At the start of the 21st century, human beings have made a huge impact on the global ecosystem. Many people believe that the Anthropogenic epoch has been caused by all humans, while there is the conflicting idea that it is only because of some people. The use of some scholarly journals, a museum, and a book present the commonalities and the differences in the claims and evidence of some perspectives. This paper will argue that there are many claims to the cause of the Anthropocene. Also, it will present what amount of human interactions should be taken against the anthropogenic situations for the animals and the environment. There is no conclusion of who is responsible for the epoch, but it is debated. Finally, there is no conclusion
…show more content…
To some, much of what caused the effects was the burning of fossil fuels. The “Sant Ocean Hall” Exhibit states that the Anthropocene is “a new geological epoch that started with the Industrial Revolution” (“Sant Ocean Hall”). Similarly, Steffen et al states that “what made industrialization central for the Earth System was the enormous expansion in the use of fossil fuels, first coal and then oil and gas as well" (Steffen et al 616). Both of these claims compare to be the same because they both claim that the Industrial Revolution is the start of the Anthropocene. Malm and Hornborg provide evidence to this claim in their scholarly journal by stating that “the fossil economy was not created nor is it upheld by humankind in general" (Malm and Hornborg 1). The use of fossil fuels was only used by some, and in total, the destruction of the environment has “largely been caused by only 25% of the world population" (Crutzen). This is interesting that Crutzen states this because later in the article, he contradicts this and states that the Anthropocene is “human-dominated” and it is the “impact of mankind.” These two statements differ because one is an overall mankind that is damaging the Earth and the other is only a portion of humans. In addition, also opposed to the idea of human existence as the cause of the Anthropocene, …show more content…
These different sources show that there is definitely an impact that is made by humans. The burning of fossil fuels by some people hurts the global ecosystem, and the polluting in the ocean also hurts more than just the sea life. There are many different perspectives on the reality of the Anthropocene and all of them have proof to what they believe. I think that no matter what the real definition of the Anthropocene, everyone should try to conserve. Humans are responsible in some matter because animals are in danger. If no one does anything because they think that everyone else is doing something, then everyone is a bystander to the destruction of the environment. Also, in conserving animals, it is not clear if there should be human intervention in saving them. It debates whether they would be the same or a human dependent animal that is not worth saving. Whether it was from the beginning of humans that harmed the environment, or only a few, the environment is still hurting and everyone can take a part in healing
To some, much of what caused the effects was the burning of fossil fuels. The “Sant Ocean Hall” Exhibit states that the Anthropocene is “a new geological epoch that started with the Industrial Revolution” (“Sant Ocean Hall”). Similarly, Steffen et al states that “what made industrialization central for the Earth System was the enormous expansion in the use of fossil fuels, first coal and then oil and gas as well" (Steffen et al 616). Both of these claims compare to be the same because they both claim that the Industrial Revolution is the start of the Anthropocene. Malm and Hornborg provide evidence to this claim in their scholarly journal by stating that “the fossil economy was not created nor is it upheld by humankind in general" (Malm and Hornborg 1). The use of fossil fuels was only used by some, and in total, the destruction of the environment has “largely been caused by only 25% of the world population" (Crutzen). This is interesting that Crutzen states this because later in the article, he contradicts this and states that the Anthropocene is “human-dominated” and it is the “impact of mankind.” These two statements differ because one is an overall mankind that is damaging the Earth and the other is only a portion of humans. In addition, also opposed to the idea of human existence as the cause of the Anthropocene, …show more content…
These different sources show that there is definitely an impact that is made by humans. The burning of fossil fuels by some people hurts the global ecosystem, and the polluting in the ocean also hurts more than just the sea life. There are many different perspectives on the reality of the Anthropocene and all of them have proof to what they believe. I think that no matter what the real definition of the Anthropocene, everyone should try to conserve. Humans are responsible in some matter because animals are in danger. If no one does anything because they think that everyone else is doing something, then everyone is a bystander to the destruction of the environment. Also, in conserving animals, it is not clear if there should be human intervention in saving them. It debates whether they would be the same or a human dependent animal that is not worth saving. Whether it was from the beginning of humans that harmed the environment, or only a few, the environment is still hurting and everyone can take a part in healing