Embracing the Anthropocene

Following up on my coverage of the first scientific conference on the proposition that we have entered a geological epoch of our own making, the Anthropocene, Room for Debate has assembled a great cast of characters to discuss whether this is a good, bad or indifferent thing.

Weighing in are Emma Marris, the author of “Rambunctious Garden“;  Jon Foley, the director of the Institute on the Environment at the University of Minnesota;  Brad Allenby, a professor of engineering and ethics at Arizona State University; Ronald Bailey, science correspondent for Reason magazine;  Erle C. Ellis, an ecologist at the University of Maryland, Baltimore County (who spoke at the London meeting); and Ruth DeFries, an ecologist at Columbia University.

In many ways, this discussion, and the meeting at the Geological Society of London a week ago, all grow out of the shift that Stewart Brand made in the 40 years between the “Whole Earth Catalog” and his latest book, “Whole Earth Discipline.”

Those years took him from the relatively relaxed dictum, “We are as gods; we might as well get good at it,” to a more urgent one, “We are as gods and have to get good at it.” (Read this Edge.org essay by Brand for his explanation of that change.)

Until recently, on issues like the growing human influence on climate, many people have had a tendency to echo, perhaps silently, the comment made in 2006 by Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia when he was politely corrected for mixing up the stratosphere and troposphere during arguments over the Clean Air Act and carbon dioxide:

“Troposphere, whatever,” Justice Scalia replied. “I told you before I’m not a scientist.” Over a brief flutter of laughter from observers, he added: “That’s why I don’t want to have to deal with global warming, to tell you the truth.” [related blog post]

Through the early days of the Anthropocene, ignorance was blissful. We could tear into forests or vacuum up fish stocks or burn fossil fuels with abandon. Even now, I get the strong feeling we’re kind of like the wayward teenager being nagged by grownups (that’s the role scientists seem to have adopted).

The question that really nags at us, of course, is one I explored here a couple of years ago: What do we want to be when we grow up?

One clear reality is that for a long time to come, Earth is what we choose to make of it, for better or worse.

Taking full ownership of the Anthropocene won’t be easy. The necessary feeling is a queasy mix of excitement and unease. I’ve compared it to waking up in the first car on the first run of a new roller coaster that hasn’t been examined fully by engineers.

That’s a very different sensation than, say, mourning the end of nature.

It’s more a celebration, in a way — a deeper acceptance of our place on the planet, with all of our synthetic trappings, and our faults, as fundamentally natural.

In fact, in the broadest sense we have to embrace the characteristics, good and bad, that make humans such a rare thing — a species that has become a planet-scale force. Cyanobacteria also were a planet-scale force, oxygenating the atmosphere some two billion years ago. The difference is that cyanobacteria weren’t aware of their potency, while we are at least starting to absorb that reality.

It’s a slow process. That’s why I liked the proposition laid out by someone at Arizona State University after my recent onstage conversation with Braden Allenby (one of the Room for Debaters):

The way I would like to see it is in, say, 100 years in the future the London Geological Society will look back and consider this period…a transition from the lesser Anthropocene to the greater Anthropocene.

That has a nice feel to it. Fully integrating this awareness into our personal choices and societal norms and policies will take time.

It is “the great work,” as Thomas Berry put it. Technology alone will not do the trick. Another keystone to better meshing humanity’s infinite aspirations with life on a finite planet will be slowly shifting value systems from the foundation up, not through some Beltway debate.

Bhutan’s experiment with “gross national happiness,” along with other countries’ more formal efforts to develop indices of well being to complement strict economic metrics, are a step in that direction.

Edward O. Wilson’s “Biophilia” was a powerful look outward at the characteristics of the natural world that we inherently cherish.

Now we need a dose of what I’ve taken to calling anthropophilia, as well.

We have to accept ourselves, flaws and all, in order to move beyond what has been something of an unconscious, species-scale pubescent growth spurt, enabled by fossil fuels in place of testosterone.

In “The World Without Us,” Alan Weisman created a haunting thought experiment – imagining a planet awakening after the vanishing of its human tormentor.

The challenge is that there is a real experiment well under way, and we’re all in the test tube.

We’re stuck with “The World With Us.”

It’s time to grasp that uncomfortable, but ultimately hopeful, idea.