Earlier this month, a panel of geologists rejected a proposal to “officially” recognize the time frame in which we currently live as an entirely separate period of geological time called the “Anthropocene.” The vote against changing the name from the current “Holocene'' was 12 to 4, with two abstentions. The three committee members did not vote, probably because they were too busy with social media to care about such things.
As Raymond Zhong, writing for the New York Times, reports, this decision involves more than just scientific semantics.
This declaration will shape the vocabulary of textbooks, research papers, and museums around the world. It will help scientists understand our present for generations to come, perhaps even millennia.
The debate over whether to use modern terminology to describe the current era has arisen largely because of disagreements over when such an “Anthropocene” era actually began.
According to the definition developed by an initial panel of experts over nearly a decade and a half, the Anthropocene began in the mid-20th century, when nuclear bomb tests unleashed radioactive fallout around the world. For several members of the scientific committee who have considered the panel's proposals in recent weeks, this definition is too limited and too recent to provide an adequate guide to the reshaping of the Earth by Homo sapiens. It didn't.
It is somewhat surprising that the majority of geologists refused to reclassify the current epoch, and this was largely technical and out of good faith. As Zhong points out, it does not reflect the disagreement over the fact that humans have irrevocably altered the environment. For example, some scientists believe that the current era is better described as an “event.”
It is not a clear geological period, but rather an extinction “event” that greatly puzzled the dinosaurs.
Zhong said:
Under the rules of stratigraphy, each interval of Earth time must have a clear, objective starting point that applies worldwide. The Anthropocene Working Group proposed the mid-20th century, lumping together a period of postwar economic growth, globalization, urbanization, and an explosion of energy use. However, several members of the subcommittee said that humanity's upending of the Earth is a much more expansive story, and there may not even be a single starting date that spans every corner of the planet.
Dominic Browning, an environmental activist and current vice president of the Environmental Defense Fund, says that neither the “Anthropocene” nor the “Holocene” adequately describe the characteristics of our current era. In her guest essay, also published in the New York Times, she suggests describing it simply as “obscenity.”
Obscenity that violates moral principles. unpleasant, disgusting. If you're wondering about the origin of the word, it means sinister or hideous.
We have plastic crisis, we start with the trash that is casually discarded in our streets, parks, streams, and oceans. However, plastic production continues to increase.For decades, the plastics industry sold the common man Materials with misleading messages that they will be recycled. Considering the recovery and recycling rates, there are very few. less than 10 percent World wide. But the problem runs deeper, as a lengthy report published in the journal Annals of Global Health explains. last year: “Current patterns of plastic production, use and disposal have been shown to be unsustainable, cause serious harm to human health, the environment and the economy, and contribute to serious social injustice. I did.”
But Browning points out that the environmental problems facing the world go far beyond the ubiquity of plastic waste.
Last year was the warmest ever on Earth, and we are close to achieving global warming. 1.5℃ rise Since before the Industrial Revolution, climate scientists have warned against exceeding this threshold.Achieving global carbon emissions from fossil fuels record high price last year. Methane leaks have been underreported for many years. Nevertheless, at an energy conference in Houston last week, the head of the world's largest oil producer said: He told fossil fuel executives to “abandon any illusions about phasing out oil and gas.” The applause continued.
Millions of people continue to be exposed to harmful chemicals in food and other consumer products. Many of the chemicals contained in Household goods They can be detected in the bloodstream, and some are thought to be linked to cancer, developmental disorders, reproductive and endocrine problems. Air pollution remains a major problem. Although the United States has made great strides in improving air quality, problems with mercury and soot in the atmosphere remain. Around the world, air pollution is a global health crisis and is estimated to cause: 6.7 million people died prematurely Every year. Additionally, there is deforestation, ocean acidification, drought, and biodiversity loss, but this is by no means a complete list.
I think it has a wonderful resonance in the era of Obscene. Assuming it is faithfully transcribed into our scientific textbooks and research papers, such a designation would convey through a whole new generation of scientific literature the devastating severity of the catastrophe we now face. This will have a chain effect of communicating the following.
It may also have unintended political consequences. Imagine the reaction of right-wing types when they run a Google search for “obscene” looking for books to ban, and instead get thousands of hits about climate change.
I'm finishing the Oscar tour watching this past life I hope everyone has a great night tonight!
