A Personal Chronicle of the “Anthropocene”

“The New is rarely the good, because the good is only the new for a short time” ( Arthur Schopenhauer, 1)

“I must always remember the principle of never arguing about words and their meanings, because such arguments are specious and insignificant” (Karl Popper, Unended Quest: 17)

Is it appropriate to define the outset of the ‘Anthropocene’ by the sudden shift towards a unified world system emerging in the last few centuries since the industrial revolution when humankind became dramatically disconnected from nature? Or –sometime in the future– will the Anthropocene be broadly associated with all that made the modern world possible, from animal and plant domestication, urbanisation, empire-building, city-states and expanding human migration, to the all-embracing, gradual complexity that humankind has created in the last post-glacial 10 000 years which radically changed how we experience the world? Above all, the effective inclusion of the term in the popular lexicon showing its seductive, clear-cut appeal, may turn into a weakness if further substantial work does not develop research methodology beyond fashion. Ultimately, understanding the Anthropocene ‘problem’ requires an explanatory theory (the break from the Newton to the quantum mechanics worlds come to mind) beyond the piecemeal recognition of concepts such as ‘the Great Acceleration’ or ‘Ecosystems Tipping-points’ identifying ‘sub-system’ connections in the ‘Earth System’ which are poorly understood, notably when seeking to explain ‘social tipping-points’ and ‘socio-behavioural systems’ [P.S.: the ‘Anthropocene Epoch’ as a term defining a specific geological time scale was finally rejected, see note 9].

Cuernavaca, Mexico, February 2000: the annual meeting of the Scientific Committee of the International Geosphere-Biosphere Programme (IGBP) is assembled to discuss how to best disseminate 15 years of scientific findings facilitated by the programme. Paul Crutzen, IGBP’s Vice-chair, Will Steffen (IGBP executive director) and I (deputy director, social sciences) meet for coffee during the morning meeting break. Paul is particularly impressed by the reading of a book-draft he has been asked to review, focusing on the ‘astounding expansion of humankind’ (2). I comment that most natural scientists consider mankind’s geological force a relatively recent phenomenon, but for the archaeologist in me, its inception may well go back to the end of glaciation c. 12 000 years ago, a period particularly witnessing remarkable human impacts on tropical ecosystems, namely fire, technological change and increased food production. However, as the meeting went on, Paul Crutzen, in an inspirational reference to where the discussions had been leading to, asserted that the term Anthropocene would best describe the current state of our environmental history, a notion that he and Stoermer formalised in a IGBP Newsletter published shortly thereafter (3).

Which are the causes and consequences of the present disrupting crisis? Looking into the mainstream literature (4) it seems above all the impacts, effects, and outcomes in the functioning of the Earth System that matter most. If, however, we look beyond the growing evidence of a pervasive degree of anthropogenic impacts, the nature of the present environmental ‘wear and tear’ has been ongoing for millennia, particularly since the inception of urbanization 10 500 years ago (e.g. as seen at the ancient city of Jericho), a process with notable demographic and ecological consequences. Such dating may even slightly move back a couple of thousand years with recent evidence that extinct large mammals, rather than hunted out, were burned in fires that humans started (5). Such a sense of deeper-time and holistic view inspired Charles Lyell in 1833, when the term ‘Holocene’ (“Recent Whole”) was chosen to designate the post-glacial geological epoch starting 12 000 years ago, a rationale shared by W.F. Rudiman when more recently arguing for a much earlier inception of the ‘Anthropogenic Greenhouse Era’ (6).

The term Anthropocene became popularly adopted in the last two decades to epitomize the world we live in, expecting the ‘International Commission on Stratigraphy’ (ICS) to formally approve its chronological boundaries. Since 2009 geologists affiliated with the ‘Anthropocene Working Group’ of the ICS have examined nine possible sites to describe the Anthropocene. A recent study conducted in a Canadian lake suggests 1950 as the date for the geological inception of the Anthropocene, even though related evidence at the site indicate ‘early recorded impacts’ dated from the 13th century (7). The ‘very clear markers’ are from Plutonium used in nuclear weapons testing, which –according to the authors– testify to the transition from the Holocene, dated to 11 700 years ago at the end of the last Ice age. Be that as it may, we have to keep in mind that African savannahs and most of the modern Australian vegetation is man-made (and maintained through fire-regime) since immemorial times, recently dated as ocurring for the last 11.000 years in Australia (8). The Holocene epoch, the more recent epoch of the Quaternary Period, was formally proposed in 1885 but only approved in 1969. Will the ISC deliberations be swifter this time? [P.S. the ‘Anthropocene Epoch’ proposal was rejected at ISC's final meeting (4th March 2024), see 9]

It is frequently the case that the obvious stares us in the face if we are not blinded by the synchronicity of the present, individual and linear time. Conversely, if attentive and mindful of the reality of perpetual change, we may instead experience and value what binds us together collectively, perceiving depth (time, space, awareness) as the supreme factor shaping our consciousness and the sense we make of the world. In geological processes ­­–as well as for all mechanistic science holding reality as purely material and all real existence strictly physical­– duration is represented by linear, stratigraphic, regular time, the arrow that connects the past to the future, that feeds the tale of progress and knowledge. I submit that flowing, collective, and cyclical time may provide an alternative path of inquiry in which biophysical limits, human error and the unpredictable rise and fall of civilisations have a more intertwined and discerning role (10). Such a viewpoint may underpin the perception of time as fragmented or in flux, occurring long ago or proceeding now as we sense it (11). All things considered, time will tell since when the Anthropocene as a geophysical process is in fact happening, which may in the long-run coincide with the what the current ‘Holocene Epoch’ stands for and hence to be renamed accordingly.

Alternatively, considering the above, I would argue that it is understandably easier for social scientists, historians and environmental archaeologists to recognise the rationale for periodisation criteria prompted by human agency rather than time-series segmentation and ‘closed-system’ bias inspired by stratigraphic and geophysical processes. More to the point: why should we expect magisterial approval of the inception of the Anthropocene as a frozen-in-time geological event, rather than understanding it as the expression of historical processes that humanity has been going through in the last few millennia? Why to expect ‘authoritative’ approval from geoscience affiliation (such as the ICS) instead of endorsement from interdisciplinary international bodies (such as the International Science Council)? Arguably the current state of affairs reflect our addiction to a world view of deep-rooted mechanistic assumptions reducing all processes to the primacy of matter, under the charge of a closed-system thinking syndrome, originating in outdated natural sciences. What is now sorely needed is the interdisciplinary synergy between the sciences and the humanities promoting the understanding of the universal dimension of human-driven action and outcomes, the legacy of cognitive social impacts over matter, all that came to be what it is by an historical flow that is ever-changing: a renaissance of the spirit of the humanities better able to understand the nature of our world (12). Lastly –intellectual fashion or scientific taxonomy issues aside– the loosely term Anthropocene is by now a firmly established narrative in the history of ideas as a common perception of our present age.

From Global Change and Earth System Science to the Anthropocene

The era of space exploration provided a visually powerful porthole to our blue planet. Seeing it in its entirety floating in a boundless void, the vision highlighted Earth’s fragility and the necessity of universal “global change” governability. The term was coined in the 70’s by the political-science community, but quickly superseded by the physical-lead notion of “Earth-system science”, best illustrated by the Bretherton Diagram that was developed in 1986 for NASA (13). During my early work at IGBP I proposed specific components of ‘Human activities’ to be incorporated the newly developed research agenda of the Human Dimensions Programme (HDP) where humans occupied a trivial and marginal position in the geocentric, machine-like, Bretherton world.

Notwithstanding such physicalist approach, it was becoming clearer that there was much beyond the material reality of planetary functions, demanding the inclusion of a human agenda addressing “our common future” (14).  Perhaps under the sway of this ideal, the International Geosphere-Biosphere Programme (IGBP) as the first large global change scientific initiative launched in 1987, initially flirted with normative issues such as governance, commonly associated with the social sciences. But seeing itself as a “neutral forum”, its leadership pointed out in 1992 that the Human Dimensions Programme (HDP, established in 1990) –representing the social-science research relevant to global change– was closely related to policy and that IGBP should “avoid being drawn into politics” (15).

I joined IGBP in 1995 initially as the Social Sciences Officer, after having been involved with human and natural science studies as an archaeologist. I soon realised to my dismay that global-change research in fact reflected parallel scientific worlds. There was even a “social process diagram” designed to match its Bretherton counterpart (16) and, for a short time, duplicate HDP offices in Barcelona and Geneva, reminding us of the Avignon versus Rome papal schism. I was nevertheless encouraged by the opportunity that the IGBP agenda offered to challenge the natural vs social science syndrome, particularly through projects such as Past Global Changes (PAGES) and Land-Use and Land-Cover Change (LUCC, which Science Plan I edited). The work of these projects clearly demonstrated how biogeochemistry, climate and land-cover change interact with the human sphere in space and time. I was keen to do more.

My opportunity came when the International Council for Science (ICSU) and the International Social Science Council (ISSC) –sponsors of IGBP and the Human Dimensions Programme, respectively– initiated closer collaboration. In 1996, I participated in conflicting discussions in which two opposing views emerged: one camp argued for integrating both programmes under the IGBP umbrella while the other wanted to group the human sciences into a separate programme. Unfortunately, the timing wasn’t ripe to allow those two asymmetrical communities to merge. A separate programme, the International Human Dimensions Programme on Global Environmental Change (IHDP), was set up after substantial effort and negotiations. I recall a critical dinner where ICSU General Secretary J W M La Rivière, Eckart Ehlers and I brainstormed on how IHDP could have a home at the University of Bonn, where Ehlers was Professor of Geography.

Despite the missed opportunity to integrate, some IGBP communities and its Secretariat strove hard to better incorporate the social sciences into the research agenda and find the required administrative infrastructure to run it. For example, the LUCC project engaged a broad community involving natural and social sciences. This endeavour was not without its tensions in trying to reconcile different paradigms, perceptions of scale and agency; and, like finding a home for IHDP, I had to initiate complex negotiations to have one of its core project offices established at the Cartographic Institute in Barcelona (the Global Land Project).

Such developments helped cement the concept of humanity as an integral component of the Earth system. Throughout the late 1990s, IGBP and its community became more and more aware of the need for integration of the natural and social sciences. IGBP thus took the lead in organising the seminal 2001 ‘Amsterdam Open Science Conference’, which was held jointly with the other global change programmes (IGBP, IHDP and the World Climate Research Programme). This would prove to be the trigger to set up the Earth System Science Partnership (ESSP) under the 'blessing' of a newly coined word and concept ('the Anthropocene'). If, in its early stages, global change research suffered from an obvious attraction and bias in which Earth system’s biophysical processes were seen as having a better “fit” at a global scale, the ESSP platform helped the science to come of age: it raised awareness that global impacts on life-supporting systems and livelihoods were most critical at sub-global levels, where societal needs reside; and ultimately inspired the inception of a revamped science prompting the recognition of a new man-made age, the Anthropocene. 

Photo: "Rebirth" - Bilkyrkogården in Båstnäs, Sweden, where nature is gradually repossessing the forsaken graveyard of disassembled cars –c.1000, 1950’s to 1980’s models– and two old houses from where spare parts were chiefly sent to needy Norway after World War II (João de Morais, 17 August 2021).

(1) Arthur Schopenhauer, Parerga and Paralipomena, vol 2: 453;

(2) P. Crutzen’s review of J.R.McNeill ’Something New Under the Sun: an environmental history of the 20th Century’, W.W.Norton, 2000 is available in Nature (vol.407, 12 Oct 2000: 674-675)

(3) P Crutzen, EF Stoermer, ‘Have we entered the Anthropocene?’ IGBP Newsletter 41 (May 2000, p.18), see www.igbp.net/news/opinion/opinion/haveweenteredtheanthropocene.5.d8b4c3c12bf3be638a8000578.html; and www.nature.com/nature/journal/v415/n6867/full/415023a.html;

(4) https://www.sciencedirect.com/topics/earth-and-planetary-sciences/anthropocene;

(5) https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/science.abo3594; relevant ref: (...) “Earlier impacts, notably those resulting from Indigenous agriculture between the late 13th and latest 15th centuries and logging of the catchment beginning in the mid-19th century, are recorded by numerous proxies occurring tens of centimetres below the proposed GSSP” [i.e., the lower boundary of a stage on the geologic time scale](...);

(6) http://stephenschneider.stanford.edu/Publications/PDF_Papers/Ruddiman2003.pdf;

(7) https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/20530196221149281

(8) https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-024-00693-6

(9) P.S.: deliberations reached 4th March 2024 have turned down the proposal for an ‘Anthropocene Epoch’, see https://doi.org/10.1038/d41586-024-00868-1; https://www.nytimes.com/2024/03/05/climate/anthropocene-epoch-vote-rejected.html?unlocked_article_code=1.ak0.QPyb.zq_Tb6cg-QAJ&smid=url-share&utm_source=Live+Audience&utm_campaign=81fbbcb95d-briefing-dy-20240306&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_b27a691814-81fbbcb95d-51772268; and https://theconversation.com/the-anthropocene-is-not-an-epoch-but-the-age-of-humans-is-most-definitely-underway-224495

(10) W Ophuls (2012), Immoderate Greatness, Why Civilizations Fail, CreateSpace Independent Publishing Platform, p.66;

(11) McGilchrist, Iain (2021). The Matter with Things, vol.2: 943. Perspectiva Press;

(12) https://galileocommission.org/

(13) Earth System Science Overview: A Program for Global Change. Earth System Science Committee, NASA Advisory Council, 1986 and https://serc.carleton.edu/introgeo/earthsystem/ess;

(14) WCED (1987) Our Common Future: Report of the World Commission on Environment and Development. Switzerland;

(15) Minutes of the fourth IGBP Scientific Committee meeting. Munich and Rosenheim, Germany, 1992;

(16) Pathways of Understanding: The Interactions of Humanity and Global Environmental Change. Consortium for International Earth System Science Information Network (CIESIN), Michigan, USA, 1992