January 15, 2014 — The term Anthropocene — popularized by Nobel prize–winning chemist Paul Crutzen — refers to a new epoch of Earth’s history in which human activities became a dominant force in shaping the environment. This epoch has also become a dominant force in shaping the environmental community — creating two distinct factions, each working for a fundamentally different world.
Traditional environmentalists are predominantly focused on preserving (or restoring) the world as it was before the industrial age, with its historical patterns of climate, natural resources, wild areas and biodiversity — a time known to geologists as the Holocene. But, as Bill McKibben notes in his seminal book, The End of Nature, we have already transformed the entire surface of the planet. We like to believe that some parts of the world are still completely pristine, such as the tropical rainforests or the remote Arctic, but even those places have been changed by human activities — despite any direct human presence — because the atmosphere above them has a different chemistry (mainly due to increasing greenhouse gases and other pollutants) than anything seen in the Holocene.
So, if every corner of the world has been touched — at least in part — by human activity, how can we preserve and maintain Holocene-style nature?
Like it or not, we have already changed the planet in significant ways, and there is no simple way to go back. But I believe it is wrong to say that we no longer need to worry about preserving the Holocene biosphere.
Some in the second faction, the so-called post-environmentalists, suggest we shouldn’t bother. Why, they ask, of all of the different environments, climates and biotic assemblages this planet has seen over the past 4 billion years plus, should the roughly 10,000-year period between the end of the last ice age and beginning of the industrial era be considered the only “natural” and worthy option? What makes this era so special and worth preserving indefinitely into the future? Just because most of our civilization’s history, including the invention of agriculture, fire and other critical advances, occurred during the Holocene, does that mean we should try to maintain those conditions forever? Why not preserve the last ice age, which lasted far longer than the Holocene, or the Pliocene? As some post-environmentalists have suggested, preserving the planet in a Holocene state is like putting the world inside a museum, recording a particular moment in time. Such an effort, for this group, is seen as ultimately arbitrary and pointless.
In short, while most traditional environmentalists want to preserve the Holocene environment, at least some post-environmentalists think that we should focus instead on building the Anthropocene.
So, which is the right world to be fighting for? I think both positions have their merits and shortcomings.
Our aesthetic and spiritual connection to nature and wilderness, and our desire to maintain the Holocene version of the planet, is something that sadly is no longer completely practical. Like it or not, we have already changed the planet in significant ways, and there is no simple way to go back. Furthermore, the planet will soon have 9 billion people with considerably more wealth and aspirations, dramatically increasing demands on natural resources and the planet.
Nature is a hell of an engineer — much better than any of us — so we need to preserve our natural systems as functioning role models for building better human systems.
But I believe it is wrong to say that we no longer need to worry about preserving the Holocene biosphere.
In fact, there are two very practical arguments for preserving as much of the natural Holocene world as reasonably possible. Neither has anything to do with sentiment or aesthetics — but everything to do with the future of our civilization.
First, we are only now learning the tremendous extent to which natural ecosystems provide essential goods and services to humanity, even if they don’t show up in our formal economy or on our balance sheets. Whether by providing clean water, fresh air, pollinating insects or protection from natural disasters, natural ecosystems are extraordinarily valuable to society. In short, we need to preserve the working ecosystems and natural capital of our planet as an investment for our future. And, we need to preserve as much of the world’s remaining species and biodiversity as possible to ensure the stability and functioning of those ecosystems and services.
Second, nature is a hell of an engineer — much better than any of us — so we need to preserve our natural systems as functioning role models for building better human systems. Consider the evidence: Natural systems have no real “waste” (one organism’s waste is just another’s food), everything is built at ambient temperatures (tell that to most chemical engineers and watch their heads explode) and the whole system runs on renewable energy. We can’t even come close to doing that.
Preservation of the biosphere as close to its Holocene state as possible is not just a feel-good exercise of old-school environmentalists; it’s absolutely essential. Not doing so is akin to burning the instruction manual to an incredibly complicated machine, which we depend upon entirely, before we’ve even learned how to operate it.
Of course, we can’t go back to a fully natural Holocene planet. Sadly, that epoch has already come and gone. We have to accept that. But we also must be careful not to simply bandy about the term “Anthropocene” and think that we are bold designers of the planet’s future, ready to take over the stewardship of Earth’s environment. Frankly, we wouldn’t even know where to begin.
Ultimately, we might enter a period in which humans are wise enough to manage the planet (perhaps the “Sophicene,” the age of wisdom). In the meantime, we should have the humility to maintain the best semblance possible of the Holocene version of the planet as long as we can. 
Editor’s note: The views expressed here are those of the author and not necessarily of Ensia. We present them to further discussion around important topics. We encourage you to respond with a comment below, following our commenting guidelines, which can be found here. In addition, you might consider submitting a Voices piece of your own. See Ensia’s “Contact” page for submission guidelines.
Ensia shares solutions-focused stories free of charge through our online magazine and partner media. That means audiences around the world have ready access to stories that can — and do — help them shape a better future. If you value our work, please show your support today.
Yes, I'll support Ensia!
"Preservation of the biosphere as close to its Holocene state as possible is not just a feel-good exercise of old-school environmentalists; it’s absolutely essential. Not doing so is akin to burning the instruction manual to an incredibly complicated machine, which we depend upon entirely, before we’ve even learned how to operate it."
We're tied to a dominant economic model (which will be proven a complete failure, eventually, although it now seems patently obvious to many of us), one that promises the lie of growth forever. The problem is we're rapidly exhausting resource after resource after resource, usurped at unsustainable rates, so that some corporate entity can monetize them for entry into the books by the end of the fiscal quarter/year.
Much of what is presented as "economic growth" is better characterized as theft from future earth's capacity to provide humanity with environmental conditions well-matched for those within which our species evolved.
We need to rethink / replace with systems that recognize and honor the truth that -- apart from incoming solar energy, and human ingenuity -- we inhabit a closed system.
“The last word in ignorance is the man who says of an animal or plant, "What good is it?" If the land mechanism as a whole is good, then every part is good, whether we understand it or not. If the biota, in the course of aeons, has built something we like but do not understand, then who but a fool would discard seemingly useless parts? To keep every cog and wheel is the first precaution of intelligent tinkering.”
― Aldo Leopold, Round River: From the Journals of Aldo Leopold
Thanks for this thoughtful essay.
But this doesn't mean that we must accept bioversity-denial, as if our safe existence is not completely dependent on a diverse ecosystem.
Unfortunately, this message is more even complex and subtle than the message about climate change.
The only question that really matters now is not really holocene (which you point out is kind of gone) vs. anthropocene, but what conditions allow humans to thrive (unless you're so pro-environment that you'd prefer humans to be gone entirely). I suspect we'll need a hefty dose of nature with some human ingenuity on top of that...but given how far we are from actually understanding and mimicking the best natural systems, prudence would suggest saving as much of it as we possible -- if only because these systems, as you say, are the best engineered around.
This leads to a rather obvious objection. In what sense is nature an engineer? Are natural systems engineered compared with human systems? Jet engines for example are ultra reliable machines that are built for a very specific purpose: getting humans from one city to another. Natural systems however are in a state of high stochasticity.
And are natural systems really better engineered than, let's say, Paris? As a human being I would prefer to live in Paris than in a naturally engineered system, where I would stand a high chance of being eaten alive.
Robert Wilson
Foley is a master of this game. In the essay above, for example, he tells us: "traditional environmentalists want to preserve the Holocene environment" while "post-environmentalists" want to abandon it. Foley, of course, is infinitely smarter than the unnamed idiots. He's in the MIDDLE!
(Forgot to mention the other secrecy rule of academic success/irrelevance: don't name your opponents, just list them by category).
Dear reader, please go on web pages of the Sierra Club, National Wildlife Federation, NRDC and Center for Biological Diversity. Search for their "save the Holocene" campaigns, look for the demand that we tear down Milwaukee and return America to a preindustrial state. You won't find, because Foley's "traditional environmentalist' doesn't exist. He made them up in order to denounce them, thereby showing his intellectual superiority.
What about the misinformation and political damage that results from such bald face falsehood? It doesn't matter to Foley because he has no skin in the political game. He just needs to look academic and credible.
For another example, google his comically stupid post arguing that environmentalist are fighting the wrong battle on Keystone XL because other GHG emission sources are greater. Create false opposition (XL vs other GHG emissions): check. Don't name the enviros you find so outrageously stupid: check. Articulate a position in the suburbanly bland middle: check.
Go back to those enviros webpages. All these groups are fighting Keystone. They are all also fighting the other greenhouse gasses Foley says they can't due to fighting Keystone. Thus Foley's argument meets the last criteria of academic success: it is utterly irrelevant to the real world battle of politically engaged people trying to change the world.
I'd recommend that Foley stop with the cartoonist descriptions and false oppositions. But I fear that would be contrary to his core mission. Foley wants to demonstrate his superiority, he has no interest in reality. Indeed, reality is a threat to his mission.
Volcanoes, deep sea vents, magma ruptures, seismic actions, antarctic/artic currents in both air and water etc are not 'Ambient' temperatures.
Our planet surface biosphere is built upon largely renewable energy from Solar Irradiation AND internal heat bleeding from the radiation/friction of the earths core and mantle.
Please encompass this aspect into buttressing your arguments to defray the climate-change nay-sayers. They don't need any small edge to undermine your well put position.
Great work otherwise.
I clearly don't like how this is formulated. Because it implies that we could one day be wiser than Mother Nature. We'v tamed her - yeeaah - we are HER manager.
No - we'll NEVER be. Because nature is so much bigger than our pour understanding will ever be. And it's divine. Can we manage GOD. Yes? No? If we cannot manage GOD, we cannot manage our Mother Earth neither.
And we hopefully !!! never will !!!