Geologists have officially marked the end of the Holocene Epoch, a geological period that has encompassed the entirety of known human history. Welcome to the Anthropocene Epoch, clearly demarcated by rapid temperature increases, oceanic acidification, human landscape transformation and widespread species extinctions. In short, the worlds best scientists are looking at the disasters facing the world today and saying "you ain't seen nuthin' yet."
To the question "Are we now living in the Anthropocene?" the twenty-one members of the Commission unanimously answer "yes." They adduce robust evidence that the Holocene epoch-the interglacial span of unusually stable climate that has allowed the rapid evolution of agriculture and urban civilization--has ended and that the Earth has entered "a stratigraphic interval without close parallel in the last several million years." In addition to the buildup of greenhouse gases, the stratigraphers cite human landscape transformation which "now exceeds [annual] natural sediment production by an order of magnitude," the ominous acidification of the oceans, and the relentless destruction of biota.This new age, they explain, is defined both by the heating trend (whose closest analogue may be the catastrophe known as the Paleocene Eocene Thermal Maximum, 56 million years ago) and by the radical instability expected of future environments. In somber prose, they warn that "the combination of extinctions, global species migrations and the widespread replacement of natural vegetation with agricultural monocultures is producing a distinctive contemporary biostratigraphic signal. These effects are permanent, as future evolution will take place from surviving (and frequently anthropogenically relocated) stocks." Evolution itself, in other words, has been forced into a new trajectory.
The Holocene Epoch, has in fact defined the global ecological norm for the past 10,000 years, or approximately since the dawn of human civilization. The climatic, biological, and historical significance of this cannot be overstated. Humanity is now the primary determinant of the future of the planet.
The radicals who watched WALL-E and called it fascist propaganda have their heads in the ground. Sink or swim, live or die, the fate of the planet rests in our hands, on our shoulders, and will result from our actions.
Epochs are subdivisions of 'Periods', are sometimes subdivided into 'ages'. I propose that the first age for the new epoch be called the "Malthusian".
He also agrees that fascism is a liberal movement.
Malthus lived a long time ago - conservative economists like to insist that he was entirely discredited (his predictions of impending doom didn't come to pass - he failed to anticipate the role that fossil fuels could have on increasing food supply), but with peak oil and the possibility of food shortages, some people are starting to reconsider.
Some countries have birth rates that have fallen so low that the populations are shrinking, and there are actually some who see this as a problem. Yes, it creates problems in that it is harder for a smaller population of young people to care for a larger population of elderly, but a shrinking population lightens the load on the planet.
A couple of things happened to make this population explosion possible. One is modern medicine, and understanding of disease. Things like antiseptics, antibiotics, and understanding of how to prevent food-borne illness.
The other is probably petroleum-based. Fossil fuels made it possible to mechanize agriculture, and petrochemical based pesticides and fertilizers (more natural gas here) made it possible to expand the food supply considerably. The question is what happens when we transition away from fossil fuels? Ultimately I think that it will be the scarcity of those fuels rather than a conscious effort to reduce greenhouse gasses that will force us to act. Will food production fall, or will we find a way to feed the billions of people that we already have on the planet?
There are essentially two models for a post-petroleum world that we have to draw upon. One is North Korea, the other Cuba. Both were forced to go on a low-oil diet relatively early on. North Korea has not fared well at all, and reportedly famine has been common and in some cases people are reduced to eating tree bark and grass. I suspect the reasons are most likely tied to having crazy dictators in charge...
Cuba was forced to cut oil consumption when the Soviet Union collapsed, and to them it largely came without warning. Initially they too had famine as their food supplies dwindled, but they threw themselves into organic farming, and now my understanding is that
they are now doing OK. I suppose some will argue that those countries have nothing they can teach us - mainly as a knee-jerk reaction to the governments of these two countries. You may not like Castro, but it still provides evidence that a post-petroleum world doesn't have to be an awful one.
There are also some who would argue irrelevance due to a belief that petroleum is still plentiful. I don't try and argue with them any more - they will all come around with time.
Similarly, some people have been arguing that we shouldn't have a Holocene anyway, that most of the past 10k has still been Pleistocene on purely geological considerations. A lot of these people are pushing for the Anthropocene.
Anyway, I agree with a lot of the geologic reasoning for the change, and I see why this is of interest to people not involved in geology, but I think the entry over-represents certainty and consensus on this issue well past what actually exists.