Philosophy and Climate Change: What is the Anthropocene?

In part 1 of this Nature League miniseries on philosophy and climate change, Brit and Gray discuss the Anthropocene and how philosophy can help us think about the words we use to discuss climate change.

Written, hosted, and produced by Brit Garner and Gray O'Reilly

Follow Brit!

Find Nature League at these places!

Nature League is an edutainment channel that explores life on Earth and asks questions that inspire us to marvel at all things wild. Join host Brit Garner to learn about, connect to, and love the amazing living systems on Earth and the mechanics that drive them.

[GaryDunion]

Always an absolute JOY whenever a new Nature League video turns up in my feed. We miss you Brit!

[zeeenno]

As someone with a degree in philosophy and a current student in ecology, this is right up my alley!

[qwertyuiopst]

The Anthropocene is definitely real, but I would date it from the discovery of agriculture and not the advent of fossil fuel use. We definitely changed the climate with even Neolithic agriculture.

[warrenleas]

I loved this; more big, important concepts and discussions! This is always such a good channel for clear, effective science communication.

[Lumenum]

Great topic, looking forward to the rest of the series! Can always rely on quality content from NL 💙
For the questions 1) epochs are a human construct, and in the scope of how we categorise these, I'd say the impact we had on the world is so dramatic and global, that it should be viewed as one. 2) here, I guess, the definition depends on whether we consider humanity as part of nature, or a separate entity with a huge influence over it. 3) so far, humanity had to decide what counts as epoch in retrospect, so deciding whether we live in one is new to us. Yet, as mentioned in a1, the scale of humanity's impact is too vast to ignore.

[davetoms]

Whether we agree on the pronunciation of "anthropocene" I think we can all agree on two things:
- The joy you two share is amazing to see;
- The Anthropocene Reviewed is an amazing podcast _and_ book.

[fantasiaproverbs]

Such a good explanation. Thank you guys!

[StoneCairns]

I am so excited you are doing this! I want to put in a request that you discuss rewilding (as a human philosophical movement rather than an ecological remediation, although they are related) and returning to indigenous knowledge and practices. After all, humans were able to exist as part of "nature" for a long time before we went and rewrote the entire geological record.

[mikkosaarinen]

Your videos are always so interesting and insightful. They're also doubly relevant now as I just started an internship in an outreach team at a natural history museum 😁

And actually one of the interesting things I've run into is how quickly conversations about nature seem to turn philosophical. I got a co-worker talking about their research into plants and blue wavelength light and it didn't take too long before we were talking about the nature of consciousness, and about why are we so set in this view of plants as simple things (when talking about the general population).

[loganl]

PhilosophyTube has a video called "Climate Grief" that really hits the nail on the head for me. Maybe Nature League could talk to her?

[zeppypaige]

YAY!!!! Oh how I’ve missed you! I almost couldn’t believe my eyes when this notif popped up but I’m so so glad it did and it’s real! Ok ok… off to actually watch now 😉

[TheShadowCerberus]

I knew "nature" wasn't a real thing before the channel existed and I still like the channel name.

[dryzalizer]

I'm sure this will be a great series....how about a poll to decide the preferred pronunciation of Anthropocene?

[turdl]

Brit is definitely right about the pronunciation.

[alexixeno]

While I think it's hard not to name our current epoch, I can't help but think it's something that can only truly be named in a past tense way

[alfreddino]

Anthropocene is definitely true!! The hole of the ozone layer and the extinction from hunting / pollution definitely are the footprint of Anthropocene. Anthropocene is a optimistic term. I would say the period now is a Greater Dying!! I heard that the Permian - Triassic extinction was the largest in the past. But for now, no need to wait that 60 thousand years to make 95% of the animals to be disappeared.

[davidschaftenaar]

We're essentially talking about designating what's happened in modern history as so significant that we should consider it the start of an entirely different epoch from the Holocene, correct?

1) From a geological or ecological standpoint I would have to answer: No. Mankind's impact on planet earth is affecting nearly everything and doing so at a catastrophic and extremely rapid rate — let there be no doubt about that — in terms of the absolute magnitude of change however (which is what we primarily consider when defining one period of geologic time from another, right?) our impact on the biodiversity of the planet is still limited to the loss of around 7% of the species the Holocene started with, that hasn't drastically changed on a global level (though, again, just to reiterate: If we keep going like we have it mostly definitely will).
Nuclear detonations aside, I sincerely doubt modern times would even be distinguishable from the rest of the Holocene at the level of the fossil record if you were to look at strata laid down today two million years from now.
In terms of ecological destruction too, modern times would probably be hard to distinguish from the rest of the Holocene... Because of the sheer scale of destruction our species has already caused throughout the Holocene and the preceding couple of millennia: The Mammoth Steppe doesn't have any mammoths or steppe anymore, The Scottish Highlands were once the Caledonian Temperate Rainforest, the scattered stretches of rainforest on mainland Southeast Asia were once a single grand Southeast Asian Rainforest and the Great Plains of North America were... Well... You get the idea.
Climate change is where the best argument for an Anthropocene can be made, I would say, given that the spike in temperature we're causing is so abrupt; But on this front too: An excursion in temperature of 1 to 1.5 C isn't an unprecedented, unique event within the Holocene (see the "8.2-kiloyear event" or the "Holocene climatic optimum", for examples of similar changes)
From a philosophical standpoint: It's complicated. On the one hand, our ability to impact planet Earth is now known to us, whereas we were largely ignorant of it throughout the Holocene — and this ads an element of culpability to the story that we shouldn't allow ourselves to ignore. On the other hand, I personally loathe names like "The Napoleonic Era" for periods of warfare and destruction when it comes to history. I feel it gives more credit and honor than is due to the perpetrators behind such dismal times. I think the name Anthropocene is much too easy to interpret as a compliment to our species rather than an assignment of blame. We don't call the Paleogene the "Chicxulubian" either, do we?

2) Nature is hard to define because so much of it encompasses who we ourselves still are. And conversely, because just 3% of the Earth still remains as true, nearly untouched nature devoid of the scars of our shenanigans, there's not a whole lot of pure nature left to point to.

3) In my opinion, the Anthropocene would be "less real" than the other epochs preceding it, if we set it apart solely for philosophical factors we didn't even consider when we were delineating previous epochs.

[DavidLindes]

7:50 - I bet you’d do a great job of writing policies. How can I help?

(Also, re “watch me”… I’d totally watch! Live stream, or what?!? 😉)

[zeppypaige]

Ok so from a nerd who really knows only the most rudimentary level of science… I will try to answer your questions… only problem is I have follow up questions! So to 1 and 3 I say that I think it’s very hard to “date” something in real time. I mean did the Neanderthals know what epoch they were living in at the time? Did they choose how to define that epoch? All of these questions (which are legit by the way… yes I am this ignorant) to say that I don’t think now is the time to define the current age. I don’t think it is any more or less real than any other epoch at this stage of their existing 🙃

In response to #2 I say simply: how do you define something that is ever changing?

P.S. - Brit I can’t help but add… you look great!

[TheGFeather]

I think the difficult thing about using Anthropocene to define our epoch is that it is unlike any that have come before, in that it is defined by the actions and impact of a single species. There have been other epochs defined by various forms of life, but none so singularly as homo sapiens. I have mixed feelings about it. On one hand, by defining it that way, it can help us claim ownership of the things we as a species have done that have impacted the planet in such a profound way. On the other, it's another example of humans putting ourselves at the centre of narrative, yet again.

Nature/natural is such a tricky concept. Humans are part of the natural evolution of this planet, ergo we, and the things we make and do, are natural. But colloquially, that's not what we mean. We are constantly waffling over whether we are or aren't within the system. In my mind, calling the towering concrete of an urban metropolis 'natural' is completely inaccurate, and yet, I wouldn't feel the same cognitive dissonance over calling a termite mound natural. Both are the result of a species altering its environment to improve its comfort and survival, but downtown Shanghai is orders of magnitude different from a termite mound in the Serengeti. The basic function is the same, but they feel qualitatively different. I'm not sure how reconcile that in my thinking, because I can't be anything but a human observing a system I'm a part of. My inclination is to say that the rovers we have on Mars could be clearly delineated as 'unnatural' to their environments, but again, that's only a arbitrary division based on scale. If we consider the Solar system as a whole to be our natural environment, then putting something we've made on another planet isn't unnatural. I don't think there are lines to be found.

For the last, I'd say that as an observable period in geologic time, there isn't much room to argue against the existence of the Anthropocene, regardless of what it gets called. The things humans have done and continue to do are having a profound impact on the planet and even if we were all to disappear tomorrow, the evidence of that would remain observable far into the future. What this question does make me wonder is if there are other points in geologic time with events or species that might have had overwhelming, planet wide impacts to life, but didn't have enduring evidence (that we understand as such). The things we have no idea that we don't know are the things that get me excited about history on a geologic scale.

Great to see you back, Brit! I'm looking forward to more of these discussions.