I really enjoyed Keith Peterson’s talk on environmental philosophy and the anthropocentrism of the anthropocene. He proposed a key question about whether or not anthropocentrism is motivating our new need to define the geological era of human impact on the world as the anthropocene. In my opinion I don’t think it is the central reason for defining the anthropocene. While I agree that to some extent we are extremely self-centered as a species that shares a planet with other living things, I don’t believe that the need to define the anthropocene comes from our own self-centered need to claim impact on the world. The anthropocene in my opinion is more about acknowledging human short comings rather than claiming responsibility for the Earth’s changes due to the human condition. It is more about admitting our own faults as a species instead of proudly ¬†showcasing our impact on the world. I think a big part of the anthropocene movement is the idea of humility. Humans are still humbled as a species by nature frequently. Take natural disasters as an example. There are parts of nature we cannot overcome. We need to be more humble as a species realizing the world is not for our taking, but rather for our sharing with other species and life forms. It’s a point of tolerance between conservation and exploitation of resources.