- If I got a vote on this board I would want to add the Anthropocene epoch because it represents a drastic change in Earth as we know it. In his article, Kolbert has a grocery list of examples as to how the Earth has changed and how humans have such a large role in this change (Kolbert, 3). I would argue that humans have changed the atmosphere, soil, and makeup of the Earth in a shorter time period than any other transformation has taken place. I agree with Crutzen that we shouldn’t focus our time on renaming and rewriting history when our focus should be on the implications of the Anthropocene itself (Kolbert, 4). Our capitalist society has used the Earth’s resources and become so greedy that we are contributing to our own demise, a theme that is present in Malm’s writings (Malm, 1). Considering that one of the four biggest trans-formative times for humans also coincides with Earth’s, the age of industrialization has completely changed life on Earth (Steffen et al., 616). I would say that the Anthropocene should begin at the beginning of the Agricultural Revolution and continue until the present day.
- Professor Whitlock said that to reach out to Montanans about climate change she called it changing climate, which people responded to better than its actual name. She also reached out to them on issues that directly affected them rather than trying to explain what could happen to the ocean or some other place that can only be seen on the television. I do think that agreeing with climate change on the face can actually be quite problematic because if you are doing it to agree with your friend group then you aren’t being honest with the issues of the status quo. We are having a significant amount of environmental problems to date and sometimes being a maverick and disagreeing with the people around you to make this point clear is actually better than complying.
1 thought on “This Anthropo(seems) bad”
Comments are closed.
Madelyn, I thought you did a great job of summarizing the readings for this week and provide solid information to prove your point. I also think you did well in answering the questions about how Professor Whitlock reaches out to Montanans about climate change. I think it’s interesting that people responded better to changing climate even though the two words were just switched around. I do agree that some people only agree with climate change because of their peers, but I’m not sure I completely follow the point that you’re trying to make when you say that disagreeing to make a point clear is better than just complying.