Anthropocene Epoch dawns in midst of sixth largest mass extinction in Earth history?

[Subdivisions]

...snip...

The scientists propose that, in just two centuries, humans have wrought such vast and unprecedented changes to our world that we actually might be ushering in a new geological time interval, and alter the planet for millions of years.

Zalasiewicz, Williams, Steffen and Crutzen contend that recent human activity, including stunning population growth, sprawling megacities and increased use of fossil fuels, have changed the planet to such an extent that we are entering what they call the Anthropocene (New Man) Epoch.

First proposed by Crutzen more than a decade ago, the term Anthropocene has provoked controversy. However, as more potential consequences of human activity -- such as global climate change and sharp increases in plant and animal extinctions -- have emerged, Crutzen's term has gained support. Currently, the worldwide geological community is formally considering whether the Anthropocene should join the Jurassic, Cambrian and other more familiar units on the Geological Time Scale.

The scientists note that getting that formal designation will likely be contentious. But they conclude, "However these debates will unfold, the Anthropocene represents a new phase in the history of both humankind and of the Earth, when natural forces and human forces became intertwined, so that the fate of one determines the fate of the other. Geologically, this is a remarkable episode in the history of this planet."

...snip...

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2010/03/100326101117.htm

[gristy]

1. more here

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=228x64749

[BrklynLiberal]

2. Not according ot the flat earthers......

:rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl:

you know, the guys that visit the Intelligent Design Museum...

[tabatha]

3. It can also be called the Homogocene

as the lack of diversity causes more to be the same.

The invasive species are pushing out natives and reducing biodiversity.

I cannot understand how intelligent, responsible people can have more than 2 children.
And others ooh and ahh over the widespread fields of yellow invasive mustard flowers in the spring.

[tama]

4. Quantity over quality?

Suppose someone with 4 children lives sustainably and self-sufficiently, with positive ecological footprint - planting forest gardens and increasing biodiversity.

And another one with no children lives consumerist life with ecological footprint of 5 Earths.

Which one is intelligent and responsible?

[kimmerspixelated]

5. The trick is to slow down the general decay by employing

earth-friendliness on as many levels as possible. More and more people are doing it, just in the very fact that many people are bringing totes instead of using plastic bags at the grocery store. I have seen this increase all around.

[tama]

7. There's hope

as long as we keep learning. <3

[eShirl]

6. nice rationalization!

[etherealtruth]

8. Is it really?

Even in these economic times I have noticed younger professionals (I'm 48) are tending to have one child .... on its face this seems like a good plan; however, they seem to live exceedingly environmentally excessive lifestyles. They are tending to live in larger houses, they continue to drive less than eco friendly vehicles .... they are using more resources than a large family that is environmentally conscious would ever us. The key is not only small families ....but small families combined with responsible living (as opposed to lifestyles that squander resources).

*my reference to younger professionals was really not a swipe at them ... older professionals (me) tended to have larger families (>1 child) and we certainly squandered resources.

[tabatha]

9. And if each of those 4 children have 4 children, etc, etc

there is still an exponential explosion.

Even if one lives sustainably, there is still a minimum of water, food and other resources required, and there is a minimum amount of effluent from that family which would be a large factor more than that by a family and its descendant that stuck to two or less children.

[tama]

10. If.

Or if those four children learn from their parents and nature practical sustainable way of life that they can teach to thousands of others, whose livelihood would be dependent on supermarkets, coupons and the consumerist matrix. And if they each have only one point seven child. If and if and if.

The point is, what got us into this mess first place is top down quantitative thinking based on ideology of control. There's no need for that.

Between ecofascism and ecoanarchism, which would be qualitatively better?

[tabatha]

12. Not for either.

Just people being sensible; such as people for the most part make sensible choices if given the knowledge.

There are enough people on this planet that a good number of them know practical sustainability. There is no need to breed any for teaching.

[Yurovsky]

11. Look at the success of China's 1child policy...nnn

Had they not put their foot down, China would be >2B people (if not 3B).

Time to hold people responsible for overwhelming the planet with their offspring.

[tama]

13. Yeah, look at China

The one child policy is not stopping consumerism and ecocatastrophy running rampant in China.