The ethical implications of embracing
the idea that the Anthropocene has begun
should not be taken lightly. “Holocene”
may seem like just a name, but it des-
ignates particular ecosystems that have
been studied and defined. Those systems
are living contexts in which all human
cultures have developed and evolved,
and they include multitudes of species
with their own inherent worth. From
the perspective of any ethical system that
values the natural world, the prospect
of the death of the Holocene should be
viewed as a catastrophe, for the WGA’s
claim that “the Holocene has terminated”
is a declaration that the human-friendly
climates and ecosystems dominant over
the last 12,000 years are beyond saving.
The possible end of the Holocene due to
anthropogenic impacts is not an interest-
ing opportunity; it is an absolute tragedy
calling for unprecedented responses. Col-
lectively, in geological time, we humans
have only recently begun to comprehend
the details of our impacts. And it was
comparisons with particular previous
states of ecological and human health that
enabled biologists such as Rachel Carson
and Barry Commoner to show that cer-
tain practices and industries had created
unprecedented anthropogenic pollution.
Those comparisons helped raise global
consciousness, and provided the basis for
laws, policies and practices designed to
protect the environment.
Holocene conditions and species con-
tinue to provide the necessary common
reference points for determining ecological
health and for motivating environmental
movements. If the Holocene is over, what
provides a rationale for our responsibilities
to restore and strengthen the species and
ecological states identified with the Earth
that human beings knew before the rav-
ages of industrialism and pollution?
8LI5S[IV'ILMRHE3EQI
The intensity of anthropogenic
impacts at all scales calls for efforts to
preserve Holocene conditions, strengthen
resiliencies and mitigate harmful anthro-
pogenic impacts. In effect, advocates of
the Anthropocene hypothesis argue that
the current state of crisis should be offi-
cially designated Earth’s “new normal.”
If the proposed Anthropocene Epoch is
a set of realities distinctly characterized by
colonization, chemical agriculture, global
warming, nuclear warfare and “significant
anthropogenic perturbations,” it is diffi-
cult to understand the apparent rush to
define away the Holocene epoch.
Some may believe there is no great risk
in declaring the Holocene over, thinking
that scientific names and denominations
are merely symbolic. That view to me
seems both naive and inaccurate. Even
in a climate where politically motivated
skepticism and anti-science ranting seem
rampant, science — in part through its
classifications and definitions — has the
power to shift common understanding
and directly impact the world.
Because the power to define can be
potent, it comes with significant ethical
responsibility. For example, when the
International Agency for Research on
Cancer classified sunlight exposure and
secondhand tobacco smoke as “carcino-
genic to humans,” they inspired broad
social changes, including new laws and
policies with economic implications.
More abstractly, geneticists who iden-
tified bonobos as our “close relatives”
implicitly provided a compelling argu-
ment for protecting bonobo habitats,
because there are ethical and pragmatic
reasons to provide for the health of our
close relations. Trust in science requires
confidence that new definitions and proc-
lamations are based on decisive evidence,
for all of society may be left dealing with
the policies and norms that follow in the
wake of a weighty scientific proclamation.
The Anthropocene hypothesis centers
on a claim about how to label the signif-
icance of the stratigraphic evidence of
recent anthropogenic impacts on Earth
and earth systems. Members of
IUGS advocating for the Anthro-
pocene hypothesis argue that the
marks of recent systemscale impacts,
such as worldwide nuclear fallout
from July 1945, indicate that the
planet has been propelled into a newgeological phase. It seems equally accurate
to regard the marks of recent anthropo-
genic development and disturbance at the
global scale — including current climate
change, mass species endangerment and
pollution of the oceans — as a dangerous
syndrome that has already left scars, and
that urgently needs to be remedied.&5VIQEXYVI(SRGPYWMSR$
The idea of the Anthropocene threatens
to enable the intensification of eco-de-
struction and inequity into the future. At
this point, anthropogenic signals in the
geologic record caused by industry, war and
happenstance policies should be regarded as
crucial lessons and urgent warning signs,
rather than as conclusive evidence that
the Holocene Earth has expired. Perilous
environmental changes and compromised
systems at planetary scales are trends that
need to be reversed. It is impetuous to
move directly from denial to fatalism, for
in between there is the space where one can
perhaps best address a problem. We’ve only
just begun, but we have begun, to compre-
hend and respond to the environmental
impacts of the recent century.
Instead of declaring the death of the
Holocene, let’s interpret the lasting envi-
ronmental traces of war, pollution and
disruption as crucial warnings within the
current epoch, encouraging ethical and
empowering responses rather than pes-
simism, in science and beyond. Several
centuries from now, let interpreters of our
responses more accurately determine the
fate of Holocene species and environments,
with more thorough evidence and more
realistic assessments of what we will be
able to achieve in the next few generations.(YSQS MW E TVSJIWWSV SJ 5LMPSWSTL] ERH
;SQIRƶWXYHMIWEXXLI9RMZIVWMX]SJ,ISV
KME
9,&LILEWGSRHYGXIHGSPPEFSVEXMZI
VIWIEVGL SR PSGEP ORS[PIHKI GSR
GIVRMRK IRZMVSRQIRXEP GLERKI MR
&VGXMG&PEWOEERHMWEQIQFIVSJXLI
9,&.RMXMEXMZIJSV(PMQEXIERHSGMIX]
ERH XLI GSQQYRMX]FEWIH ,ISVKME
(PMQEXI(LERKI(SEPMXMSR8LIZMI[W
(VIHMX )SX5EYP I\TVIWWIHEVILIVS[RTEKIȦȦ•4GXSFIVȶȉȦȮ• EARTH • [[[IEVXLQEKE^MRISVKComment