Did the Anthropocene Start in 1950 – or Much Earlier? Why the Debate Matters
Last week, the announcement of a small lake in Canada as the Golden Spike made headlines worldwide. This lake was chosen as the symbolic location where the emergence of the Anthropocene, a proposed new geological epoch defined by humanity’s impact on the planet, is most evident. After 14 years of extensive research, the Anthropocene Working Group selected Lake Crawford due to its ability to preserve history through sediment layers, providing a remarkable record of geological change. According to some scientists, this record also indicates the moment when human activities began to dramatically alter the Earth, around 1950.
However, while this news gained attention, another significant development went largely unnoticed – the resignation of Professor Erle Ellis, a global ecosystem expert and key member of the working group. In an open letter, Ellis expressed his concerns about the decision to pinpoint the start of the Anthropocene to 1950, stating that humanity has been altering the planet for much longer.
The debate surrounding the beginning of the Anthropocene raises crucial questions about our world-changing impact and the importance of scientific discourse. It is vital for the public to have confidence in scientific conclusions, as the majority of people are not scientists themselves. As such, we rely on the scientific community to engage in robust debate and present the best explanations based on data and evidence.
Professor Ellis’s resignation letter is significant because it challenges the narrow definition of the Anthropocene proposed by the working group. He argues that there is compelling evidence of significant global-scale impacts caused by pre- and proto-capitalist societies long before 1950. For example, through their violent colonization of Central and South America, the Portuguese and Spanish indirectly reduced atmospheric carbon dioxide levels by destroying local empires and decimating indigenous populations. This destruction led to the regrowth of forests, including the expansion of the Amazon rainforest.
The debate over whether the Anthropocene should be considered an epoch with a specific start date or an extended event caused by various human practices in different regions, such as early agriculture or European colonization, is not unique to Professor Ellis. Other group members and experts have also challenged the epoch concept. It is within the realm of scientific progress that dissent and alternative perspectives are valued, as productive debate drives innovation and refines understanding.
The media plays a critical role in shaping public perception of these debates. A prime example is the 2009 incident known as Climategate, where stolen emails from a climate research center were used to undermine the credibility of anthropogenic climate change. Although subsequent investigations cleared the scientists involved of wrongdoing, the incident created doubt and hindered efforts to transition away from fossil fuels.
Therefore, it is crucial for journalists and science communicators to accurately convey the complexity and nuances of scientific debates. Oversimplified or misinterpreted information can lead to misunderstandings and skepticism among the general public, potentially undermining the abundant evidence supporting humanity’s impact on the Earth.
The ongoing tension surrounding the Anthropocene debate should not distract from the fact that our actions have undeniably altered the planet. As the first species in Earth’s history to rapidly and comprehensively influence the atmosphere, cryosphere, hydrosphere, biosphere, and pedosphere, we bear great responsibility for the state of our environment. While our impact may not have been intentional, it has far-reaching implications for the delicate balance that sustains life on Earth.
The complexity of this story demands that science remains committed to accuracy and integrity, rather than simplifying the narrative for political or other purposes. Scientific progress and understanding are built upon rigorous examination and open dialogue, allowing diverse perspectives to contribute to the collective knowledge.
While the debate between an epoch-based Anthropocene and a prolonged event may continue, it is critical to recognize that this does not absolve us of our duty to protect and steward our planet. The evidence is clear – humanity’s impact on Earth is profound and unprecedented. We must confront the challenges posed by the Anthropocene with constructive dialogue, informed decision-making, and a collective effort to preserve our planet for future generations.
