A surprising outcome emerged from the March meeting of the Subcommission on Quaternary Stratigraphy (within the International Union of Geological Sciences). The surprise came in the form of a vote regarding the official status of the Anthropocene concept, with a majority of the subcommission members voting against a proposal to identify the Anthropocene as a new geological epoch.
The term Anthropocene was originally inspired by the observation that the impacts of the human enterprise on Earth’s environment ̶ notably a rise in the atmospheric CO2 concentration ̶ have begun to rival those of the background geologic forces. Since divisions of the geologic time scale are generally associated with major changes in the global environment, naming a new epoch was a reasonable suggestion.
The formal proposal to do so came from the multidisciplinary Anthropocene Working Group (AWG), which has deliberated on the issue for the last 14 years. The AWG proposal specified that the Anthropocene be named a new epoch, with a beginning point in the early 1950s. Its stratigraphic marker was to be a layer of chemical residues from post-World War II nuclear weapons testing.
The Vote
The vote against designating the Anthropocene as a new Epoch was a surprise because the proposal had been made with a strong scientific foundation and had a lot of support. The decision against the proposal was not because the Anthropocene is geologically insignificant, but rather because the Anthropocene concept is highly significant to many disciplines besides geology. In the last 20 years, the concept has received widespread attention in both academia and popular media. Indeed, the term has taken on a life of its own, a life outside the staid world of Quaternary Stratigraphy.
The term Anthropocene has come to signify a rupture in human history ̶ the end of a time when the biophysical environment was mostly a background to the march of human progress. The rupture is evident from a suite of global indicators, ranging from oil consumption to the rate of deforestation, that all began rising dramatically in the last 100 years. The word Anthropocene now has broad cultural significance; it implies that humanity has acquired a new responsibility to self-regulate, or face its own demise from a self-induced inhospitable environment.
The negative vote within the subcommission was also based on a more technical issue about whether, considering that humans have been altering the environment at many scales for many thousands of years, the beginning of the Anthropocene Epoch could be narrowed down to the early 1950s.
An alternative proposal, with considerable cross-disciplinary support, is to designate the Anthropocene a geologic “event”. This term is used in the geosciences to reference a wide variety of Earth system changes or transformations. Designating something as an event does not require the kind of formal approval process associated with designating an epoch.
The Scope of the Anthropocene Event
Despite this quasi-downgrade to Event status, the Anthropocene has really just begun and will ultimately have a massive impact on the Earth system. The Anthropocene Event, as we will call it here, will eventually push the global mean temperature up 2-3 oC or more, a range associated with the early Pliocene Epoch 3-5 million years ago (Figure 1). Because of human influences on the atmosphere, Earth may well miss its next scheduled glacial period (as prescribed by the Milankovitch solar forcings).
Figure 1. The geologic record of global mean temperature, with projections to 2100. The x-axis units differ by panel. The graphic is adapted from work by Glen Fergus.
What is also quite extraordinary is that the Anthropocene Event is concurrent with the origin of a whole new Earth system sphere – the technosphere. This term refers to the accumulation of human artifacts ̶ including buildings, transportation networks, and communication infrastructure ̶ that now cloaks the surface of the Earth.
From an Earth system science perspective, the parts of the Earth system are its spheres, i.e. the lithosphere, atmosphere, hydrosphere, cryosphere and biosphere interact with each other over geological time to determine the state and dynamics of the Earth system.
The biosphere (defined by geochemists as the sum of all life on Earth) is of particular interest here. The biosphere did not exist early in Earth’s history, but after the origin of life and its proliferation around the planet, the impacts of the biosphere on Earth’s energy flow and chemical cycling became profound (e.g. the oxygenation of the atmosphere).
The Role of the Anthropocene Event in Cultural Evolution
Transition to global sustainability will require the emergence and evolution of a global culture, i.e. a globally shared set of beliefs and practices. The Anthropocene Event is a concept that can help anchor a robust integration of human history and Earth history.
In light of the need for broadly unifying concepts related to global environmental change, I think the geologists made the right call. The Anthropocene has become a politically potent idea and deserves the widest possible attention in the domains of scholarship, education, entertainment, and advocacy.
This post was featured on the Millennium Alliance for Humanity and the Biosphere (MAHB) web site.
Computer generated image of world-wide internet connections. Image credit: The OPTE Project
David P. Turner / November 14, 2021
The threat of anthropogenically-induced global environmental change imposes a challenge on humanity to reconceptualize its relationship to the other components of the Earth system. Historically, Nature was the background for the human enterprise. It provided unlimited sources of ecosystem services, such as ocean fish, clean air, and clean water. However, as the human enterprise expanded – especially after the “Great Acceleration” of technological development beginning about 1945 – real limits have become obvious.
Because the sum of human impacts on the environment is now global, humanity as a collective must act to self-regulate. Unfortunately, humanity is not at present a collective, and we are only beginning to construct a worldview that is consistent with living within the biophysical limits of the planet. This post examines three concepts that may help move us towards those goals.
The Technosphere
The term technosphere has been used for decades in the field of Science and Technology Studies and is loosely construed as the sum of all technological artifacts on Earth. Often it is credited with having a degree of autonomy in the sense of its growth having a direction and momentum outside of human control. The current difficulty in reducing fossil fuel related emissions of greenhouse gases is indicative of that autonomy.
In the last decade, the technosphere concept has been more formally defined as:
the set of large-scale networked technologies that underlie and make possible rapid extraction from the Earth of large quantities of free energy and subsequent power generation, long distance, nearly instantaneous communication, rapid long-distance energy and mass transport, the existence and operation of modern governmental and other bureaucracies, high-intensity industrial and manufacturing operations including regional, continental and global distribution of food and other goods, and a myriad additional ‘artificial’ or ‘non-natural’ processes without which modern civilization and its present 7 × 109 human constituents could not exist.
Earth system scientists now make quantitative estimates of the properties of the technosphere such as total mass and annual energy throughput. The juxtaposition of technosphere metrics like global fertilizer use, with biosphere metrics like global nitrogen fixation, reveals the growing dominance of the technosphere in the global biogeochemical cycles and points to the limits to technosphere growth.
The technosphere is in some ways analogous to the biosphere. Both are globe girdling aggregations of quasi-independent subsystems. In energetic terms, both the biosphere and the technosphere are dissipative structures, meaning they capture and use energy to maintain order. The biosphere changes by way of biological evolution; the technosphere changes by way of cultural evolution.
Humans and their institutions are parts of the technosphere, and human thinking is required to organize the technosphere. But the question about technosphere autonomy, and its possible danger to humanity, remains. Notably, the capitalist economic system that underlies the technosphere thrives on growth. Relentless technosphere growth is in effect consuming Earth system capital, such as biodiversity and fossil fuel, that has accumulated over millions of years. Astrobiologists, who ponder evolution of intelligent life on other planets, suggest that an environmentally self-destructive technosphere may significantly limit (filter) how often sustainable high technology planetary civilizations arise in the universe.
A critical problem with Earth’s current technosphere is that due to its rapid and recent evolution, it does not have the kind of feedback loops (as found in the biosphere) needed for self-regulation. Humans are programmed (biologically) to exploit all available resources, but we haven’t evolved culturally to understand limits. Haff emphasizes that the lack of recycling within the technosphere (with the accumulation of CO2 in the atmosphere from fossil fuel combustion as an iconic example). Life cycle analyses of all manufactured products, and better monitoring of input/recycling/output budgets (e.g., for aluminum) at the global scale is required for a sustainable technosphere.
Russian biogeochemist Vladimir Vernadsky (1863 – 1945) was one of the first scientists to explicitly study Earth as a whole. He understood that the biosphere (the sum of all living matter) added an unusual feature to the planet. The biosphere uses the energy in solar radiation to maintain a new form of order (life) on the surface of the planet. That layer of living matter is a major driver of the global biogeochemical cycling of elements such as carbon, nitrogen, and phosphorus. Vernadsky emphasized that the biosphere was a new kind of thing in the universe, i.e. a step forward in cosmic evolution.
He also recognized that humanity, as a result of the industrial revolution, had become of geological significance. Like the biosphere, humanity and its technology are a product of cosmic evolution – in this case relying upon an organism-based nervous system capable of consciousness and symbolic thinking. By extension from the existing concepts of lithosphere, hydrosphere, atmosphere and biosphere, Vernadsky adopted the term noosphere for this new layer of thinking matter that could alter the global biogeochemical cycles.
The noosphere as conceived by Vernadsky was just getting powered up in his lifetime. He defined it more as a potential transformation of the biosphere – “a reconstruction of the biosphere in the interests of freely thinking humanity as a single entity”.
Vernadsky’s noosphere concept lay mostly dormant for much of the 20th century (although see Sampson and Pitt 1999). Around the turn of the century, Nobel Prize winning atmospheric chemist Paul Crutzen evoked Vernadsky’s idea of transforming the biosphere into a noosphere. But in this 21st century usage, the issue of dangerous human meddling with the Earth system had risen to prominence and the inevitability of a stabilized noosphere was less certain. Similarly, Turner proposed that an updated meaning for noosphere would refer to a planetary system as a whole in which an intelligent life form had developed advanced technology but had learned to self-regulate so as to not degrade the planetary life support system.
In a slightly different take, noosphere is proposed as a paradigm for an era to follow the Great Acceleration. In this case, the noosphere is still imagined as emerging from the biosphere, but here in response to the threats of anthropogenic global environmental change. The maturation of the noosphere would mean the arrival of a global society that collaboratively self-regulates its impact on the Earth system.
Limitations of the Noosphere Concept
As noted, Vernadsky was writing before the scientific discovery that humanity was altering the atmosphere, e.g., by increasing the concentrations of greenhouse gases. Thus, he did not foresee humanity’s possible self-destructive tendencies. His noosphere concept was more about Promethean management of the Earth system than about humanity learning how to self-regulate, which is what we need now.
In most versions of the noosphere concept, the biosphere is “transformed” into a noosphere, hence in its fruition it would physically include the biosphere. However, the biosphere (much of it microbial) will always be capable of functioning independent of human attempts to manage the Earth system. The biosphere could be said to have agency relative to human impacts, which might be a more realistic basis on which to attempt to manage it.
Vernadsky’s noosphere was purely physical, but other users of the term have interpreted it more metaphysically, especially Teilhard de Chardin who referred to a purely spiritual endpoint of noosphere evolution. This spirituality and teleology have made the noosphere concept aversive to many scientists (see Medawar in Sampson and Pitt 1999).
The Global Brain
About the same time (1920s) that the noosphere meme was fostered by Vernadsky, Teilhard de Chardin, and Le Roy, the concept (or metaphor) of the global brain also emerged. Novelist and futurist H.G. Wells (1866 – 1946) proposed that all knowledge be catalogued in a single place and be made available to anyone on the planet. His hope was that this common knowledge base might lead to peace and rapid human progress. Given that World War II was soon to erupt at the time of his “World Brain” proposal, Wells was clearly ahead of his time.
Like the noosphere concept, the World Brain concept was not much referred to in the decades following its origin in Well’s imagination. However, the late 20th century Information Technology revolution has reinvigorated discussion about it. With rapid build out of the global telecommunications infrastructure, the global brain has begun to be envisioned as something wired together by the Internet.
Systems theorist Francis Heylighen and his collaborators at the Global Brain Institute have devoted considerable attention to building the analogy between the human brain and a proposed global brain, especially in relation to the process of thinking.
Heylighen sees the global brain as a necessary part of an emerging social superorganism – a densely networked global society. His global society will coalesce because information technology now offers a growing proportion of the global population access to a wealth of information and an efficient way to organize production and consumption of goods and services. Rather than totalitarianism, the high level of connectivity in Heylighen’s model of the social superorganism stimulates individuals to develop themselves (while still acknowledging membership in a global collective). This model leads to more distributed, less hierarchical, power centers.
How the global brain will think is not well characterized at present. Cultural evolution has always been a form of collective intelligence and the binding power of the Internet now provides a forum for a global collective to exchange ideas (memes). Changes in the frequency distribution of search term or web page usage would be one means of monitoring global thinking.
Collaborative development of the Community Earth System Model is an example of collective thinking on a limited scale. Specialist scientists work to improve the many subsystems of the model, and periodically the computer code is updated based on a consensus decision.
One other intriguing analogy relates to a characteristic feature of the human brain in which it makes frequent (conscious or unconscious) predictions. If they are not fulfilled, a motivation to act may be instigated. With Earth system model scenarios now produced in the context of climate change assessment, the global brain might also be said to be constructing scenarios/predictions for itself. Comparisons of scenarios, or detection of discrepancies between favorable scenarios and how reality is playing out, could inspire corrective action by the global collective.
Limitations of the Global Brain Concept
The analogy of global brain to individual brain is certainly a stimulant to conceptualizing new global scale structures and processes. However, since we barely understand our own consciousness and decision-making processes, it is an analogy that still needs a lot of work, especially with respect to the executive function. In the near-term, humanity needs research and models on how to integrate governance among 8-10 billion people (i.e. what form of institutions?) and how to convince billions of planetary citizens to cooperate in the effort that humanity must make to self-regulate. The global brain concept does not facilitate the coupling of the human enterprise to the rest of the Earth system.
Conclusions
The technosphere, noosphere, and global brain concepts share a common concern with understanding the relationship of the burgeoning human enterprise, including its technology, to the entirety of the Earth system. Anthropogenic global environmental change poses an existential threat to humanity and there is a clear need for a Great Transition involving massive changes in values as well as technology. These three concepts serve as beacons pointing towards global sustainability.
The utility of the technosphere concept is that it refers to measurable entities, and formally meshes with the existing Earth system science paradigm. Given that humans are only part of the technosphere, and a part does not control the whole, awareness of the technosphere argues against hubris. However, the technosphere concept doesn’t engage the host of psychological and sociological issues that must be addressed to rapidly alter the Earth system trajectory. It helps reveal the danger humanity faces but doesn’t foster a worldview that will ameliorate the danger.
The chief utility of the noosphere concept is its cosmic perspective and aspirational quality. A weakness is ambiguity about what the noosphere includes and how it operates.
The utility of the global brain concept is that it confirms we have the technical means to actualize global collective intelligence, which will be required to deal with the overwhelming complexity of the Earth system. A weakness is a limited model of global governance and a lack of attention to the rapid erosion of the human life support system (the biosphere) that must function well for the emerging global brain to flourish. The capacity of individuals to know themselves, i.e. to reflect on their own behavior and its consequences, can potentially be scaled up to the global human collective. This process will depend on the communication possibilities opened up by the Internet.
The technosphere, noosphere, and global brain concepts will contribute to synthesizing a new model of the planetary future that includes a functioning global society and a technological support system that maintains a sustainable relationship to the rest of the Earth system.
The growth of the technosphere is changing the Earth system, pushing it towards a state that may be inimical to future human civilization [1]. As technosphere capital − e.g. in the form of buildings, machines, and electronic devices – is increasing, biosphere capital −in the form of wild organisms and intact ecosystems − is decreasing [2].
Figure 1. Decline in freshwater, marine and terrestrial
populations of vertebrates. Adapted from
Ripple et al. 2015 [3].
The growth of the
technosphere has tremendous momentum and we must ask if it can be shaped and
regulated into something that is sustainable, i.e. able to co-exist with the
rest of the Earth system over the long term.
Figure 2. Earth system indicator trends 1750-2010. Adapted from Steffen et al. 2015 [4].
Why is the
technosphere growing so vigorously? Let’s consider three quite different
factors.
1. The most general driver of technosphere
growth is what systems ecologist Howard Odum called the “maximum power
principle”. It states: “During
self-organization, system designs develop and prevail that maximize power
intake, energy transformation, and those uses that reinforce production and
efficiency” [5]. Self-organization is a widely observed phenomenon, extending
from the funnel of water formed in a draining bathtub, to inorganic chemical
reactions that create arresting geometric designs, to giant termite mounds, and
indeed, to cities [6]. Given
Earth’s vast reservoirs of fossil fuel energy, and a selection regime that
rewards growth, the technosphere will indeed tend to increase energy
consumption, matter throughput, and complexity.
2. Underlying much of the momentum of
technosphere growth is the global market economy. Capitalism is essentially the operating
system of the technosphere.
Corporations, the state, and workers are compelled to expand the economy
and hence the technosphere [7].
The market economy
rewards increasing efficiencies in production (to reduce costs) and often the
route to greater efficiently and greater economies of scale is by investment in
technology. Technical progress is now
the expected norm and investments in research and development are a part of
corporate culture and national agendas.
Economists refer to the “treadmill of production” in which “competition, profitability, and the
quest for market share has contributed to an acceleration of human impact on
the environment” [8].
Economic globalization has geographically extended the market economy to
the whole world.
3. Historically, war has been one of the biggest
drivers of technological expansion. In
the Parable of the Tribes, historian
Andrew Schmookler describes the sustained pressure on societies to conquer or
be conquered [9].
Technology advances certainly help in winning wars and national
governments invest heavily in research and application of technologies for
war. The Internet began with U.S. Defense
Department funding to build a communications infrastructure that was hardened
against nuclear attack.
Humanity has of course
benefited broadly as the technosphere expanded.
Billions of people now have standards of living rivaling those of
royalty a few hundred years ago. The
proportion of the global population living in poverty continues to decline.
But even before the use
of the term technosphere, scientists and philosophers had begun to question
whether technology was always a benevolent force. The
concept of “autonomous technology” suggests that the growth and elaboration of
technology can escape human control [10, 11]. The
possibilities for a nuclear holocaust or a greenhouse gas driven climate change
catastrophe are indicative of technology-mediated global threats.
What can be
done?
The maximum power principle does promote energy throughput, but there is
plenty of scope for insuring that technosphere energy prioritizes renewable
energy. Carbon taxes may be the simplest
approach to rapidly driving down fossil fuel combustion. Comprehensive recycling, based on a circular economy, will help constrain
the mass throughput of the technosphere.
Finishing the global demographic transition [12] will reduce future demand for natural
resources.
Capitalism will not go away but could undergo a Reformation. That means more corporate
responsibility, better governmental oversight of corporate behavior, and increased
attention by consumer to the environmental footprint of their consumption.
The global incidence of physical war is decreasing, which will help slow
the growth of the technosphere. Wars are
often based on the threat of an enemy, but humanity may become more unified
based on the common threat of global environmental change. The Paris Accord is suggestive of the
possibilities.
Implications
The trajectory of the
technosphere is towards limitless growth.
However, we live on a planet – there are indeed limits to the natural
resources upon which the technosphere depends.
Humans are only a part of the technosphere, thus cannot truly control it
(13). But they can certainly shape it
. Likewise, the technosphere is only
part of the Earth system, thus cannot fully control the Earth system: quite
possibly, the Earth system will respond to the environmental impacts of the
technosphere with changes that suppress the technosphere and associated human
welfare. Improved understanding of
technosphere growth in the context of the rest of the Earth system is clearly
warranted.
5. Odum, H.T.,
Self-Organization and Maximum Empower, in Maximum Power: The Ideas and
Applications of H.T. Odum. 1995, Colorado University Press: Boulder CO. See Hall
review.
