{"id":10098,"date":"2019-03-17T08:35:17","date_gmt":"2019-03-17T13:35:17","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/blog.uvm.edu\/aivakhiv\/?p=10098"},"modified":"2019-03-17T08:56:09","modified_gmt":"2019-03-17T13:56:09","slug":"p-n-transition-or-toward-the-neocene","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/blog.uvm.edu\/aivakhiv\/2019\/03\/17\/p-n-transition-or-toward-the-neocene\/","title":{"rendered":"P-N transition, or, toward the Neocene"},"content":{"rendered":"\n

It’s nice to see archdruid John Michael Greer’s proposal for a “Pleistocene-Neocene transition” get a little traction in the science press — specifically, in a Science Alert<\/a><\/em> article<\/a> by psychologist Matthew Adams. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

Greer, whose writings on religion and ecology are respectably out-of-the-box, advocates<\/a> against the Anthropocene label on the basis that a geological epoch — which is what the “cenes” refer to (from the Paleocene and Eocene to the Pleistocene and Holocene) — typically takes millions of years to establish itself. By that standard, the “Anthropocene” can only be based on the fantasy “that what our civilization is doing just now is going to keep on long enough to fill a geological epoch.” (The Holocene is only about 12,000 years old, so it’s debatable whether it even qualifies as an epoch.)<\/p>\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n

As Greer puts it, designating an epoch named after us is based on the delusional hope that we can “have” our planet “and eat it too” — that we can burn through “stores of fossil carbon that took half a billion years for natural processes to stash in the rocks” and “rip” through “equally finite stores of other nonrenewable resources” even as we “wreck” the “infrastructure” we need to keep doing that (“by destabilizing the climate and sending cascading disturbances in motion” through a welter of other ecological cycles). To the best of our knowledge, doing that is not very likely to succeed. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

While an Anthropocene epoch may<\/em> one day come to pass (just as the flying spaghetti monster could<\/em> come to save us), geologists neither study nor predict the future, and basing a geological label on a dubious projection makes little sense. If the term is based instead on the causality ascribed to humans for<\/em> the current era — we caused it, so it should be named after us — that’s also inconsistent with past naming practices. If it weren’t, we would be calling the Cenozoic something like the “Cometocene,” for the comet that ostensibly ended the previous era, killing the dinosaurs and making space for the emergence of life forms (mammals and others) that constitute the Cenozoic. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

All of this is why I prefer to see the Anthropocene not as a geological epoch, but as a “predicament.” But it’s also a reason to wonder whether “Ecozoic” — the term Thomas Berry proposed for a future of coexistence we could work toward (and which my own EcoCultureLab<\/a> has taken on in its tag line of “Culture for the Ecozoic”) — is appropriate either. It’s safer to think of a future ecological era as part of the Phanerozoic eon (a term I like for its resonance with C. S. Peirce’s phaneron<\/a><\/em> and phaneroscopy<\/em>, suggesting as it does an era of life-phenomena), the Cenozoic era, the Quaternary period, and either the Holocene epoch or simply (as Greer suggests) the late Pleistocene. (Keep in mind the time scale<\/a> that, from largest to smallest unit, goes “eon – era – period – epoch – age.”)<\/p>\n\n\n\n

In place of the Anthropocene designation, Greer proposes “Pleistocene-Neocene transition,” with “Neocene” (or “new recent”) used as a “placeholder” for whatever “new normal” emerges after the messy transitional period that is almost inevitably going to follow “industrial civilization\u2019s giddy rise and impending fall.” <\/p>\n\n\n\n

There’s a certain judgmentalism that colors his writing, as it does that of many ecocentrists in this debate, found in such phrases as “our idiotic maltreatment of the planet.” This of course overgeneralizes the “us,” as if all humans are equally to blame, but it also obscures the fact we are still collectively waking up to the reality unfolding around us. When you’re on a sinking ship, pointing your finger saying “I told you so” isn’t as helpful as preparing the life boats and making them accessible to your fellow passengers. And, fortunately, it may not be the entire ship that’s sinking — it could be that we just need to replace the drunken captain with a more informed steering committee, some infrastructural rearrangements, and an altogether new destination. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

Metaphoric playfulness aside, it’s good to recognize our uncertainty as well as the time scale against which that uncertainty will ultimately be measured. As Greer writes, <\/p>\n\n\n\n

By the time the transition winds down a few centuries from now, the species that have been able to adapt to new conditions and spread into new environments will be ready for evolutionary radiation; another half a million years or so, and the Neocene will be stocked with the first preliminary draft of its typical flora and fauna.
<\/p>
<\/cite><\/blockquote>\n\n\n\n

Will there be a place for humans in that draft? It’s a little too far down the line to hope for (!), but at least we could consider how to make a better case for it.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\"\"<\/figure>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

It’s nice to see archdruid John Michael Greer’s proposal for a “Pleistocene-Neocene transition” get a little traction in the science press — specifically, in a Science Alert article by psychologist Matthew Adams. Greer, whose writings on religion and ecology are respectably out-of-the-box, advocates against the Anthropocene label on the basis that a geological epoch — […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":99,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_monsterinsights_skip_tracking":false,"_monsterinsights_sitenote_active":false,"_monsterinsights_sitenote_note":"","_monsterinsights_sitenote_category":0,"advanced_seo_description":"","jetpack_seo_html_title":"","jetpack_seo_noindex":false,"jetpack_post_was_ever_published":false,"_jetpack_newsletter_access":"","_jetpack_dont_email_post_to_subs":false,"_jetpack_newsletter_tier_id":0,"_jetpack_memberships_contains_paywalled_content":false,"_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":"","jetpack_publicize_message":"","jetpack_publicize_feature_enabled":true,"jetpack_social_post_already_shared":true,"jetpack_social_options":{"image_generator_settings":{"template":"highway","default_image_id":0,"font":"","enabled":false},"version":2}},"categories":[688615],"tags":[123667,16877,455146,619,520676,4433,123572,455183],"class_list":["post-10098","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-anthropo_scene","tag-anthropocene","tag-anthropocentrism","tag-ecozoic","tag-geology","tag-neocene","tag-sustainability","tag-sustainability-bottleneck","tag-transition-culture"],"jetpack_publicize_connections":[],"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_shortlink":"https:\/\/wp.me\/p4IC4a-2CS","jetpack-related-posts":[{"id":10194,"url":"https:\/\/blog.uvm.edu\/aivakhiv\/2019\/08\/22\/sobering-up\/","url_meta":{"origin":10098,"position":0},"title":"Sobering up…","author":"Adrian J Ivakhiv","date":"August 22, 2019","format":false,"excerpt":"Peter Brannen's Atlantic article \"The Anthropocene is a Joke\" provides a helpful cold shower for those who've gotten a little too drunk on the concept of the Anthropocene. The entire article is worth reading. Here are a few snippets: \"What humans are doing on the planet, then, unless we endure\u2026","rel":"","context":"In "Anthropocene"","block_context":{"text":"Anthropocene","link":"https:\/\/blog.uvm.edu\/aivakhiv\/category\/anthropo_scene\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"","src":"","width":0,"height":0},"classes":[]},{"id":12803,"url":"https:\/\/blog.uvm.edu\/aivakhiv\/2022\/08\/04\/after-the-anthropocene-the-deluge\/","url_meta":{"origin":10098,"position":1},"title":"After the Anthropocene, the deluge?","author":"Adrian J Ivakhiv","date":"August 4, 2022","format":false,"excerpt":"On the Ecocene, the Chthulucene, the Ecozoic, and other Holocene successor terms The term \"Anthropocene\" has come to be accepted among many intellectuals as the best, or perhaps least worst, name for the geological present, when human activities have come to dominate the planet. It's still debated among geologists, with\u2026","rel":"","context":"In "Anthropocene"","block_context":{"text":"Anthropocene","link":"https:\/\/blog.uvm.edu\/aivakhiv\/category\/anthropo_scene\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/blog.uvm.edu\/aivakhiv\/files\/2022\/07\/1_yKN9ZnquOlc3qgKjhDKRjQ.jpeg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/blog.uvm.edu\/aivakhiv\/files\/2022\/07\/1_yKN9ZnquOlc3qgKjhDKRjQ.jpeg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/blog.uvm.edu\/aivakhiv\/files\/2022\/07\/1_yKN9ZnquOlc3qgKjhDKRjQ.jpeg?resize=525%2C300&ssl=1 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/blog.uvm.edu\/aivakhiv\/files\/2022\/07\/1_yKN9ZnquOlc3qgKjhDKRjQ.jpeg?resize=700%2C400&ssl=1 2x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/blog.uvm.edu\/aivakhiv\/files\/2022\/07\/1_yKN9ZnquOlc3qgKjhDKRjQ.jpeg?resize=1050%2C600&ssl=1 3x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/blog.uvm.edu\/aivakhiv\/files\/2022\/07\/1_yKN9ZnquOlc3qgKjhDKRjQ.jpeg?resize=1400%2C800&ssl=1 4x"},"classes":[]},{"id":9278,"url":"https:\/\/blog.uvm.edu\/aivakhiv\/2017\/05\/18\/the-sf-of-sustainability\/","url_meta":{"origin":10098,"position":2},"title":"The SF of sustainability","author":"Adrian J Ivakhiv","date":"May 18, 2017","format":false,"excerpt":"Since it's the Holocene\u00a0that has provided the conditions for the (human-led) biogeochemical experimentation that has now likely achieved a runaway state, and since \"Holocene\" was never anything other than a placeholder term -- it only means \"entirely new\" -- it seems inappopriate to replace it with the term \"Anthropocene.\" \"Holocene\"\u2026","rel":"","context":"In "Anthropocene"","block_context":{"text":"Anthropocene","link":"https:\/\/blog.uvm.edu\/aivakhiv\/category\/anthropo_scene\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"","src":"","width":0,"height":0},"classes":[]},{"id":7686,"url":"https:\/\/blog.uvm.edu\/aivakhiv\/2014\/07\/07\/against-the-anthropocene\/","url_meta":{"origin":10098,"position":3},"title":"Against the Anthropocene","author":"Adrian J Ivakhiv","date":"July 7, 2014","format":false,"excerpt":"The following is a guest post by Kieran Suckling, Executive Director of the nonprofit\u00a0Center for Biological Diversity. It follows the discussion begun\u00a0here\u00a0and in some\u00a0AESS conference sessions, including Andy Revkin's keynote talk\u00a0(viewable here)\u00a0and responses to it (such as\u00a0Clive Hamilton's).\u00a0 I In considering why the name \u201cAnthropocene\u201d has been proposed, why it\u2026","rel":"","context":"In "Anthropocene"","block_context":{"text":"Anthropocene","link":"https:\/\/blog.uvm.edu\/aivakhiv\/category\/anthropo_scene\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"setting-sun-smokestacks","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/blog.uvm.edu\/aivakhiv\/files\/2014\/07\/setting-sun-smokestacks-275x179.jpg?resize=350%2C200","width":350,"height":200},"classes":[]},{"id":9925,"url":"https:\/\/blog.uvm.edu\/aivakhiv\/2018\/11\/07\/koinocene-or-coenocene\/","url_meta":{"origin":10098,"position":4},"title":"Koinocene (or C\u0153nocene)?","author":"Adrian J Ivakhiv","date":"November 7, 2018","format":false,"excerpt":"Peircian thinker Gary Fuhrman has posted an interesting piece on the naming of the Anthropocene, entitled Holocenoscopy. Noting that the word\u00a0Holocene\u00a0means nothing more than \"entirely recent,\" as opposed to the Pleistocene, which means \"most recent,\" so there's really nowhere left to go with naming geological periods after their recentness, Fuhrman\u2026","rel":"","context":"In "Anthropocene"","block_context":{"text":"Anthropocene","link":"https:\/\/blog.uvm.edu\/aivakhiv\/category\/anthropo_scene\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"","src":"","width":0,"height":0},"classes":[]},{"id":7722,"url":"https:\/\/blog.uvm.edu\/aivakhiv\/2014\/08\/05\/anthropocene-debate-continues\/","url_meta":{"origin":10098,"position":5},"title":"Anthropocene debate continues","author":"Adrian J Ivakhiv","date":"August 5, 2014","format":false,"excerpt":"Kieran Suckling's post Against the Anthropocene, originally posted here on July 7 and subsequently shared\u00a0with the International Commission on Stratigraphy's\u00a0Anthropocene Working Group by Andy Revkin, has elicited a round of emailed back-and-forths from some noteworthy individuals, including paleobiologist Jan Zalasiewicz and paleoecologist Anthony Barnosky. As this debate would be of\u2026","rel":"","context":"In "Anthropocene"","block_context":{"text":"Anthropocene","link":"https:\/\/blog.uvm.edu\/aivakhiv\/category\/anthropo_scene\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"","src":"","width":0,"height":0},"classes":[]}],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/blog.uvm.edu\/aivakhiv\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/10098","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/blog.uvm.edu\/aivakhiv\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/blog.uvm.edu\/aivakhiv\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blog.uvm.edu\/aivakhiv\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/99"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blog.uvm.edu\/aivakhiv\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=10098"}],"version-history":[{"count":11,"href":"https:\/\/blog.uvm.edu\/aivakhiv\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/10098\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":10113,"href":"https:\/\/blog.uvm.edu\/aivakhiv\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/10098\/revisions\/10113"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/blog.uvm.edu\/aivakhiv\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=10098"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blog.uvm.edu\/aivakhiv\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=10098"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blog.uvm.edu\/aivakhiv\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=10098"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}