Man affects in many ways all other life on earth, to the extent that it is appropriate to call a geological period after him - the human period (Anthropocene)
If geologists were asked at the beginning of the twentieth century what period we are in, it is assumed that in most cases the answer would be the Holocene, a period that began about 15,000 years ago and marked the beginning of a warm intermediate period in the ice age in which we are.
The Holocene is the last period (quaternary) in the Cenozoic era that began about 65 million years ago, immediately with the extinction of the dinosaurs. The Cenozoic era is characterized by the development of new animals and plants. This is how a geologist would reply at the beginning of the last century... However, since then the attitude has changed and Galologists today know that the Holocene period ended in the middle of the 19th century.
This is the first time that a geological period is formed because of a (relatively young) being that causes changes. The Holocene ended and the world entered a new geological period because of man, so already in 1980 the geologist Eugene F. Stoermer proposed the name Anthropocene, the human period.
Now, after the impact of humanity on the earth is becoming clearer and clearer, when it becomes clear that human activity is on a scale that affects the landscape, the natural environment and the evolution of our planet, when it becomes clear that the human impact is on a geological scale - the concept of the "human-era" will enter as an official concept that describes the The period that followed the Holocene.
In 2009, the initial group for the "study of the human period" was founded. In 2016, the "International Commission on Stratigraphy" (ICS International Commission on Stratigraphy) will convene and the concept will be officially accepted as a geological period.
They mark the beginning of the human era at the beginning of the increase in the concentration of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere due to the burning of mineral fuel in industrial plants in power stations and by vehicles, which increased due to the deforestation of green areas in the natural environment, forest burning and logging. Added to this are gases from agricultural processes and recently methane emissions from thawing frozen soils. All of these cause global warming that changes the "orders of Genesis" and causes extinction.
If the changes and transitions between different geological periods lasted from thousands to millions of years, then the entry into the human period can be marked with a precision of decades. Some point to the invention of the steam engine (at the end of the 18th century), but it is clear that the industrial revolution is a clear and significant marker.
Global warming is only one marker of the beginning of the era as this is also the era when movement and transition between distant and isolated parts of the world became easy and available. This movement brought with it the invasive species, plants and animals that invade areas where they have no natural enemies. They compete with local species and in most cases cause "the depletion of local species to the point of extinction". The invasive species also damage agricultural crops and cause direct economic damage.
The industrial revolution gave mankind tools that make it possible to change the course of a landscape, cut down forests, divert rivers, build dams and water reservoirs in dry areas. All of these cause changes in land cover, changes in the diversity of flora and fauna in the fertilized areas and local climatic changes that indirectly cause the extinction of species. To this we will add the increase in the acidity of the oceans and direct extinction by hunters, fishermen, etc.
Thus we reached a sixth extinction thousands of times faster than the major extinctions throughout the history of our planet. "Development" "contributed" to the addition of foreign substances to the natural environment such as: plastic, artificial poisons, non-degradable organic pollutants and even the creation of new chemical elements, with the help of technology humanity "manages" to damage and change evolutionary processes and thereby cause changes on a huge scale and therefore - geological changes.
For geologists in the future, the most obvious marker for the human period will be the sediments, which will be rich in isotopes whose concentration increased due to the experiments and the use of atomic bombs, even today it is possible to date trees or water in springs according to their radioactive markers.
There are those who will warn of a disaster that may happen as a result of the use of atomic, chemical or biological weapons, but the environmental disaster is happening and happening around us despite the warnings and despite the dangers that are clear to anyone with eyes in their head. "His eyes in his head" is perhaps the concept that must be emphasized again and again, since despite the increasing and strengthening of the "green movements" most of the destructive activity continues and "the world as usual".
Today we know that some geological periods ended or began following the impact of foreign objects on the earth. Following the development of technology, there are plans and initiatives to prevent such damage in the future, that is, humanity is planning how to prevent the end of a geological period and the beginning of a new one. If the ventures are successful, then again this is a direct effect on natural processes (for the benefit of the continuation of the human era).
All the changes mentioned above (and others) are conclusive proof of humanity's influence on the natural processes in the world that were disrupted and caused the entry into a new geological period.
There are astronomers and others who glorify the human era with the thought or vision of "conquering new worlds". The question arises, what will be the length of the human era if the dream of astronomers comes true and humanity settles on other worlds. After all, as soon as the earth is finally left, the human era will end and thus the human "experiment" on our planet will end.
It is hoped that humanity will learn to manage our planet so that it will not be necessary to completely abandon it. It is hoped that the exploration of new worlds will contribute to the understanding of processes here and a positive attitude towards a planet that is not only the home of humanity, but also home to a wide and enormous variety of species, the same variety that gave the space for the development of the human race.
Without the broad environmental understanding and approach, the future of humanity is in doubt,
And it has already been said that: the time has come that where there was control of the environment for the sake of the human population, there will be control of the human population for the sake of the environment!
35 תגובות
the sting,
Just saying that you can laugh at things that are understandable and not stupid...
I laughed at the wording, if you must know. In order to formulate something as simple as that, you had to use a double negation. I'm not claiming that the problem is with him if you didn't understand, but I'm amazed at what workaround he found to express himself.
By the way - everything I said about my father is also true for me about Assaf - the author of the article
sympathetic:
There really is no fundamental disagreement between us. All I am saying is that the attack on my father is unjustified. It can be argued - as you claim - that it would have been better to present things in a slightly different way, and it can be argued on the other hand that it is likely that everyone agrees with the need to prevent intentional harm and therefore the articles should focus on what goes beyond that.
All in all, this is a news article and what is important in it is the news it is intended to report.
מ
I think you agree with me that the snake pattern is far from optimal
from that. In addition, if you are fighting for something, you must be the first to go against intentional attacks
that carry out people in nature and not against hypothetical cases of accidents. In addition to this
A scientific site? At the base of science is the discussion, the examination of questions and not firm assertions
Therefore, it is appropriate to open a factual discussion of the questions and not to state that a discussion obscures facts.
MouthHole
What's funny in the sentence you quoted? All in all, a proper response from Michal Rothschild, if you didn't understand it then....Ah, now I understand why you laughed, you just didn't understand what you read.
LOL
"In order to succeed in not doing what we do not intend to do, we must intend not to do it"
This site needs a page called "selected quotes from comments" and add this sentence first.
sympathetic:
There will always be things beyond our control.
Luckily for us - we have more means under our control than those that were available to the dinosaurs and it really wouldn't help me if the extinction of the human race cleared the area for the development of a species of rats that would be smarter, stronger or greener than us.
As we both agree - what is important to us is our own good and not the good of the species that may follow us.
My father brought the snake as an example of an invasive species. Quite a few invasive species have changed the ecology dramatically and it is difficult to predict the effects in advance.
The slogan of the radio technician is also good in this matter: If it works - don't fix it
Invasive species may reach a new environment in all kinds of ways and most of the ways are the result of a lack of attention and thought.
I don't know if the snake pattern is optimal but what is important is the idea.
In order to succeed in not doing what we do not intend to do, we must intend not to do it, that is, subject ourselves to procedures that will make it easier for us to avoid doing potentially harmful actions.
my father
In your snake example, I assume that it was not genetically modified (if so
It was important to note that.) This is an accident that caused an ecological change and may also
destroy ecological diversity. "Accidents" also happen in nature and lead to the destruction of diversity
The biological for example a meteor strike, earthquakes (compared to a bulldozer).
Nature is much "smarter than us" and deals with things. the science
He does not state decisive things and especially does not discuss what is good or bad. attempt to use
In science to firmly determine what is appropriate and what is not and to make political use of science in my opinion
It is not very different from the attempt of religious people to determine what is good or bad according to the words of the same God
They interpret. The basis of science is opening the discussion asking questions and not doubting
gagging and firm determinations.
מ
I agree with you, one should think about the results before acting, hence the example of the snake
My father brought me and made me jump (like a snake bite). If I understood correctly the snake was not genetically engineered
Genetically in the example my father brought. What should we learn from this example, that one must not fly and must be sought
Snakes in the wheels of the plane. This is an unintended event that can lead to an ecological change then
what? When a meteor hit the earth I guess the dinosaurs complained about the change
The ecology that destroyed them, being the products of millions of years of evolution, but on the other hand
Both of these changes resulted in the development of mammals. Even when fighting for something visible
It is important to you that you have to give proper reasons and not rule that "it is impossible to say in every subject that the reality
complex and therefore facts need to be obscured" because such a sentence as far as I'm concerned is gagging. What to do
that the issue is nevertheless complex.
The snakes that come to individual islands do not directly harm humans (perhaps to the individuals they bite) but to the entire ecological environment of that island and there have been countless cases of this type. In such a case, the damage to humans is indirect but cumulative, because every extinct species is a pool of genes that could have helped us.
In any case, the damage to the earth (extinction of species) was done because of man (who arranged a ride for these snakes). And not only snakes but also domestic animals that go out into the wild. One cat can devour wild animals in a nearby field miles away and that too because man domesticated the cat and spread it all over the world.
In the end, man spoils the environment and he may also bring about his end, when these phenomena (poisoning, air pollution, global warming, extinction of species and more) will cause a situation where it will be impossible to live here.
sympathetic:
Man does determine what is good and what is bad, but I think this is also my father's point of departure when he uses these words (you say you agree with Raz, but he is actually the one who accepted anthropocentrism).
Therefore - when my father writes that the snake in question causes harm, he means that it causes harm from the point of view of humans (by the way, I am not clear on what basis you thought he meant something else).
One of the consensuses today is that it is desirable to preserve biological diversity because as mentioned - its development took billions of years and the earth is currently in a balance that allows human life. As far as the earth is concerned, man is not important at all, but as far as we are concerned, he is important, therefore it is important for us to preserve the earth as a place that makes our lives possible.
Therefore, one should think carefully before any action that affects this balance and try to understand its consequences before taking it.
This is said both regarding changes in geography (the example of the bulldozer) and regarding changes in the animal's environment (the snake as an example of an invasive species).
This does not mean that such actions should not be taken (and indeed we take them constantly, both by shaping the geographic environment and by deliberately introducing invasive species to cause the change we want) but it does mean that we should think about them carefully and try to predict their effects (and certainly not resort to them without intending to, by a snake hitching a ride on a plane or a genetically engineered bacterium escaping from a laboratory).
The situation today is that these issues are not given the attention they deserve and man has already proven more than once that without paying enough attention he brings about his own destruction.
This apparently happened to both the Mayan culture and the ancient inhabitants of Easter Island.
So there are some people who decided that the problem should be brought to the attention of the public.
My father is one of them and in my opinion it should be credited to him and not to his duty.
There are enough activists who work in the opposite direction out of economic considerations or out of a desire to stand out as non-conformists, which is why we actually lack activists of my father's type.
So the topic is important to him and he uses metaphors. I guess this is not the first time you have encountered the use of a metaphor. I assume that you have often come across expressions like "the injustice cries out to the sky" and I assume that you have not scolded the people who used it by making claims like "I didn't hear the injustice crying out".
and one last thing:
My father expressed his opinion. He didn't just shut anyone's mouth. Why are you trying to silence my father by accusing him of gagging?
Snake does damage???? Who determines what is damage and what is not? Is only what is natural
he is good. You are welcome not to use antibiotics. Snake changes the conditions
And nature adjusts itself. Did the birds that Darwin studied in the Galapagos reach the islands
Did they do damage in the end?
I tend to agree with Raz B. There is a forceful approach here. A distinction must be made between science
and politics or interpretation of scientific results. In most cases when research
Science is used as a political tool, it is distorted and the results are not successful.
Sentences like
"I am not interested in how things sound, but whether they are true.
In every study in this field, the earth cries out for help." They are weird.
I don't hear the earth shouting save me, I don't hear him
yelling at all. Man determines what is good and what is bad. if the person
Destroying something that took nature millions of years to build, is that a crime?
I do not claim that the person does not harm and destroy, I only claim that the discussion
What man does is not scientific and certainly not simple. nothing
Here it is black and white and there are no good and bad here and it is fair to listen
Also for different opinions and not just to shut up.
One bulldozer is stronger than geological processes lasting millions of years, and one snake that lands on a desert island because it managed to push into the wheelhouse of a passenger plane does more damage than millions of snakes crawling over thousands of kilometers for thousands of years.
Raz in:
Don't you have more difficult questions?
"You don't give a name to a short period in the history of the earth" is moral preaching. It talks about some commandment not to do that the writers in your opinion violated.
But they didn't just pass her by, you think.
They passed it partly because they do not understand geophysical processes that are the basis of scientific validation and also because they do not understand orders of magnitude of billions of years in which man and all.
If you don't think that saying such things about someone, and especially when it comes to people that is a major part of their expertise, is demeaning, then I don't know what you think is demeaning.
I ask you not to start making false representations now.
You brought the examples that I did not and will not bother to read only following my response and I did not claim anything about them. I was just responding to your first rude comment.
I can also say a lot about them, but I don't want to be dragged into it - certainly not before it becomes clear that you are trying to create a false representation.
I am not interested in how things sound, but whether they are true.
In every research in this field the earth cries out for help.
It is impossible to say on any subject that reality is complex and therefore facts need to be obscured, would you say the same about creationism? Just because there are millions who believe this nonsense? If the science is unequivocal one should stick to it and the judgment will level the mountain.
Father, I understand you, but there is something in this approach that scares me personally. It has a kind of forcefulness and no offense, a kind of paternalism that reminds a bit of totalitarian regimes. The reality in my view is a little more complex and this is how I want to explain it to others as well. The fact that I scare them with apocalyptic descriptions and make them establish a green "Moloch" for themselves is not necessarily better.
Michael Rothschild: Again, my response in question:
The post is a bit dramatic - no name is given to a short period in the history of the earth. Reading a period after the person's name shows several things:
1. Excessive importance - I would call it anthropocentrism (if we talk about Shayum according to the person's name).
2. Misunderstanding of geophysical processes that underlie scientific validation
3. Misunderstanding of orders of magnitude of billions of years in which man appears and will disappear for a time limited to one second.
4. The earth will also continue after us in its own way in the universe.
Please indicate in which of the sentences exactly I preached morals, humiliated the people behind the article, after all the writer himself brought other people's things (the concept was assimilated around the 80's of the last century and appears in countless articles and references).
It's all a matter of personal interpretation in your reading. Furthermore, I gave you solid examples, in the form of 'facts' (a word I don't particularly like), but as you yourself pointed out, you didn't bother to read or comment but continue to claim a lack of evidence on my part. where is your evidence And what useful and relevant comments did you have for our debate?
I'm sorry, but you can't always think upside down to avoid the urgent steps that need to be taken. After all, every step someone will come and appropriate it. These scams need to be dealt with separately.
Regardless, the root of the problem needs to be dealt with - the fact that man is changing the earth, both through urbanization, massive construction and unsustainable consumption. An attempt to take over the public discourse and prevent the use of words that say exactly what is happening (human influence, warming) and replace them with neutral words only postpones the treatment that should have been done years ago.
Sorry, we have no unnecessary time to waste until the libertarian Republicans realize that reality can no longer be denied. You just don't need to ask their opinion.
The desire is to sell as much as possible, but you forgot that it is also as expensive as possible. This is the power of capitalism - turn the criticism into a fashionable trend, create a popular and marketing discourse, mobilize the public and return the criticism to the masses as a product for everything packaged with a catchy slogan that is correct for the time and period. Let's see: Tami 4 is, according to the marketers, a sustainable product (prevents the use of bottles), contractors sell green apartments because they have thicker windshields (and meanwhile they filled everything with asphalt and at the same time build for the common people without thick and insulated windshields), especially large and heavy cars with engines "Hybrids" actually contribute to the atmosphere, there are endless consumer products made of wood or plastic but painted "green", etc. The whole recycling thing is largely an artifact designed to quiet the tormented minds of the green and sustainable on the way to the supermarket for another consumption feast. Do not understand from my words that there is no recycling, I am only pointing out the way in which the consumption mechanisms make use of moods and ideological trends by co-optation and objectification.
Therefore, in the scientific discussion I would like to see texts freed from preaching, marketing and populism as well as freed from the implied regimes of discourse - and without it telling me: "How dare you criticize the use of the term 'Anthropocene'." The humanism of this concept produces precisely the capitalist control which is itself an incredibly humane conception. How about some anti-human criticism? Why not go out a little from the center of the circle we drew with chalk around us?
Raz B:
Your response to which I was responding was not relevant at all. It was pure moral preaching while trying to humiliate the people behind the news without bothering to provide even one figure and while waving empty slogans at best and wrong at worst.
Don't try to embellish things because everything is listed here and anyone can read.
And it's true - just because you respond doesn't make you understand.
How does a trend like sustainability play into the capitalists' hands? After all, their desire is to sell as much as possible, and if their product is used for a long time and is returned, they will lose.
Avi Shalom,
Your response is indeed well worded and not offensive. I think there is no text that is not worthy of criticism. And I think that my review was within reason in terms of style and I did not take the liberty of dictating the concepts that should be used and I certainly did not make inappropriate use of the name of any other writer or commenter.
I agree with a large part of what is written, and so with your words, but there is some kind of political aspect that enters into the description of the things that I cannot help but criticize, especially when it comes together with other topics such as: "sustainability", "vegetarianism", "morality", and the other trends and etiquettes that actually play into my hands The capitalists…
Larez B.
First of all terminology committees have a lot of power. I too waited after the decision to downgrade Pluto in 2006 by the World Astronomical Union for some kind of appeal, and it has not come until now, a fact that every new documentary about the solar system mentions only eight planets.
Secondly. The fact that the capitalists oppose the term is not because they do not see the human impact everywhere (it is enough to open any window and see countless concrete buildings and roads), but because they think that if they control the mind (as for example in the unjustified change from the term global greenhouses to climate change they managed to introduce to the public discourse) they will dominate reality.
In practice the earth is warming even if they don't want to acknowledge it, so as not to pay taxes to correct the injustice they caused.
The length of a period says nothing about its massiveness. This reminds me of the claim of the same people, according to which it is impossible to conclude from a period of 20-30 years about the future because it is like a centimeter compared to the circumference of the earth. They just ignore the scientific aspect of the increase in carbon dioxide rates that was not there before.
…you're probably right. Just because you respond doesn't make you understand. Or as it is said: Barba non facit philosophum.
Excellent article
Raz B
The article presents a lot of information and comparing it to your words which are pure moral preaching without stating any fact is pathetic to say the least.
Unlike you, I have no intention of judging the professional position of experts in a field in which I am not an expert, and the research you send me to conduct does not interest me.
Michael Shalom,
The article itself deals with preaching morality, what is called "I didn't start it".
...and now see the paradox - you say that within the framework of evolution, anthropocentrism is proper, desirable and inevitable. In light of this, my argument was that within the framework of evolution, the dominant species consumes/exploits/wastes (choose what is appropriate according to your view) the resources available to it and at one point or another it went off the stage of history. That is, the evolutionary arguments are not valid only when you want to express an idea that you do not agree with.
And now, to the body of the article - how would you react if I told you that in 2017, a year after the year in which the new period will be recognized, the committee will meet and cancel the period? Isn't it a little weird to write about something that might be read in 2016? The article is preachy and it is not possible to read it in isolation from the man who writes it. And to illustrate this for you, I refer you to the committee's website for this quote: Broadly, to be accepted as a formal term the 'Anthropocene' needs to be (a) scientifically justified (ie the 'geological signal' currently being produced in strata now forming must be sufficiently large, clear and distinctive) and (b) useful as a formal term to the scientific community. In terms of (b), the currently informal term 'Anthropocene' has already proven to be very useful to the global change research community and thus will continue to be used, but it remains to be determined whether formalization within the Geological Time Scale would make it more useful or broaden its usefulness to other scientific communities, such as the geological community.
That is, this attack is not sure to add anything, especially to the geological community. When you are quoted from the article, it is wisdom. Look for other sources that will cross information with the article. The addition of the parentheses and in the written content the word geology is the author's and has no support even in the texts of the committee.
The screen tolerates everything - inaccuracies, "moral" preaching, ideological manipulations, pseudo-scientific, and collegial, as well.
And finally, some more critical thinking about marketing concepts from the creator of ultra-capitalism (source-http://www.geosociety.org/gsatoday/archive/22/7/article/i1052-5173-22-7-60.htm) :
Anthropocene provides eye-catching jargon, but terminology alone does not produce a useful stratigraphic concept. Social commentators and environmental activists benefit from the term, and it is gaining momentum among the media and writers of popular scientific literature. Scientific use of the term appears to be increasing with public acceptance, although Steffen et al. (2011) argue that the public adopted Anthropocene because of increasing scientific popularity. Perhaps this acceptance is simply because scientists from disciplines other than stratigraphy embrace the concept of Anthropocene while not appreciating the nuances of its application to formal stratigraphic practice. The most important assertion unfolding among these groups is that Anthropocene creates public awareness and formalizes the concept of human-induced environmental change.
Although we acknowledge a distinct allure for the term Anthropocene and recognize merit in the concept, pop culture does not have an interest in the stratigraphic implications of this debate. If there is an underlying desire to make social comment about the implications of human-induced environmental change, Anthropocene clearly is effective. However, being provocative may have greater importance in pop culture than to serious scientific research.
Perhaps one of the more relevant issues we in the scientific community have with terms like Anthropocene is a tendency to market catch phrases that produce questionable labels. Anthropocene has already appeared in the titles of journal papers, presentations at conferences, and proposals for research funding. Modern scientists face pressure to develop and sustain a credibility that fosters research production (Hessels et al., 2009). Could there be a clever end game in mind?
Raz B:
These "moral" preachings are only harmful.
When was a knowledgeable commentator authorized to dictate to others which terms are allowed to be defined and which are prohibited?
Especially since these "others" are the "International Committee for (Geological) Stratification" which defines terms in its field of activity!
Since when is "anthropocentrism" a derogatory word? Man attaches greater importance to himself than all other things in the universe and that is clear! It is even a necessary consequence of evolution! The fact that the world will continue to exist even without man does not benefit man at all. In general - there is no objective scale of "good" and "bad" - from the beginning these are concepts that man created and sometimes - as in the case your response demonstrates - they are based on a much narrower point of view than the human race - they are rhocenters (in your name).
It is really wise to accuse the International Commission on (Geological) Stratification" of a misunderstanding of geophysical processes that underlie scientific validation or a misunderstanding of orders of magnitude of billions of years in which man appears and disappears.
In general - since when does the duration of the period have meaning? In the event that the Earth collides with an asteroid that will destroy all life on its surface in a few seconds, will the individuals who have found refuge on Mars not be allowed to give a name to this event?
The post is a bit dramatic - no name is given to a short period in the history of the earth. Reading a period after the person's name shows several things:
1. Excessive importance - I would call it anthropocentrism (if we talk about Shayum according to the person's name).
2. Misunderstanding of geophysical processes that underlie scientific validation
3. Misunderstanding of orders of magnitude of billions of years in which man appears and will disappear for a time limited to one second.
4. The earth will also continue after us in its own way in the universe.
One who understands, the temp around the world is breaking new records. 32 degrees were measured in Siberia. In Austria 37 Taparis over 30 as well. The world is heating up, you can't argue with facts.
For one who understands, Israel is a comma on the surface of the earth. Check what is happening in the rest of the world
http://www.ynet.co.il/articles/0,7340,L-4410973,00.html
Amla.
The first international scare site
I am waiting for the believers of the religion of global warming to explain to us that the low temperatures in July are a result of global warming. But there was any factor (he will find) that caused low temperatures and it's all temporary and an apocalypse is approaching.
In the next step they will tell us that the world has existed for five thousand years but it was created as if it existed for 4 billion years
Mazel Tov…
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fqjmmUzbbD8
Today, humanity has the ability to exterminate most of the life on earth