If I were to vote on the Anthropocene epoch being added to the geologic time scale, I would vote no. How much more self-centered do we need to be? It is humans who are making the model. Why do we need to be at the center of everything? I understand that we need to think of things on a global scale but changing the name of something is not necessarily going to do that. Well, maybe it will make a psychological difference and open up the discussion, it is hard to tell. The reading that most supports this is Malm. “ Climate science, politics, and discourse are constantly couched in the Anthropocene narrative: species-thinking, humanity-bashing, undifferentiated collective self-flagellation, appeal to the general population of consumers to mend their ways and other ideological pirouettes that only serve to conceal the driver.” (malm pg5) The rhetoric is entertaining and gets the point across. If people want to change then do it. Don’t just change the names of everything hoping someone else will pick up the buck.
Kahan has a good last name and a good idea. The ability to develop solutions to any problem are rooted in communicating them. When there are fundamental differences in communication, ideals, and methods of action there is no end in sight to the obstacles in the way of a solution. The idea that we need to think about the psychological implications of our actions is undoubtedly needed. Whitlock and her group did surveys and interviews to find out what the people wanted and how they wanted it. They did not want some useless book on their shelf that would never be updated and they would never read. They wanted an online database that was easy to access and share. The first step to any endeavor should be open and vast communication.
I can see where you are coming from with humans being self-centered however; I don’t think that’s the point of creating a new epoch. Epoch’s mark as per definition: “notable events in history.” I think the current changes we are facing have plenty of reason to be in a new epoch. Also “If people want change, then just do it.” Don’t you think if it was that easy it would have been done already? This is a point that we have brought up several times this semester. People don’t like change and as long as people hold on to their beliefs it may be extremely difficult to “just do it.” Finally, I sadly think that we must do things, such as change names, to get the point across to enough people that change will actually happen.
I understand where you’re coming from when you say that simply distinguishing the name of our situation won’t and shouldn’t be the defining factor leading to change, the circumstances should. I agree when I look at it with the same simplicity. However, I think it truly goes deeper than that. The Holocene has somewhat specific characteristics that have hugely changed for the worst. By not acknowledging the presence of a new era, people aren’t acknowledging the problem. It’s not all about new names, it’s the implications of those names and what we need to take responsibility for and what we need to do about it.
I really like your outlook on adding it, I had not thought of it that way. You make a really good point about humans and the ego that comes along with it. I also really agree with having communication along the spectrum, very interesting. Great read!
I like your post because you made me think about things I did not think of myself when I read the articles. You have an excellent title also by the way. I agree with your point that just saying humankind is responsible for climate change is too broad and egotistical. The history (as well as future) needs to look at specific points and factors of climate change. For example, as Malm points out, business and industry need to be looked like the most recent culprit of climate change because of the amount of CO2 emission they put in the air, not just humankind in general. There are also other factors such as the earth going through various cycles (like the ice age in the past) that need to be considered. I also agree with your second paragraph that in order to change climate change we need to communicate to the masses, so all can understand like Dr. Whitlock did. Good job on your post! It was an excellent read!
Even I would vote for the anthropocene being added to the geologic record, I also see your point of view. I think that you have the view of a skeptical person who don’t see the point in little changes, such as naming a new epoch. From that view, I see a lot of people not understanding the implications of climate change, or in general, science. We live in a society where we are force feed food (ideas) that we don’t like and then we shy away from it. If we present new ideas in a healthier manner, then I think society can change for the better.