systems, or should our focus be more on the future ("fruits, not roots," as the pragmatists say) and how we should monitor and correct our potentially deleterious impacts going forward?
ReplyDeleteIn short: yes to both. I think they feed each other. To focus on when we began to impact our natural system is to both accept responsibility and to dispel the notion that we are in some way independent of nature. Perhaps if we accept these two views, then we can move forward by talking what we want the planet to be like instead of just jumping up and down shouting that we are killing it.
AT
I think you pose a good question. Humans are already involved in every aspect of our environment; trying to restore it to untouched conditions is wasting time that we don't have. Obviously we can't completely stop altering our surroundings, but we can try to minimize the negative impacts we are making on the environment. If not for the beautiful organisms that co-exist with us, then at least for our survival.
DeleteI think organizations like the EPA were a really good step in the right direction before the current administration took over. I believe people would be indignant about more strict governmental environmental policies but it's what needs to happen. Unfortunately, money is the main driver of social and political change, so until there is more money to be made by going green and being environmentally conscientious, it isn't going to happen.
Stewart Brand’s quote made me contemplate what qualities makes humans god-like. Through my knowledge of our influence on the environment I recognize most humans use unreliable resources for fuel, knowingly waste a substantial amount of food or items that can be distributed into our environment unnaturally, and human-caused climate change makes me feel that we screw everything up. We as a species could be better at getting off the grid, geo-engineering the climate and reversing our effect on our complex, habitable system.
ReplyDeleteWhile I believe most people try to understand our habitable planet, being kind and empathetic to creatures in their natural habitat and trying to change the world for the better in my own ways keeps me optimistic for the future. The atmosphere of Earth sustains life as we know it and we are the only habitable zone in our complex system. We are privileged to have the intelligence needed to understand what naturally works, why work in spite of nature? I have respect for and I understand the fact people do have an effect on our privileged planet, my only desire is for everyone to gain a sense of responsibility by preserving the Earth in individual ways of recycling, composting, organic gardening, minimalism, having a plant-based diet, planting bee-friendly flowers and getting some green bling such as solar panels or hybrid cars. There’s many qualities of people that make us human, one is the fact is we have a choice to make good or bad decisions so here’s another discussion question: would you rather be a part of the solution or the problem?
Why are we working in spite of nature?
DeleteBecause people/society has been primed to be consumers. We think about what's convenient and the easiest way to achieve our short term goals. I personally would rather be part of the solution and I agree: people should be held responsible for recycling their trash, composting, and living a minimalistic life, but how do you get people of different ideologies/ lifestyles/beliefs to do these things? Some people have no innate care for the environment until it directly affects them. What method do you think would inspire the urgency needed to rectify our damage?
I really liked your question. It' strange to think that we would work in spite of the place that provides for us not only our home itself but everything we need to survive. Its a sad fact about society and the world that all that the majority of the population have become is consumers who have no desire to restrain themselves or to make change. I don't know what would get people to change their ways, only that I believe that it would have to come from a large shift in belief about how much your choices affect the world around you.
DeleteAs Ghandi famously states: "be the change you want to see in the world", I understand we must be the inspiration by our actions and hopefully the actions we take will impress others and inspire them to make changes within themselves. I like to recommend documentaries, show people my garden and compost pile and I'm constantly on people for littering and I more or less demand my family recycles. Or, I do it myself. I'm not afraid of a little trash, I'll get that plastic bottle and take it out to our recycling bin myself. At my place or work I ask managers and their supervisors to get a recycling can too. Just show them how much you care, it may rub off on them! :)
DeleteWeekly blog post:
ReplyDeleteWhat caught my attention from the readings of Ch 4 and 5 was the Great Myth. I was interested in the Great Myth, the idea that land which is not currently occupied by people has been unaffected by us, because it demonstrates our over-all short-term thought process. I should suppose it should not be surprising that humans were changing the Earth 5,000 years ago or even earlier than that. We may not even understand what “untouched” means because we have been meddling in Earth’s affairs for so long. I think the only way for us to verify that our influence has not touched the place is to investigate it, which defeats the purpose of leaving it pristine.
We seem to alter everything we touch, without even trying. As the theme in Rambunctious Garden suggests, we as a collective need to accept that we aren’t going to put everything back to what it once was. It is impossible. Even if we disappeared off the face of the Earth our proof would continue to show in archeological and geological terms. That’s why this is the Anthropogenic era. I am not sure whether it is a good thing that “societies, people, wildlife, and entire ecosystems are co-evolving and co-creating new forms of nature”. I feel more assured of our secure future on this planet if we can predict what’s going to happen, and because a creature like us has never changed this biome in such drastic ways, we have no precedent to go off of.
I agree that at this point, it would be impossible to find a place on Earth that is 'untouched' by humans. Everything is interconnected; what we do here can have an impact on the other side of the world. I went on a trip to the Dominican Republic and visited a seemingly 'untouched' beach. The entire coastline was littered with trash. Nothing that washed up was sold anywhere near that area and had seemingly traveled a long way to arrive at that location. It was very disheartening to see all that trash in such a beautiful location but it made me realize how everything we do has a consequence, intended or not.
DeleteIn this day in age it is now so easy to learn about what is happening on the other side of the world and in places we have never been and that makes it all the easier to see what the actual effects of our choices are in other places. I have read articles about things like what you observed in the Dominican Republic its awful and I believe that we as a people should be forced to confront the consequences of our choices and see what we have caused.
DeleteShort National Geographic video on the causes and effects of climate change: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G4H1N_yXBiA
ReplyDeleteALTERNATE QUIZ QUESTIONS:
ReplyDelete1.) What do a growing number of archaeologists believe is the ultimate cause of Earth's transition to the Anthropocene? (76)
2.) When did evidence show that new forms of ‘behaviourally modern’ human societies were developing social capacities beyond those of any prior species in Earth History? What is this evidence? (77)
3.) What became fundamental to gaining the necessities of life and survival during the “first Great Accerleration”? (78)
4.) What combined with human predation was an especially potent driver of extinction? (82)
5.) What deficiencies challenge the scientific proposal to recognize the global environmental consequences of human-driven megafauna extinctions and enhanced fire regimes as a basis for an Anthropocene start date near the end of the Pleistocene, approx. 14,000 yrs ago? (83)
6.) What are some suggested golden spikes for the Anthropocene? When would they indicate it began? (83) (88)
Alternative Quiz Questions
ReplyDelete1. How did the developement of human language play a role in the evolving forms of social interactions? (79)
2. Societies dependent on agriculture emerged in more than a dozen centres of domestication on every populated continent except ____. (85)
3. What American crops transformed farming systems around the world? (95)
4. What percentage of species to ever live on Earth have gone extinct? (111)
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteALTERNATE DISCUSSION QUESTION:
ReplyDelete"Just imagine what the vegetation of northern Europe or Canada would look like if the wooly mammoth were still around." (107)
What do you think the vegetation would look like? What point do you think Ellis was trying to get across here? Do you believe the world's landscape would differ greatly from its current state had even more megafauna not gone extinct?
I believe there would be far less vegetation if megafauna had not gone extinct. Grasslands would be thriving in those areas.
DeleteIs it good, bad, or simply a fact, that humans are capable of altering ecosystems? Can you relate your response to Stewart Brand's statement about our being "as gods" and needing to get better at it?
ReplyDeleteI think that it is all three of these things, because
I believe that is simply a fact that humans are capable of altering ecosystems. Although there are tremendous negative impacts currently steming from human influence on the natural world, I believe that we are capable of having a positive influence on the world as well. We just need to be better at being "gods."
DeleteSorry for some reason the entirety of my post wasn't published.
DeleteI really liked what you had to say and the quote that you put in. I really agree with you we have made such a large and unfortunately negative impact on the world as of now but I really do believe that given time we will learn from these mistakes and do better. How we will change and wither these changes will be able to in reality change things I don't know only time will tell. I can hope that it will change things and that it will happen in time to actually make a impact on the environment.
Do you think humans are mostly co-evolving with other species now, or over-running them?
ReplyDeleteAt the early stages of human life the relationship between man and other species was co-evolving. However, that is not this case for this day and age. Our constant need to support a growing population is met by taking over more and more land. This greed is only beneficial in the short run, for humans are starting to over-run species that were here long before city roads, homes, and businesses.
Just look at Murfreesboro local news, this year a cougar was spotted behind a restaurant. This species is native to East Tennessee, so why could it be here now? Well, one answer to this occurrence could be urban sprawl. Urban sprawl refers outward trickle of city life into once rural areas. Perhaps our constantly establishing society has push once habitable locations for species closer to populated areas; with this loss of land also means a loss of ecosystem for a species. Loss will push which ever species’ that is now adrift from its once secure home. The same thing is happening with Tennessee’s bear population. Over the spring more and more bear sighting have been reported out of Middle Tennessee. This is not just coincidence. Humans are over-running species. Whether we need land for personal use, developmental use, or just recreation, we are taking land away from some other species. What else is to be expected from animals or plants that lose an ecosystem, than for them to find another that they can sustain themselves in. Evolution comes naturally, but the extant of human evolution is walking a fine line between greatness and destruction.
I completely agree with you Patrick. WE are overextending ourselves into natural habitats and disrupting migratory patterns of birds and mammals. We are rerouting water sources and waterways that affect all wildlife, just so we can develop desirable lands. We are definitely over-running them and it is very sad and shameful! Teya James
ReplyDeleteHow the Earth's tilt is affecting climate... Teya James
ReplyDeletehttps://phys.org/news/2015-12-earth-tilt-climate.html
https://www.smithsonianmag.com/science-nature/what-is-the-anthropocene-and-are-we-in-it-164801414/
ReplyDeleteThis is an interesting article from Smithsonian.com about the Anthropocene and it's controversial status in the scientific community.