Anthropocene or Ecozoic?
What shall we name the current epoch?
There is a consensus within the International Union of Geological Sciences, the organization that determines the naming of eras. It asserts that the Holocene epoch is over (it lasted for almost 12,000 years). Yet this consensus has not averted a contentious debate that pits scientists against environmentalists regarding the choice of a new name.
Strife surrounds the leading name candidate – “The Anthropocene Era”. The term derives from 'anthropo', for human, and 'cene', for new.
What is new about humans?
The answer inferred by the term 'anthropocene' is the impact of human life upon the globe. But, you might protest, human impact can be traced back to A.D. 900 when agriculturists began to leave their marks upon the planet. The justification is that someting significant IS new. It is the nature and the intensity of this impact. As a species, humans are now causing mass extinctions of plants and animals, polluting the waterways and the atmosphere, eroding topsoil, causing habitat loss and species invasions, depleting resources, and wreaking havoc on the Earth’s material and energetic systems in countless other ways.
Atmospheric chemist and Nobel laureate Paul Crutzen popularized the term ‘anthropocene’ in 2000. Since then, it has been appearing in scientific journals and environmental literature, and it has even infiltrated Gangsta rap (Courtesy of Gizoogle) – “Da Anthropocene sez humanitizzle gon flung our hood outta tha Holocene n’ tha fuck into a freshly smoked up geological epoch.” Geologist have until 2016 to officially declare that the Holocene over and the new era begun. Will it be known as the Anthropocene?
The same concept accounts for those who object to the term’s adoption and those who favor it. They agree that “anthropocene” is an indictment against the arrogance of the human species, as evidenced by its reckless and selfish extravagances. By highlighting the impact of human activities, however, those who favor the term hope that humans will acknowledge their power and direct it toward rectifying the problems they have caused; while those who oppose the term prefer the less accusatory alternative that was proposed by the eco-theologian, Thomas Berry. He suggests “Ecozoic”. The prefix ‘eco’ removes the focus from humans and directs it toward an inclusive concern for all species and all ecosystems.
Both sides might heed the warning that appeared in the Spring 2013 issue of Earth Island Journal by Kathleen Dean Moore of Oregon State University: “We should use words cautiously. Words are powerful, magical, impossible to control. With a single misguided phrase they can move a concept from one world into another, altering forever the landscape for our thinking.”
I am grateful to Basia Irland, a prominent eco-artist, for introducing me this fascinating naming dilemma.