Jump to content

Talk:Anthropocene

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Etymology of Homogenocene

[edit]

I think the etymology offered for Homogenocene must be wrong. There is no way that "homo" Latin for man would be used in this way. "Homo" appears in compounds as "homini-," not "homo," which form is only used as an independent word ("Homo sapiens"). Homogenocene probably is constructed from the word "homogeneous" + "cene"; the article in which the term first occurred was referring to the homogenization of life across the planet because of transfers of organisms by humans. Homogeneous comes from "homo" "same" and "gen" "kind" in Greek. Metrodorus (talk)

Removed further reading list

[edit]

I've removed the further reading list, as I don't think such a long list is adding any value here. If any of the publications are very important, they should be used for inline citations.

EMsmile (talk) 08:45, 15 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

There are already (as of this writing) 178 reference footnotes, which IMHO is a lot. I notice that the above list is almost alphabetized by author's name (but Ozymandias in the Anthropocene by Dixon et al. is mentioned both at its alphabetical position and at the very end, and Klinkenborg is after Visconti). Maybe this list could be added as a "Bibliography" section, and in a common format with the author name(s) (if any) always in front. I would have suggested a scrolling list (see Help:Scrolling list) with a not too gigantic height (maybe 25 to 30 em), however MOS:SCROLL is against scrolling and collapsible lists in article space — though with a few exceptions: Collapsed or auto-collapsing cells or sections may be used with tables if they simply repeat information covered in the main text (or are purely supplementary, e.g…). Auto-collapsing is often a feature of navboxes. Maybe this list is "purely supplementary information" in which case it might fall into one of the exceptions. — Tonymec (talk) 03:49, 27 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
What would be an advantage of a bibliography list? If any of those references are important they should be used as in-line citations. I think "further reading" lists might have been important in the days before Google but nowadays anyone can easily find more information themselves if they want. Hence we are better off keeping things short and succinct and not bombarding readers with longs lists (which would then have to be curated and updated...). EMsmile (talk) 08:45, 27 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Culling out excessive detail on biodiversity loss

[edit]

I've taken out this long paragraph that goes into too much detail. We have a sub-article for this on biodiversity loss. I guess the content could be moved to there if it's not already in there. I think we are better off with using an excerpt from biodiversity loss. Pinging User:C.J. Griffin and User:ASRASR for their information and comment.

++++++++

In a pair of studies published in 2015, extrapolation from observed extinction of Hawaiian snails of the family Amastridae, led to the conclusion that "the biodiversity crisis is real", and that 7% of all species on Earth may have disappeared already.[1][2] Human predation was noted as being unique in the history of life on Earth as being a globally distributed 'superpredator', with predation of the adults of other apex predators and with widespread impact on food webs worldwide.[3] A study published in May 2017 in Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences noted that a "biological annihilation" akin to a sixth mass extinction event is underway as a result of anthropogenic causes. The study suggested that as much as 50% of animal individuals that once lived on Earth are already extinct.[4][5] A different study published in PNAS in May 2018 says that since the dawn of human civilization, 83% of wild mammals have disappeared. Today, livestock makes up 60% of the biomass of all mammals on earth, followed by humans (36%) and wild mammals (4%).[6][7] According to the 2019 Global Assessment Report on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services by IPBES, 25% of plant and animal species are threatened with extinction.[8][9][10] According to the World Wildlife Fund's 2020 Living Planet Report, 68% of wildlife populations have declined between 1970 and 2016 as a result of overconsumption, population growth and intensive farming, and the report asserts that "the findings are clear. Our relationship with nature is broken."[11][12] However, a 2020 study, by Leung et al. including Maria Dornelas, disputed the findings of the Living Planet Report, finding that the 68% decline number was being influenced down by a very small amount extreme outliers and when these were not included, the decline was less steep, or even stable if other outliers were not included.[13] A 2021 paper published in Frontiers in Conservation Science, which cites both of the aforementioned studies, says "population sizes of vertebrate species that have been monitored across years have declined by an average of 68% over the last five decades, with certain population clusters in extreme decline, thus presaging the imminent extinction of their species."[14] EMsmile (talk) 09:53, 15 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ "Research shows catastrophic invertebrate extinction in Hawai'i and globally". Phys.org. 10 August 2015. Retrieved 29 November 2015.
  2. ^ Régnier, Claire; Achaz, Guillaume; Lambert, Amaury; Cowie, Robert H.; Bouchet, Philippe & Fontaine, Benoît (5 May 2015). "Mass extinction in poorly known taxa". PNAS. 112 (25): 7761–7766. Bibcode:2015PNAS..112.7761R. doi:10.1073/pnas.1502350112. PMC 4485135. PMID 26056308.
  3. ^ Darimont, Chris T.; Fox, Caroline H.; Bryan, Heather M.; Reimchen, Thomas E. (21 August 2015). "The unique ecology of human predators". Science. 349 (6250): 858–860. Bibcode:2015Sci...349..858D. doi:10.1126/science.aac4249. ISSN 0036-8075. PMID 26293961. S2CID 4985359.
  4. ^ Ceballos, Gerardo; Ehrlich, Paul R; Dirzo, Rodolfo (23 May 2017). "Biological annihilation via the ongoing sixth mass extinction signaled by vertebrate population losses and declines". PNAS. 114 (30): E6089–E6096. Bibcode:2017PNAS..114E6089C. doi:10.1073/pnas.1704949114. PMC 5544311. PMID 28696295. Much less frequently mentioned are, however, the ultimate drivers of those immediate causes of biotic destruction, namely, human overpopulation and continued population growth, and overconsumption, especially by the rich. These drivers, all of which trace to the fiction that perpetual growth can occur on a finite planet, are themselves increasing rapidly.
  5. ^ Sutter, John D. (11 July 2017). "Sixth mass extinction: The era of 'biological annihilation'". CNN. Retrieved 14 July 2017.
  6. ^ Carrington, Damian (21 May 2018). "Humans just 0.01% of all life but have destroyed 83% of wild mammals – study". The Guardian. Retrieved 23 May 2018.
  7. ^ Baillie, Jonathan; Ya-Ping, Zhang (14 September 2018). "Space for nature". Science. 361 (6407): 1051. Bibcode:2018Sci...361.1051B. doi:10.1126/science.aau1397. PMID 30213888.
  8. ^ Watts, Jonathan (6 May 2019). "Human society under urgent threat from loss of Earth's natural life". The Guardian. Retrieved 10 May 2019.
  9. ^ Plumer, Brad (6 May 2019). "Humans are speeding extinction and altering the natural world at an 'unprecedented' pace". The New York Times. Retrieved 10 May 2019.
  10. ^ "Nature's dangerous decline 'unprecedented'; Species extinction rates 'accelerating'". Media Release. Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services. 6 May 2019. Retrieved 10 May 2019.
  11. ^ Greenfield, Patrick (9 September 2020). "Humans exploiting and destroying nature on unprecedented scale – report". The Guardian. Retrieved 10 September 2020.
  12. ^ Rott, Nathan (10 September 2020). "The World Lost Two-Thirds Of Its Wildlife In 50 Years. We Are to Blame". NPR. Retrieved 11 September 2020.
  13. ^ Leung, Brian; Hargreaves, Anna L.; Greenberg, Dan A.; McGill, Brian; Dornelas, Maria; Freeman, Robin (December 2020). "Clustered versus catastrophic global vertebrate declines". Nature. 588 (7837): 267–271. Bibcode:2020Natur.588..267L. doi:10.1038/s41586-020-2920-6. hdl:10023/23213. ISSN 1476-4687. PMID 33208939. S2CID 227065128.
  14. ^ Bradshaw, Corey J. A.; Ehrlich, Paul R.; Beattie, Andrew; Ceballos, Gerardo; Crist, Eileen; Diamond, Joan; Dirzo, Rodolfo; Ehrlich, Anne H.; Harte, John; Harte, Mary Ellen; Pyke, Graham; Raven, Peter H.; Ripple, William J.; Saltré, Frédérik; Turnbull, Christine; Wackernagel, Mathis; Blumstein, Daniel T. (2021). "Underestimating the Challenges of Avoiding a Ghastly Future". Frontiers in Conservation Science. 1. doi:10.3389/fcosc.2020.615419.

EMsmile (talk) 09:53, 15 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I can live with that. I think most of this is already present in that article.--C.J. Griffin (talk) 12:12, 15 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

That's all, folks!

[edit]

And so the proposed era has been put in the rubbish bin: https://www.nytimes.com/2024/03/20/climate/anthropocene-vote-upheld.html 182.239.146.143 (talk) 05:02, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

yes, look like that. Good to see that someone has already updated the Wikipedia article accordingly. EMsmile (talk) 12:01, 27 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Call me again in 30 years; I'm fairly confident this isn't the final word on the topic. Newimpartial (talk) 14:17, 27 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That's assuming that we are here in 30 years Pikachubob3 (talk) 01:18, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It isn't, I have some of these researchers for professors and they intend to propose it again in a few years once "conditions are more favourable" i.e. there are people more sympathetic to them in the committee. 139.57.217.252 (talk) 16:57, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Also they only are not including it at this point, if we continue the route we are currently going down I would not be surprised like @Newimpartial said, that vote has not closed the book on this. Pikachubob3 (talk) 01:20, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Great Acceleration

[edit]

The Great Acceleration appears to be a subtopic of the Anthropocene. It currently has a section here as well as its own article, but the article is short and overlaps with this one. Should the article be merged into the section here? WeyerStudentOfAgrippa (talk) 12:56, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Anthropocene&oldid=1252943144"