Questions concerning the anthropocene, Darwin and Humboldt

So I'm writing this with a limited scientific understanding, having not dabbled much in science since my A-levels, though I wonder whether you’ll be able to answer a question (or the shadow of one—I understand what I want to know, but not quite what I want to ask) that for some strange reason has been on my mind. I apologise if these questions don't seem fully formed. They are quite vague in nature, but through discussion I hope I will understand better what it is I want to ask. These are I suppose questions that would require answers both from philosophers and scientists.

I’ve recently been reading about the anthropocene, Darwin and Humboldt. Humboldt and Darwin both saw humans not as the superior species but as part of a natural system. Humboldt recognised that humans were starting to deplete the environment, e.g. through quarrying, deforestation and the growth of cash crops. Darwin observed that species evolve through natural selection, depending on environmental circumstances e.g. food supply, climate, competition etc.

How would their theories fit into the present day belief of the anthropocene? Are we really influencing the world in such a dramatic way, or is this an exaggeration of our own importance. Are other species likely to evolve to survive in new environments made by humans (any examples so far? I know there have been numerous extinctions caused by humans)? Could the survival of species now be described as 'artificial selection'?And a more philosophical question, does our influence equate with our superiority? Are we not perhaps more like a virus, an astroid or natural disaster? Or does nature aim for homogeneity again after diversifying through natural selection.

Is the term anthropocene anthrocentric, or does it merely descriptive? Why do we now talk about natural vs artificial, when all things are derived from nature/natural processes? Why do we want to describe manmade things as unnatural? Also, would you say there is a relationship/common thread between Humboldt and Darwin’s about the (lack of) superiority of mankind? Are things different now that we have entered what has been described as the anthropocene?

Sorry if these questions seem banal; I just want to wrap my head around questions like "why is it we separate humans from other animals/nature?" and "why do we feel a need to influence the planet/put a label to our influence?", and "what are we (if anything) becoming?"

If you've got this far, thanks for reading. I definitely need to read more around the subject and I'd appreciate any books you might be able to recommend.

Fascinating and important questions. I'm not going to attempt to answer them, but I would make a couple of observations. First, that the designation of the anthropocene need not be a product of human solipsism - there is a reasonable argument that human activity will be recorded in "natural" markers such as soil profiles, for ages to come, in addition to our impacts on global climate, atmospheric composition and the mass extinction event you have mentioned. Second, from a biological point of view, the distinction between the human species and our closest relativess is no more significant than that between - say - chimpanzees and gorillas. We happen to be a particularly noxious invasive species. But like many other invasives, we've already created the conditions - as well as the means - that will lead to a population crash in due course.

Frans de Waal's most recent book, "Are we smart enough to know how smart animals are?" is a brilliant review that demonstrates how our efforts to show that humans are qualitatively different from other animals are looking increasingly unconvincing.

I added that book to my to-read list on Goodreads a while ago. Glad to have a personal recommendation though, thanks!

I recognise that there is now geological evidence for the anthropocene; but have no other life forms had such an influence on the earth though? Trees, for example, and some of those sea creatures--zooplankton and algae--which fossilised to create petroleum? I suppose they do belong in numerous epochs. I don't really understand the scale of our impact, or why it has only now been recognised that we are entering this new epoch. I do worry that humans will see this as an argument for human supremacy even though it's not. To me it seems more like we've become a cancer on the earth that's lost all control.

I'm trying to think off the top of my head of other species whose habits have led to conditions that will ultimately lead to their own demise--maybe beavers? I can only imagine a world that bares resemblance to Cormac McCarthy's The Road that's been overexploited by humans or beavers.

X