Considering the Anthropocene

Dolly J�rgensen has posted yet another fascinating discussion on her blog.  Today, she begins with her visit to the new Welcome to the Anthropocene exhibit at the Deutsches Museum in Munich, using this as a point of departure for considering the reintroduction of species.

The Anthropocene concept itself has been receiving ever-more attention from environmental historians.  This makes sense: the notion of a new geological era defined by humanity's transformative impact can serve as a succinct summary of the recent history of human-nature relations.  But as historians embrace the Anthropocene, some questions might also come to mind.  Here are three of them:

1) What does the concept mean for how historians think about time?  The Anthropocene is framed in terms of geological time � does that make it more difficult to think in terms of the finer time scales where genuine historical explanations are to be found?

2) And what about scale?  The Anthropocene is a global concept: shorthand for the notion that human impacts are evident everywhere on the planet.  Yet that global vision itself can obscure finer scales of geographical analysis.  After all, in some places the Anthropocene began centuries ago; in other, more remote regions it's still a novelty,  Can historical discussions framed in terms of the concept still capture those subtleties?

3) What does the concept mean for how historians relate to scientists?  Adopting the language of the Anthropocene means adopting how the concept has been framed by scientists � and this framing itself reflects the historical context of global science.  If historians are right to be careful when they apply scientific concepts and methods � acknowledging that science is not simply an objective source of knowledge � does their quick adoption of the Anthropocene, as compelling as it is, reflect an easing of this critical gaze?