While this assumption is certainly believable, humans will not doubt reach a point where the greenhouse gas absorbing plants and bodies will no longer be able to keep up with human activity. This will further exacerbate the problem of human-caused global climate change. On the other hand, if humans are able to develop non-fossil fuel alternatives that do not have a negative effect on the environment on a global scale, the warming trend might very well be reversed in a generation or two. Either way, Ruddiman's arguments will likely be proven to be wrong or right, on a long enough timeframe.
Section IV: Opposing Points-of-View
Anthropologists, specifically, disagree with Ruddiman. Since the author himself is not an anthropology professor and admittedly has very little experience in this field, it would only seem natural that this specific type of academic opposition could in fact be the most damaging to Ruddiman's theories. Anthropologists argue that there were not enough humans on the planet, even a few millennia ago to ever have exacted enough change to avert a global ice age (Silver, 1992). In fact, many of these same anthropologists point out that the human population was relatively small and consistent from about 30,000 years ago all the way up until just a couple thousand years ago. Many anthropologists and archaeologists believe that these humans even experienced the last ice age, roughly 20,000 years ago, when the glacial maximum was reached (Morgan, 2009). Ruddiman's position that humans in fact changed the landscape and atmosphere in the ancient world is quite convincing. And while this may be somewhat true, the same anthropologists who argue against Ruddiman initially also argue that the sum of all human activity, even over the past few thousand years relative to agricultural activity could not have been significant enough to avert an ice age.
Both Morgan (2009) and Silver (1992) posit that global warming is occurring, but for different reasons than what Ruddiman argues. These other authors argue that human activity, especially within the past 200 years, or since the industrial revolution, has contributed greatly to global warming. These authors also feel that fossil fuel dependency is the lynchpin that holds the entire warming argument together. While Ruddiman has other theories, he loosely agrees with Silver and Morgan. These authors however do not attribute the activities of ancient humans as a cause of the recent rise ion global temperatures, and position themselves definitive on the environmentalist side of the argument. When Ruddiman's arguments are compared to author Bast's (2010), the difference is even more compelling. Bast argues against global climate change altogether, instead relying on the pseudo-science version of atmospheric change associated with Earth's cycles. There is little comparison...
He describes how wild grains and animals were domesticated, as well as the new technologies that made farming possible (sickles, baskets, pestles, gourds, irrigation, the wheel, the plow). He uses a chart to plot these movements. His evidence is mainly archeological, historical, and botanical with heavy doses of appeal to imaginary scenarios. Its power to convince is narrational. His ultimate point in cataloguing this change is to assert how,
Our semester plans gives you unlimited, unrestricted access to our entire library of resources —writing tools, guides, example essays, tutorials, class notes, and more.
Get Started Now