Nature: the undisputed champion of the (changing) world?

"Nature is gone.* It was gone before you were born, before your parents were born, before the pilgrims arrived, before the pyramids were built. You are living on a used planet. If this bothers you, get over it. We now live in the Anthropocene—a geological epoch in which Earth’s atmosphere, lithosphere and biosphere are shaped primarily by human forces. Yes, nature is still around—back-seat driving, annoying us with natural disasters from time to time, and everywhere present in the background—but definitely in no position to take the wheel."

The above quote (emphasis added), written by Ellis (2009) in a controversial article, claims nature has become a "back-seat driver" in the vehicle driving the Earth, and who is at the wheel? Humanity. The entire argument for the Anthropocene as a formally ratified geologic unit is that human activity dominates the global environment (Finney 2014). Visconti (2014) argues this suggests geological processes will not be relevant into the future. Here, there is a fundamental weakness which must be addressed in the concept of the Anthropocene: natural events in the Earth system have the power to obliterate any traces of a 'human-influenced environment' (Visconti 2014). If you asked Ellis, I'm sure he would agree that humans have taken control of the planet, and that nature has become akin to some sort of 'background noise'. If you ask me, I'm not sure that this is true. 

A fundamental question which needs addressing by the AWG before ratification is whether geological processes can still overwhelm human activity (Finney 2014). Sure, human impacts are globally widespread and in many cases, seriously detrimental to our planet's natural systems. BUT, as we know, geological time is discussed in units of millions, hundreds of millions and billions of years...are the signatures of humanity at shallow depths in Earth's crust even relevant on this time scale (Finney 2014)? As Finney (2014), Visconti (2014) and Moore (2013) argue, how long will it take before the "defining features" of humanity on Earth would be wiped away, as if a smear on a windscreen, by catastrophic natural phenomena? For example, another huge asteroid impact, gigantic tsunami, or supervolcanic eruption (e.g. Yellowstone) would surely overwrite any present/near-future stratigraphic record of human activity on the planet (Finney 2014; Visconti 2014). As noted by Visconti (2014), even if human actions result in a catastrophe e.g. the Sichuan earthquake (read here for how it could've been caused by dams), the signals in rock remain characterised by the natural event. 

Personally, I think Nature will always have the
upper hand in the long-run. (Source)

Even if today we believe that humans can and already are rivalling the great forces of Mother Nature (Steffen et al 2007), can we honestly argue that nature has become inferior to the powers of the human race? I do agree that the period of time we are in at the moment (be that the Holocene or Anthropocene) is approaching terra incognita and that we are pushing planetary boundaries to unknown levels. Therefore, I do not disagree that humans are having great and potentially long-lasting impacts on the planet (e.g. see here for how we may have postponed an imminent ice age!), but I cannot agree with Ellis (2009) that nature has become a 'back-seat annoyance'. 

From an elemental viewpoint, we are like ants crawling around a big lump of rock, moving at incomprehensible speeds around space, 100% dependent on nature. No matter how much we put humanity on a pedestal, we cannot control the trajectories of asteroids, the behaviour of the Sun, or the natural long-term cycles that Earth has undergone in its 4.5 billion year lifetime. We are completely at the mercy of nature. To say that nature does not have the wheel of the vehicle driving the planet is based on completely false assumptions (Visconti 2014). Additionally, we mustn't see nature as a rival or opposite force. We should try to work alongside it, together, and embrace that we have become powerful as a species, but that nature could change that in a blink of an eye. We can only hope that nature is benevolent to us, despite our damaging and careless alteration of Earth's natural systems in recent geologic time. 

So, to respond to the initial quote by Ellis (2009), I fundamentally disagree. In fact, we humans are the passengers in this vehicle, we are the back-seat drivers and occasional annoyances, and nature is at the wheel, as it always has been. Humans are just along for the ride. Once we have left this planet behind (be it through extinction or emigrating to Mars), our Earth will continue to live on until its natural end.

* It isn't the purpose of this blog to go into the arguments of whether humans and nature are separate entities, or one combined force, or whether nature is indeed natural, or if everything is unnatural, and what is natural...that would be a whole other blog entirely! If you are interested in these debates, drop me a comment, and I'll pass on some good literature on the topic.