Anthropocene: a super wicked problem
Anthropocene: a super wicked problem
Cecilia Polacow Herzog
Penso que estamos cegos. Cegos que veem.
Cegos que, vendo, não veem.
(I think we are blind. Blinds that don’t see.
Blind that, seeing, don’t see.)
José Saramago
1. Introduction
The vertiginous escalade of the climate crisis that is happening this year is the driver for this essay. It has dramatic implications for humans as well as for our web of life, the already endangered biodiversity. I have been totally dominated by deep feelings of despair and powerlessness, so I decided to write about the Anthropocene and the possible pathways I foresee for the future of my granddaughters and their generation, to find a way to better cope with my indignation and in search for hope.
The news coverage of the extreme climatic events all over the world in the mid of 2023 are becoming trivial, such as extreme heat, wild megafires, torrential and deadly storms. Those impacts cause disruption of human systems (e.g., cities, infrastructure, food production, economic failures, and more), and natural systems (wildfires, floods, landslides devastate huge natural and other green areas that are home to biodiversity). In this destructive process it feeds-back a positive loop of destruction and GHG emissions, with cascading effects.
Climate tipping-points (CTPs) were identified and analysed (McKay et al., 2022), some may have already been reached and others are close to the limits of their resilience, as the Amazon rainforest (Boulton, Lenton & Boers, 2021), Western Antarctic ice sheet (Lenton et al., 2019); AMOC (Atlantic Meridional Overturning Circulation) ocean current potential disruption with 95% certainty between 2025–2095 (Ditlevsen, P., Ditlevsen, 2023).
It is also relevant to raise the issue of the impacts of war on climate[1] and biodiversity[2], what is less mentioned in the news and other social media. Also, it is not the object of the paper.
This essay initially presents a brief contextual historic view of some of important events that led to the current state-of-the-planet. Then, introduces the super wicked problem of the Anthropocene and discusses the concept of Anthropocene, introduces alternative names that are advocated by different authors. After, I propose three pathways that the globalised society may take from now on and what I believe is at stake. Then reflect on the ethical and moral issues related to the current moment. The conclusion aims to give hope and incentivise resistance and fast adoption of new perception and values.
2. Historical contextualisation of the Anthropocene
Human decisions and actions since the beginning of agricultural, about 10.000 years ago have shaped the environment and transformed landscapes, even eradicating entire ecosystems, what have caused the collapse of several civilizations (Ponting, 1991; Diamond, 2005). But not all humans had the same attitudes towards Mother Nature. Indigenous peoples have deep bond with nature, they call her Pachamama (Inca), Tonantzin (Astec), Papatūānuku (Maori), and many others around the world. Biomes as the Amazon are known to have been deeply shaped by the native tribes that lived there for thousands of years, who planted the species that were important to them, having a profound interaction with their environment (Heckenberger, 2007).
Since the 16th century, when the Europeans started the great navigations and expanded their frontiers to colonise the Americas, Africa, Oceania and Asia, their dominance and worldview have deeply changed the regional and local ecologies and profoundly impacted indigenous populations, and also may be considered as the birth of capitalism (Moore, 2017). The relationship between native people and their environment was disrupted, with the extractive mentality of the early capitalism (Lightfoot et al., 2013; McEwan, 2021). Moreover, the destruction of ecosystems and the generalised slavery in the Americas are a deep scar in the process of civilisation (Maslin & Lewis, 2020).
The impacts increased with the expansion of the capitalist system and advance in technologies that enabled the Industrial Revolution. James Watt’s steam engine invention in 1784 coincides with the raise of GHG concentration in the atmosphere with consequent changes in the biosphere (Crutzen & Stoermer, 2000).
In the second half of the 20th century, technologies evolved, and new fields of research were developed, and enabled a better understanding of the human interrelationship with nature. As examples, Ian McHarg (1969) released his seminal book ‘Design with Nature’, what was determinant to have a systemic understanding of the landscape processes and flows to plan how landscape occupation, both urban and agricultural, should be planned. The methodology presented in this book was a seed to GIS (Geographic Information System) development.
In 1972, one of the most important publications was released by a dedicated interdisciplinary research group at MIT, funded by the Club of Rome: The Limits to Growth (Meadows et al.). It was the outcome of technology (computer) using scientific methods and system dynamics analysis to process information and model the planetary system. They analysed how the interaction of apparent disconnected elements affect the entire Earth system functioning in space-time. Those elements are “accelerating industrialization, rapid population growth, widespread malnutrition, depletion of non-renewable resources, and a deteriorating environment (p. 21).” Donella Meadows had understood the urgency to publicise their work, in spite of the disturbing results presented by the models, to push decision-makers to act to avoid the critical conclusions of continuing the growth trend of that time, and shift to a sustainable ecological-economic future that could supply the basics to everyone and give the chance to all to reach their potential. She (they) was not heard.
Here we are now, 50 years latter… She(they) was right!
Also, in the 1970’s, James Lovelock (chemist), and Lynn Margulis (biologist) (1974) proposed the Gaia hypothesis. Having two complementary backgrounds, they understood the Earth as being a unique “vast self-regulating organism,” in homeostasis. They had an understanding of the systemic and synergetic interactions among the biosphere (living organisms) and all the inorganic aspects (geologic), e.g., minerals that form the basis of the biosphere, gases that maintained the balance with the living organisms (oxygen, CO² and all the others that are intrinsic to the de dynamic system of the living Earth — including GHG). What was conducive to life, enabled ecosystems to flourish in the planet. The interdependence was also critical to regulate the climate. In the Revenge of Gaia (2007), he foresaw the outcomes of the over exploitation of both organic and inorganic materials and the tremendous impacts that this extractive economy will cause.
His theories were deeply disturbing for the status quo and caused a lot of polemic. And bingo! He was right!
In 2000, Crutzen and Stoermer proposed that the planet had entered a new epoch, the Anthropocene. Human activities have profoundly altered the Earth system in all scales, with land use and cover transformation, eliminating entire ecosystems.
More recent research defined 9 planetary boundaries (Rockstrom et al., 2009) to stay in a “safe operating planetary space”. The Holocene (last 11.700 years) had a stable climate that enabled the development and thrive of the biodiversity, now it is threatened with the current changing climate, and from a totally anthropocentric view, the risk of collapsing ecosystem services provision is increasing (Steffen et al., 2015a). In 2015, Steffen, Broadgate & Ludwig, after analysing the impacts on Earth system indicators, proposed that the “Great Acceleration” occurred only after mid-20th century. In 2018, Steffen et al. alert to the risk of disrupting “ecosystems, society, and economies” if there is no change in the trend that diverts from crossing the planetary threshold. They recommend urgently care for the entire Earth System, diverting to a decarbonized global economy, investing in ecosystems to improve the biosphere to sequester carbon, changing behaviours and transforming social values, shifting to new governance forms, besides developing technological innovations.
The economic predation of natural (and human resources)[3] continues and the GHG emissions are in an ascendant track. Even with the current 2023 climatic tragedies happening all over the world there are no signs of a move to stop fossil fuels from being mined and drilled. Next CoP27 will happen in one of the great oil providers for the world and who has for a long-time diverted actions to prevent climate change, Saudi Arabia. Not to speak about the kingdom’s political and theocratic regime, what raises moral and ethical issues. They are proposing to capture carbon with technology so they can keep extracting oil and maintain their dominance in the international arena. The signs are not good, and there is a lot of resistance to this event in many spheres.
3. Anthropocene
Why is the Anthropocene a super wicked[4] complex problem? It is an issue that doesn’t present clear and conclusive formulation and is impossible to be definitely solved. The Anthropocene is a symptom of other intertwined wicked problems, e.g., mechanistic, linear and cartesian worldview; economic, social, and political systems; fossil fuel addicted societies; natural resource intense exploitation and deforestation; monocultural agriculture (extensive land cover transformation; agrichemicals — poisons and synthetic fertilizers) and intensive cattle farming (high loads of methane and deforestation); engineered (novel entities — engineered seeds and IPR appropriating seeds ancestral knowledge and natural evolution) and industrialised food production; high rates of waste and generalised pollution; consumerism[5] and many others related to the paradigm of perpetual growth and wealth accumulation in the hands of few privileged people, who control de political arena (Rittel & Webber, 1973), among many others caused by the neoliberal business as usual economy that dominates the worldview and actions.
Complex systemic problems have multiple components that are independent and interact, they can reorganize themselves if there is any alteration in their components or their connections, as well as may have disproportional and unexpected responses. The elements of systems are dynamic and have their own behaviours. They are emergent, the reactions are unattended. So, there is not a unique solution for a complex problem. It requires multiple structural changes, not forgetting that values and worldview are the drivers to propel the necessary actions that are also complex and systemic and involve countless stakeholders and peoples from a myriad of cultures (Meadows, 2008; Rittel & Webber, 1973; Giampietro & Mayumi, 2018; Gomersall, 2018).
It is urgent to take immediate actions in search of mitigating the impacts of a series of other super interactive wicked problems that are rooted in the ‘Anthropocene Epoch’[6]: climate crisis[7], biodiversity extinction high rate, economic myopia, human-nature disconnection, eating patterns, among others. It is imperative drawing down the exponential rise of all indicators identified by the IPCC (2022), to enable that the poli-crises do not evolve into a planetary collapse. And what is happening in the mid 2023 is not a good sign… and there is no space to commit more errors!
A wicked problem starts it is conceptualisation, the solution is based on the framing of the concept (Rittel & Webber, 1973). So, it is important to discuss the concept of the Anthropocene.
As seen above, the definition of the Anthropocene dates from the year 2000 (Crutzen & Stoermer). It refers to “major and growing impacts of human activities on earth and atmosphere, and at all, including global, scales, it seems to us more than appropriate to emphasize the central role of mankind in geology and ecology.” Steffen et al. (2011) approach to the Anthropocene as the force of human activities being as powerful and impactful to the Earth system as the “great forces of Nature (Steffen et al. 2011, 843). In 2019 the Subcommission on the Quartenary Stratigraphy is doing in-depth research and analysing the phenomena associated with the Anthropocene to decide if the term will be officially adopted:
“an order-of-magnitude increase in erosion and sediment transport associated with urbanization and agriculture; marked and abrupt anthropogenic perturbations of the cycles of elements such as carbon, nitrogen, phosphorus and various metals together with new chemical compounds; environmental changes generated by these perturbations, including global warming, sea-level rise, ocean acidification and spreading oceanic ‘dead zones’; rapid changes in the biosphere both on land and in the sea, as a result of habitat loss, predation, explosion of domestic animal populations and species invasions; and the proliferation and global dispersion of many new ‘minerals’ and ‘rocks’ including concrete, fly ash and plastics, and the myriad ‘technofossils’ produced from these and other materials.”[8]
This term has been worldwide adopted by leading climate scientists (e.g., Rockström, Steffen); international financial institutions (e.g., World Bank); international and national agencies (e.g., USDA; European Environment Agency[9]); academia (with numerous scientific publications), and current language to refer to the contemporary epoch.
The argument of the Subcommission on the Quartenary Stratigraphy to date the beginning of the Anthropocene in the 1950’s comes from the great impacts of the nuclear bomb tests, what they call the ‘Atomic Age’ (Subramanian, 2019).
Lightfoot et al. (2013) have argued that from 16th to 18th century the colonialism exploited ecosystems in the Americas, Oceania, India, Asia, and Africa with “tremendous repercussions for indigenous faunal and floral populations.” Thus, they have called to date the Anthropocene from this period. But there are numerous other aspects to be addressed in order to officially adopt the term, as seen above.
Foremost, the impacts on the planetary system were a result of patriarchal decisions taken by white Western men that have controlled the economy in the last centuries, including wars. The majority of the world population was excluded of the main decisions that affect their daily lives, e.g., women, African-descendants, indigenous peoples, children, lower income people. There is another issue that must be considered, the power of money controls the political arena all over the world; the media is associated with the big names of technology companies, which are led by individuals that are part of the privileged 1% that hold the majority of the wealth, closing the loop of power to rule on their own interests. They represent the contemporary technocracy that is now controlling almost all lives and businesses on earth (Shiva & Shiva, 2019).
Asking meaningful questions on the power of the term “Anthropocene”
Although the name Anthropocene have been widely adopted, there are numerous critics who understand that it covers all humans as having the same weigh and responsibility on the ecological and social impacts, but in reality, the great exploiters and beneficiaries of this system are the wealthy 1% of the humanity, the dominant classes and developed countries who have actually caused the extreme planetary changes on their way to progress and the illusion of perpetual economic growth. The Anthropocene is a perpetuation of the colonialism, with neocolonialism (Homer-Dixon, 2011; Moore, 16; Moore, 2017; Shiva & Shiva, 2018; McEwan, 2021).
Some critics have strong arguments for a more appropriate name to this new epoch. One term that has support of recognised scientists is Capitalocene (Moore, 2017; Demos, 2017; Arons, 2023, among others). The capitalist system is the main cause of the planetary transformations due to be based on “power, profit and re/production in the web of life” (Moore, 2017, p. 1). The foundation of the Anthropocene is, as seen above, the coal mining and large-scale adoption of steam machines, not the people who built (and builds) wealth with the exploitation of resources and the carbon-fuelled capitalism that are the main cause of the state-of-the-planet. Also, a strong case that the shift on focus would better enable properly recognise and account the actual agents of the current planetary life-endangering challenges. The origin of capitalism coincides with the origin of ecological crisis (Moore, 2017).
McEwan (2021) explores the Eurocentrism of the term Anthropocene, and its power as an epistemic violence to transform it in a universal concept that excludes colonialism, as well as the post-colonial power to capture other cultures and export their values and beliefs. The effect of this distorting naming and conceptualisation is to erase the historical dominance of the Western worldview in most fields, as science, economy, power, and the real accountability of the critical situation the whole world now faces. It is important to emphasise that this supremacy erases other cultures, worldviews, values since the beginning of the great navigations. This argument also puts all humanity in the same basket and call it the ‘age of man’, all responsible for the climate crisis with the same weigh and responsibility.
Shiva & Shiva, 2019 and others share the same critical view, that the neocolonialism leads to “linear, extractive systems that are rooted of economic inequality, and polarisation of society between the 1% and the 99%; they are the basis of new forms of enslavement, and unprecedented exercise of disposability and extermination.” (p.24)
Furthermore, the Anthropocene term keeps the divide between humans and nature, what is convenient to the techno-centric society. It has philosophical implications, putting humans as a homogeneous and united force that act together in a “human enterprise” (Moore, 2017, apud Steffen et al., 2011). “Inequality, commodification, imperialism, patriarchy, racism and much more — all have been cleansed and homogenised as ‘Humanity’, the Anthropocene’s point of departure” (Moore, 2017, p.4). Also, it justifies the technological interventions to face the climate crisis.
To wrap-up the conceptualisation of the new time on earth, I introduce one for the future, brought by James Lovelock, the independent scientist who acted as an oracle to envision the future. At the age of 100 years old, he left his last legacy, the book Novacene (2020). On this publication he predicts another future for us, when a new age of artificial hyper intelligence will get together with humans to enable our survival on planet Earth. This may be heart-warming, in spite of my scepticism, but I have to agree that he must be heard.
4. Three pathways to choose now
I believe the humanity has three pathways to choose at this critical moment, where the planet is burning, the oceans are boiling, torrential rains are destroying landscapes with extreme impacts on lives of humans and non-humans, exacerbating the biodiversity extinction rates. I present them below:
Firstly, the business-as-usual pathway: fossil fuel companies and technology continue to lead the way to keep on track the same neoliberal exploitative economy, with a straight vision to keep accumulating wealth in spite of the huge climatic, ecological and social impacts they are causing. This will lead from multiple system crises to planetary collapse anytime soon.
The planet enters a stage of necrosis, where life has no longer capability to survive, wiping out all the richness of diversity (including cultural and social) that once inhabited the regions of all continents. As McBrien (2019) puts on keeping the pathway of business-as-usual, we enter the Necrocene, where “Capitalism is the reciprocal transmutation of life into death and death into capital (p.117).”
This brings to my mind “Necrophilia”. The concept was developed by Erich Fromm, a psychologist, in 1964, as he defines the love of death, attraction to all that is dead. As I understand, it has multiple meanings, and I include the love of objects and material goods that are lifeless, such cars, yachts, airplanes, clothes, shoes, and so on. What is incentivised and maintains the predatory capitalism. The other is the love to see people dying in wars, climatic disasters, car, train, airplanes crashes… what is publicised by the medias, social media and fuels the war and trivialises death. Further studies could relate those human feelings with the self-inflicted disgraceful impacts of human-caused contemporary crises. I infer that the Necrocene is also a byproduct of the Necrophilia.
Once there are no other options being presented to the public in a short term, enters the second pathway option: the techno-science as the saviours of humanity. What is the obvious techno-solution? Geoengineering! Of course! As Shiva & Shiva (2019) detailed describe Bill Gates strategies to manipulate and control all sources of life and technology in this planet in search of extreme power and wealth accumulation, what they call the ‘money machine’. Even more, Gates is pushing geoengineering, what is an intentional intervention on the weather and the world climate that will change the earth’s climate artificially, using “solar radiation management (SRM), as well as other earth system interventions under the umbrella of the carbon-dioxide removal (CDR) or greenhouse gas removal (SSGR)” (p.125). He (Gates) influence high governmental levels to embark on those experiments and pay for research and testing. This is a tremendously dangerous techno game to be applied in planetary scale, with absolute uncertainties on the outputs and outcomes, and with extreme risks of unplanned and unforeseen consequences.
Then comes the third pathway. The way that may take us to the Ecocene. The ‘Ecozoic age’, when we recognize that we are earth citizens, members of the earth community (Shiva & Shiva, 2019). Regenerative cultures abound in bioregions (Wahal, 2016).
My vision of the Ecocene is: ecological literacy becomes widespread; collective and grassroot movements spread; ecosystems’ restoration immediately advance at planetary scale; local cultures and production gain traction; regional and local production and production substitute the globalised destructive system; cities effectively make the transition to bringing nature and food planting into every possible space, and are walkable and cyclable, with mass quality transit for everyone; food is produced in agroecological systems, healing the soil and biodiversity; hard engineering gave place to soft, ecological engineering with nature-based solutions being widely adopted; the diversity of cultures and (indigenous and scientific) knowledge lead the regional restorations; inclusive and love-based communities abound; social disparities fade away, equalising the opportunities to every human-being to achieve the full potential, compassion flourishes.
I envision a biophilic society, where we are intrinsically related to nature and biodiversity. We all love life and living organisms, even our own internal biome that keeps us healthy. The planetary community has developed “Biophilia”. What is a concept coined by Fromm (1964), which gained relevance with Edward O. Wilson (1986), one of the most important scientists of our times. And foremost, technology is at service of the quality of life, well-being and health of people and biodiversity.
5. A brief discussion on moral and ethical issues
Moral and ethical issues regarding the state-of-the-planet are intra and intergenerational (Gosseries, 2023). Intragenerational is about the abyss between the 1% who accumulate twice the wealth than the rest 99% of humanity,[10] with 50% of the world population living with less than US$ 6,85 per day.[11] The most social and economic vulnerable people are also the ones most impacted by extreme climatic events. A classic example is Bangladesh, where most of the country is prone to floods caused by strong storms, and to sea level rise. The same happens in most Global South countries, once poor people don’t have safe places to live. They informally occupy low areas susceptible to floods, and steep slopes vulnerable to landslides, as in the majority of the favelas of Rio de Janeiro and many other cities around the world.
Intergenerational justice are moral and ethical issues that transcend short term vision. ‘Baby boomers’ (the generation that was born after the II World War) received a world with incredible biodiversity, beautiful landscapes, and oceans abundant with life. The rivers and continental areas had already been impacted by industrialisation. The ‘generation X’ (born between 1965 and 1980) still enjoyed good global, regional, and local environmental conditions, and relatively stable climate. ‘Generation Alpha’ (born between 2010 and 2024) are living in a much different situation, where the planetary landscapes have been drastically transformed, the climate presents new patterns. What about the generations that are still to come? What will they receive? Is it moral? Is it ethical?
6. Discussion and Conclusion
The Newtonian-Cartesian worldview is linear, mechanistic, intend to control the variables that are selected and exclude the undesirable ones. The vision of the world and life as machines, made of parts that can be studied, and later put together is simplistic, and narrow-minded. It focuses on parts and intends to understand the whole. This paradigm has ruled for hundreds of years when engineering has been put on an almost sacred place in society. This paradigm should be dead!
Anthropocene is the result of this utilitarian, mechanist, linear world vision and appropriation of nature (and people). It is a wicked problem to be addressed. It must be taken seriously, and tackled in a systemic way once it is tremendously urgent to make a radical shift.
Moore, Demos, Shiva, and many others are feracious critics of the concept Anthropocene, and I agree with them. We are not all accountable at the same scale of the decisions taken that led to the Anthropocene. Who impacted the most are the wealthier and powerful 1% who are responsible for ruling the world in this destructive direction.
In fact, living organisms are complex systems, and as seen above the Earth is a living organism, is Gaia (Lovelock, 2016). Nature is not out there, nature is us! And we, people of this planet, are not all the same. We are diverse in culture, values, social and economic status, have diverse opportunities regarding our family backgrounds and other external factors, even if marketing and technology aim to make us all like and desire the same things to boost the destructive neoliberal economy.
We need real and fast transformative change, there is no more time for incremental changes.
“Crises are not easily understood by those who live through them (Moore, 2016, p 1).” Although, we the baby-boomers and Generation X, are the ones who must take action now! It is imperative that we all be engaged to the make a radical shift on the hedonistic and egoistic lives that most privileged ones have. A full understanding of what is at stake is a huge challenge to be faced by millions of people to benefit billions.
The shift must be pro-living organisms, protection of landscapes and ecosystems’ remnants, restoration of degraded lands, prioritisation of biological and regenerative agriculture, regional economies, local cultures and languages.
For more than a decade I have been researching about committed people and grassroots’ movements in Brazilian cities. They contribute in many ways to engage people, raise awareness, and look for new approaches to contribute to a transformative change to regenerate the landscape and restore biodiversity in urban and periurban areas for a better future.
It is heart-warming to know that there are already huge bottom-up movements undergoing in cities, regions, and countries around the planet in search for a more meaningful and enriching life. That happens in communities, planting native species, protecting nature, growing biological food, raising their kids with values that will enable them to have a better life in a different environment, being recognised as individuals not consumers. They have long-term visions, instead of the current shot-term vision of the leading financial market and governments. Those movements are putting strong pressure to enable political shifts, in spite of the forces of the 1% that are still misleading to keep their power and wealth sources. They are urging for political wisdom to take place, what is a herculean task, thinking and acting beyond growth new paradigm. The serious and committed scientific stakeholders are also pushing for immediate transformative changes.
I like to conclude with the “Doughnut Economics” theory proposed by Kate Raworth (2017): we must as a species live inside the planetary boundaries with a thriving biodiversity, enabling all people have the basic for a decent and meaningful life.
We are the ones who can resist and act now! It is everyone’s duty to participate. Once one is aware of the huge challenges we are facing, he/she needs to contribute to the shift within his/hers own possibilities. Let’s do it together!
References
Arons, W. (2023). We Should Be Talking about the Capitalocene. TDR, 67(1), 35–40.
Boulton, C.A., Lenton, T.M. & Boers, N. Pronounced loss of Amazon rainforest resilience since the early 2000s. Nat. Clim. Chang. 12, 271–278 (2022).
Crutzen & Stoermer (2000), IGPD Newsletter 41, pp. 17–18.
Crutzen, P.J. (2006). The “Anthropocene”. In: Ehlers, E., Krafft, T. (eds) Earth System Science in the Anthropocene. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg.
Demos, T. J. (2017). Against the anthropocene: Visual Culture and Environment Today. National Geographic Books.
Diamond, J. M. (2005). Collapse: How Societies Choose to Fail or Succeed. Penguin.
Ditlevsen, P., Ditlevsen, S. Warning of a forthcoming collapse of the Atlantic meridional overturning circulation. Nat Commun 14, 4254 (2023).
Forman, R. T. T., & Godron, M. (1986). Landscape Ecology. John Wiley & Sons.
Fromm, E. (1964) The Heart of Man: Its Genius for Good and Evil. Harper & Row Publishers, New York.
Giampietro, M. & Mayumi, K. (2018). Unraveling the Complexity of the Jevons Paradox: The Link Between Innovation, Efficiency, and Sustainability. Front. Energy Res. 6:26. http://doi:10.3389/fenrg.2018.00026
Gomersall, T. (2018). Complex adaptive systems: a new approach for understanding health practices. Health Psychology Review, 12(4), 405–418.
Gosseries, A. (2023). What is Intergenerational Justice? Wiley.
Heckenberger MJ, Russell JC, Toney JR, Schmidt MJ. The legacy of cultural landscapes in the Brazilian Amazon: implications for biodiversity. Philos Trans R Soc Lond B Biol Sci. 2007 Feb 28;362(1478):197–208. doi: 10.1098/rstb.2006.1979. PMID: 17255029; PMCID: PMC2311456.
Homer-Dixon, T. Complexity Science Oxford Leadership Journal, January 2011, 2(1). Available at:
IPCC, 2022: Climate Change 2022: Impacts, Adaptation and Vulnerability. Contribution of Working Group II to the Sixth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change [H.-O. Pörtner, D.C. Roberts, M. Tignor, E.S. Poloczanska, K. Mintenbeck, A. Alegría, M. Craig, S. Langsdorf, S. Löschke, V. Möller, A. Okem, B. Rama (eds.)]. Cambridge University Press. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK and New York, NY, USA, 3056 pp., http://doi:10.1017/9781009325844
Lenton, T. M., Rockström, J., Gaffney, O., Rahmstorf, S., Richardson, K., Steffen, W., & Schellnhuber, H. J. (2019). Climate tipping points — too risky to bet against. Nature, 575(7784), 592–595.
Lightfoot, K. G., Panich, L. M., Schneider, T. D., & Gonzalez, S. L. (2013). European colonialism and the Anthropocene: A view from the Pacific Coast of North America. Anthropocene, 4, 101–115.
Lovelock, J. E., & Margulis, L. (1974). Atmospheric homeostasis by and for the biosphere: the Gaia hypothesis. Tellus A: Dynamic Meteorlogy and Oceanography XXVI, 26(1–2), 2.
Lovelock, J. (2007). The revenge of Gaia: Why the Earth is Fighting Back and How We Can Still Save Humanity. Penguin UK.
Lovelock, J. (2016). Gaia: A New Look at Life on Earth. Oxford University Press.
Lovelock, J. (2020). Novacene: The Coming Age of Hyperintelligence. MIT Press.
Maslin, M. & Lewis, S. (2020). Why the Anthropocene began with European colonisation, mass slavery and the ‘great dying’ of the 16th century. The Conversation.
McBrien, J. (2016). Accumulating Extinction: Planetary Catastrophism in the Necrocene. In: Moore, J.W. (editor), Anthropocene or Capitalocene? Nature, History, and the Crisis of Capitalism. PM Press, 11–137.
McEwan, C. (2021). Decolonizing the Anthropocene. In: Chandler, D., Müller, F., Rothe, D. (eds) International Relations in the Anthropocene. Palgrave Macmillan, Cham.
McHarg, I. L. (1969). Design with Nature. John Wiley & Sons.
McKay, D. I. A., Staal, A., Abrams, J. F., Winkelmann, R., Sakschewski, B., Loriani, S., Fetzer, I., Cornell, S., Rockström, J., & Lenton, T. M. (2022). Exceeding 1.5°C global warming could trigger multiple climate tipping points. Science, 377(6611).
Meadows, D. H. (2008). Thinking in systems: A Primer. Chelsea Green Publishing.
Moore, J. W. (2016). Anthropocene or Capitalocene? Nature, History, and the Crisis of Capitalism. Sociology Faculty Scholarship. 1.
Moore, J. W. (2017). The Capitalocene, Part I: on the nature and origins of our ecological crisis. The Journal of Peasant Studies, 44(3), 594–630.
Ponting, C. (1991). A green history of the world.
Raworth, K. (2017). A Doughnut for the Anthropocene: humanity’s compass in the 21st century.
Rittel, H.W.J., Webber, M.M. Dilemmas in a general theory of planning. Policy Sci 4, 155–169 (1973).
Rockström, J., Steffen, W., Noone, K. J., Persson, Å., Chapin, F. S., Lambin, E. F., Lenton, T. M., Scheffer, M., Folke, C., Schellnhuber, H. J., Nykvist, B., De Wit, C. A., Hughes, T. P., Van Der Leeuw, S., Rodhe, H., Sörlin, S., Snyder, P. J., Costanza, R., Svedin, U., . . . Foley, J. A. (2009). A safe operating space for humanity. Nature, 461(7263), 472–475.
Shiva, V. & Shiva K. (2018). Oneness vs The 1%: shattering illusions, seeding freedom. New Internationalist.
Steffen, W., Grinevald, J., Crutzen, P. & McNeill, J. 2011. The Anthropocene: Conceptual and Historical Perspectives. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London A 369:842–867.
Steffen, W., Richardson, K., Rockström, J., Cornell, S., Fetzer, I., Bennett, E. M., Biggs, R., Carpenter, S. R., De Vries, W., De Wit, C. A., Folke, C., Gerten, D., Heinke, J., Mace, G. M., Persson, L., Ramanathan, V., Reyers, B., & Sörlin, S. (2015a). Planetary boundaries: Guiding human development on a changing planet. Science, 347(6223).
Steffen, W., Broadgate, W., Deutsch, L., Gaffney, O., & Ludwig, C. (2015b). The trajectory of the Anthropocene: The Great Acceleration. The Anthropocene Review, 2(1), 81–98.
Steffen, W., Rockström, J., Richardson, K., Lenton, T. M., Folke, C., Liverman, D., Summerhayes, C., Barnosky, A. D., Cornell, S., Crucifix, M., Donges, J. F., Fetzer, I., Lade, S. J., Scheffer, M., Winkelmann, R., & Schellnhuber, H. J. (2018). Trajectories of the Earth system in the Anthropocene. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 115(33), 8252–8259.
Subramanian, M. (2019). Anthropocene now: influential panel votes to recognize Earth’s new epoch. Nature.
Wahl, D. (2016). Designing Regenerative Cultures. Triarchy Press.
Wilson, E. O. (1984). Biophilia. Harvard University Press.
[1] Available at: Viewed 2023.07.26
[2] Available at: Viewed 2023.07.26
[3] This issue was not raised in this essay, but it is intrinsic to the current economic system. It has a tremendous importance to be considered in global, regional, and local scales. Considering the drivers of the impacts (production and consumption), and who suffers with the exploitation to feed the economy with the raw materials and manufactured goods.
[5] The above wicked problems can be further explored for better understanding of their tremendous impacts at local, regional and planetary scales.
[6] Still to be confirmed, as seen above.