Though many would prefer to turn a blind eye, there is no denying that humans have been leaving a distinct impact on the planet, particularly within the last couple of centuries. The beginning of the Anthropocene has been widely debated, with many suggestions of when global human impact became great enough to consider the beginning of a new geological epoch. According to researchers Cornelia Ludwig and Will Steffen, some of the most prominent suggested dates include the development of agriculture, up to 11,000 years ago in some countries, and the Industrial Revolution in the 18th and 19th centuries that began a sharp increase in the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere (45-46). However, the favored commencement period for these researchers was the mid-20th century. Ludwig and Steffen argued that the exponential increase in technological efficiency and the making and testing of nuclear bombs beginning in 1945 left significant evidence in sediment layers to suggest the rise of a new geological epoch (46, 50). In any respect, these theories all exhibit substantial changes to the planet.
The refusal to acknowledge these obvious indications of global changes led chemist Paul Crutzen to his historic outburst at a scientific conference in Mexico in 2000, exclaiming: “We’re not in the Holocene anymore. We’re in the… the… the… the Anthropocene!” (Revkin). Though the Anthropocene had been mentioned by a few scientists before, Crutzen’s use of the term was what brought worldwide attention to the possibility of a new epoch. Since then, the term has become popular not only in the scientific world, but among the general public as well. While scientists are hesitant to use the term before it becomes an official epoch, the rest of the population has had no problem adopting it into common conversation.
Following the popularization of the term, the Anthropocene quickly became a prominent topic in the media, politics, and activists groups. Kalaidjian suggests that the widespread discussion of the topic in the media is helpful in spreading information and interest to the public, but points out that the media portrayal of climate change is “not immune to the paralyzing effects of spectacle” (20). Most movies and other media that cover the topic of climate change tend to dramatize the situation to show a near post-apocalyptic world, at which point the scene seems so fantastical that viewers can no longer relate. Equally harmful are media outlets which claim that climate change is exaggerated and that it really isn’t as bad as scientists claim it to be (Freudenberg 483).
The beginning of the Anthropocene has also become a popular topic among activist groups. Environmentalists use the most jarring data collected from environmental research to scare others into agreeing with their political views, but as Tracey Heatherington writes in her essay on the politics of environmentalism, “the politics of doom will not work to address the challenges of the Anthropocene successfully” (198). While the cries of catastrophe may convince some that we’re overharvesting the planet to an untimely end, all these warnings really do is set people on edge and compel those with opposing viewpoints to retort with facts to suggest climate change as a whole is fake. The public is then either scared into believing the exaggerated claims of the environmentalists, or comforted by the words of the opposition and tricked into the false belief that humans aren’t having such a terrible effect on the planet after all. We are then left with two opposing viewpoints, with each side refusing to let go of their beliefs.
Using the term Anthropocene only reinforces both believers and nonbelievers to stay firm in their respective assumptions, especially with the misunderstanding of the meaning of the term. Misunderstanding of the Anthropocene can stem either from misinterpretations by scholars themselves, or by authors whose writings are meant to “lull the reader into the belief that the Anthropocene is no more than a new way of expressing the traditional understanding of the human relationship to the natural environment” (Hamilton 98). The public is willing to believe most media sources and academics claiming to be experts on any given topic, and their ideas of the Anthropocene are shaped by the falsehoods reported in the news and other media outlets.