Derrick Linville
Scientists have defined different spans of time on planet Earth in terms of periods, eras, or epochs—each characterized by changes in Earth’s systems. For example, Earth’s most recent age, the Holocene is described as a geological epoch, which began around 11,000-12,000 years ago (Walker et al. 2009). The very term ‘Holocene” is derived from the Greek language from the words holos, meaning whole or entire, and kainos, meaning new; accordingly, this implies the meaning of the Holocene as our “entirely recent” age (“Holocene”). The Anthropocene is a newly proposed epoch in Earth’s history, with the prefix derived from the Greek Anthropos, meaning man, or human (“Anthropo”). The word origin for the Anthropocene implies that it is signified by a transition into a time characterized by humans being the primary force changing Earth’s systems. The term Anthropocene “acknowledges that human activity is in effect a geological process, and that we are generating a physical and biological environment that is distinct from anything before and that is likely to leave a substantial trace in the geological record of Earth’s history” (Ellis and Trachtenberg 2013). The Anthropocene is undoubtedly the subject of much scientific, social, and political debate. It is clear, however, that human impacts are more prevalent in our current environments than they were at earlier points in history—population increase, pollution, and biodiversity loss being a few examples. Before one can begin to understand a concept as broad and multidisciplinary as the Anthropocene, they must gain a concept of how environments are currently and historically defined through the use of language. From the scientific approach of linguistics, one can begin to take a closer look at how the words we choose to define our environment can have effects on the impacts we impose upon it. Similarly, our actions in the environment affect the way we perceive and define it in words. The methodology of linguistics sets the stage for understanding how defining a new epoch of the Anthropocene is significant by demonstrating a moral necessity for human beings to recognize their coexistence with other species on Earth. I propose through the examination of the etymology of word origins for Earth’s geological epochs, and the work of Dr. Brit Solli, Michelle Marvier, and others, that the first step to tackling the moral dynamics of the Anthropocene begins with the way we define it in words and rhetoric.
In an article titled, “Some Reflections on Heritage and Archaeology in the Anthropocene,” anthropologist Brit Solli describes a phenomenon in anthropological thought: the concept of the ‘linguistic turn’. According to Solli, “The linguistic turn can be explained as ‘the claim that all knowledge requires language for its expression, and that an adequate grasp of the nature of knowledge will minimally require an account of the conditions of meaningful language use’” (Solli 2011). In other words, the world is described with words and sentences, and would not otherwise be defined; incidentally, it is morally imperative that humanity chooses linguistic definitions of the environment carefully. In this way the method through which we perceive the world is hard wired and derived directly from our ability to ascribe meaning from language (Solli 2011). Solli recognizes that this is especially thought provoking because it highlights the fact that the initial task of tackling the Anthropocene is to not only define it in terms, but to expand on the rhetoric of the notion that humans are drastically changing the environment. In my opinion is not enough to present scientific and economic data to persuade the general population to take the Anthropocene debate seriously, although this information is equally as important to approaching human environmental impacts. Solli recognizes that linguistically defining the human environment is an especially pressing issue, noting that, “We have as yet no proper language, no developed theories of how to write archaeology and how to deal with concepts like heritage in the Anthropocene epoch” (Solli 2011). What this means is that we have a strong moral obligation to begin to define the environment within the context of how humans interact with it. This discussion by Solli is important to the greater discussion of the Anthropocene because it recognizes that we have yet to attempt to define Earth’s environments from a linguistically moral position. Morality is essentially a relative experience, with the individual determining a distinction between right and wrong. Following this notion, by linguistically defining human beings as being a part of Earth’s systems, and a part of the Anthropocene epic, we can pin a moral obligation to the human race as a whole to respect the balance of ecological systems.
In “What is Conservation Science?” it is reported that, “one additional change since 1985 is a generational shift in the experience that children have with nature, largely due to urbanization, less outdoor play, and the dominance of computers and video games in their daily lives” (Kareiva and Marvier 2012). This is particularly important to the linguistics and vocabulary of the topic of nature and wilderness (For an expanded discussion of perceptions of wilderness see Chapter 2, Wiley). We have a moral obligation to recognize the Earth as our only habitable environment, and it is difficult to persuade the general population to conceptualize and define nature in a way that places humans as part of nature. According to a Miller (2005) study cited by Kareiva and Marvier, “kids recognize hundreds of corporate logos but fewer than 10 native plant species” (Kareiva and Marvier 2012). Furthermore, “a study of 286 Caldecott Prize–winning children’s books since 1938 (and 8036 images therein) showed a steady decline in the frequency with which natural environments and wild animals appeared in these books” (Kareiva and Marvier 2012). If we continue to follow the trend of perpetual disconnect from talking about nature and identifying personally with our ‘natural’ environment, then we will only distance ourselves farther from a conceptualization of humanity’s moral role on Earth. It is a morally essential that we emphasize the discussion and use of language relating to other species of plants and animals outside of the human realm. Only by keeping the discussion of the symbiosis of humans and other species alive in our languages and literature, can we hope to reassess our close proximity to what we view as pristine or natural.
In “Humanity’s Relation to Gaia: Part of the Whole, or Member of the Community?” Philosopher Michael E. Zimmerman expands on the philosophical and moral necessity for humans to linguistically define their environment. According to Zimmerman, “modern Western humankind has often conceived of itself as dramatically other to, and far more valuable than, the non-human natural world” (Zimmerman 2004). This presents a great moral dilemma for anyone attempting to make sense of how humans affect their environments. Without directly recognizing the close proximity between the human world and the “natural” world through the way it is defined in our language, we face the potential to neglect important aspects of human actions. As Zimmerman continues, “Viewing non-human nature in a wholly instrumental manner invites the kind of exploitation that has generated so many environmental problems, ranging from urban pollution to destruction of wildlife habitat” (Zimmerman 2004). It is morally dangerous to define non-human nature simply in terms of instrumental value because it leads to the potential of moral disconnect between humans and the impacts of their actions (For a differing opinion, see Chapter 3, Scranton). In other words, with the current way that Western societies choose to linguistically define human impacts, we see the outcome reflected as a perception of a miniscule moral obligation to protect Earth’s environments. That is why linguistically defining the Anthropocene in a new light should be seen as a high priority. Zimmerman’s discussion frames an important aspect of the Anthropocene discussion through proposing that humankind be defined so that it, “takes into account the remarkable differences between humans and other animals (differences that include the linguistic competence that makes science possible),” and to escape from defining non-human aspects of Earth “only as instruments to enhance power and security” (Zimmerman 2004). Human beings have an especially strong moral obligation to recognize and respect forms of life, which do not possess the same linguistic competence to state their case. In other words, we possess such a strong ability to affect the way we define the world through human language and rhetoric; consequentially, we hold the weight of the rest of the world on our shoulders to do so in a way that is morally sound for all species on the planet. At this point in Earth’s history, the planet’s organisms and systems essentially depend on linguistic human understanding and protection. We must begin to see the earth as Our Earth—an Earth that is very much in the middle of an Anthropocene.
In “Landscapes: The Social Construction of Nature and the Environment,” it is discussed that “Our understanding of nature and of human relationships with the environment are really cultural expressions used to define who we were, who we are, and who we hope to be at this place and in this space [Earth].” The Earth needs to be viewed not in the context of human’s vs. the ‘natural’ world, but rather, humans as an aspect of the environment. Greider and Garkovich (1994) continue their discussion with the notion that, “cultural groups use symbols [and language] to define the natural environment and fit in into their ongoing, everyday, taken-for-granted worlds within which they organize both their relationships to each other and their relationships with the environment” (Greider and Garkovich 1994). It is equally morally important for human beings to linguistically define their relationship with themselves as with their environment. The ‘survival of the fittest’ or ‘every man for himself’ descriptive mentalities that science has used to describe natural selection also have much to do with the current state of how we view our environment and our fellow man. Greider and Garkovich (1994) add an important aspect to the linguistic discussion of the Anthropocene because their work recognizes the moral obligation that human beings have to protect their environments not only for their own individual benefit, but for the benefit of fellow humans—and other species as well. This presents a necessity for human beings to take a more altruistic approach to defining Earth’s environments. Once people begin to define humanity in terms of differences and similarities to other species (recognizing that other species do not utilize linguistics the same as we do), as well as highlighting the diversity of human cultures, the altruistic obligation to protect, conserve, and preserve Earth’s many inhabitants will follow.
Throughout my course of exploration with tackling the moral implications of the Anthropocene, I kept coming back to the question of whether or not human beings have a moral obligation to be more altruistic in their approach to daily life—specifically with regard to how they affect Earth’s environment. Originally I was convinced that it is our ‘every-man-for-himself’ attitude that has lead human beings down the road toward harming Earth’s natural systems. I now believe that the proper approach to this predicament begins with the language we use to define such a geological epoch (Solli 2011). By coining this new paradigm as the Anthropocene, we emphasize the immense impact that humans have begun to cause, while simultaneously emphasizing the fact that human beings are part of the environment rather than an entity apart from it (Greider and Garkovich 1994). I think that the observed lack of general altruism among human beings is a symptom of the way our languages have defined Our Earth, and subsequently, define the human environment within it (Kareiva and Marvier 2012). So long as we choose to define humanity as superior to other species through our usage of language, we will not be able to change perceptions of our moral obligations to how we should act, and react within our environments (Zimmerman 2004). This is Our Earth, not just ‘the earth,’. Currently, there is no option to relocate if our environment becomes inhabitable by humans. We have one planet, and a strong moral obligation to pay attention to the way in which we linguistically define our place in nature. As human beings, we possess an ability to ascribe meaning through our use of language and communication. It is this same source of meaning that we can use to morally tie humans to Our Earth.
Works Cited
“Anthropo”. Online Etymology Dictionary, http://www.etymonline.com/
Ellis, Michael A., and Zev Trachtenberg. “Which Anthropocene is it to be? Beyond geology to a moral and public discourse.” Earth’s Future (2013).
Greider, Thomas, and Lorraine Garkovich. “Landscapes: The social construction of nature and the environment.” Rural sociology 59.1 (1994): 1-24.
“Holocene”. Online Etymology Dictionary. http://www.etymonline.com/
Kareiva, Peter & Marvier, Michelle, “What is Conservation Science,” BioScience 62(11):962-969 (2012).
Solli, Brit, et al. “Some Reflections On Heritage And Archaeology In The Anthropocene.” Norwegian Archaeological Review 44.1 (2011): 40-88. Academic Search Premier. Web. 30 Apr. 2014.
Walker, Mike, et al. “Formal definition and dating of the GSSP (Global Stratotype Section and Point) for the base of the Holocene using the Greenland NGRIP ice core, and selected auxiliary records.” Journal of Quaternary Science 24.1 (2009): 3-17.
Zimmerman, Michael E. “Humanity’s Relation to Gaia: Part of the Whole, or Member of the Community?.” The Trumpeter 20.1 (2004): 2004.
Ye Olde Groupe's Anthropocene Anthology 