A panel of scientists recently rejected adopting “Anthropocene” as the official term for the era of significant human environmental impact. Despite this decision, the term continues to gain traction among activists, artists, and academics.
Rejection of Anthropocene by Geologists
Scientists proposed the term “Anthropocene” to describe the current epoch. Human activity has significantly influenced the planet’s atmosphere, oceans, and land, marking this epoch as the Anthropocene. However, geologists decided against adding a new epoch to Earth’s official geological timeline. They argued that the past seven decades, although significantly impacted by human activity, do not warrant a new geological era.
Persistent Use of Anthropocene Outside Geology
Despite the rejection, the term “Anthropocene” has been widely adopted outside the field of geology. Activists, artists, and academics have embraced it to highlight environmental degradation. The term has become a cultural shorthand for the significant ecological changes defining the current era, appearing in book titles, music albums, and art exhibitions.
Origin and Popularization of Anthropocene
The term entered public consciousness in 2000, when Nobel Prize-winning chemist Paul Crutzen suggested that human activities had altered the Earth so profoundly that it was no longer in the Holocene. Crutzen coined the term on the spur of the moment, combining “anthropo-” (Greek for human) and “-cene” (Greek for new or recent). This new term aimed to capture the unique human influence on the planet, unlike previous epochs that lacked such specificity.
Geologists’ Efforts and Challenges
Crutzen’s idea of the Anthropocene resonated with geologists. In 2009, the International Commission on Stratigraphy (ICS) formed a working group. Their mission: identify a “golden spike” in the rock record. This marker would mark the clear shift to the Anthropocene epoch. Potential starting points were debated. Some suggested the late 1700s, while others pointed to a plutonium spike from 1950s nuclear testing.
The Recent Vote and Its Implications
In a contested vote in March, a subpanel of the ICS rejected the proposal to designate the past seventy years as a new epoch. Some members argued that such a recent feature should not define an epoch. Under ICS rules, another proposal for the Anthropocene cannot be submitted for at least ten years.
Cultural and Scientific Endurance of the Term
Despite the rejection, the term “Anthropocene” continues to be widely used. The ICS acknowledged that the term will persist among scientists, social scientists, politicians, and the general public. Even detractors of the phrase concede that it is enduring. The term’s frequent appearance in scientific studies and public discourse underscores its relevance.
Divergent Views on the Term’s Usefulness
Some, like climatologist Jan Esper, believe the term effectively conveys humanity’s impact on the planet. Others, such as Norman Wirzba, argue that the term might obscure the fact that a few countries are primarily responsible for the majority of greenhouse gas emissions. Wirzba suggested an alternative term, “Capitalocene,” to better capture the underlying causes of environmental degradation.
Geologists’ Perspective on Terminology
Philip Gibbard, a geologist, argued for understanding the Anthropocene as an ongoing “event” rather than a new epoch. He opposed its formalization.
Geological events, ranging from footprints in mud to volcanic eruptions, leave marks in the rocks. Gibbard emphasized the need for consistency in terminology across disciplines to ensure scientific clarity.
Broader Acceptance and Flexibility
For many, the term’s flexibility is its strength. Jacquelyn Gill, a paleoecologist, argued that the term’s broad acceptance and varied interpretations give it significant power. People across different fields and communities recognize the Anthropocene as a descriptor of the current age of humanity.
Conclusion
Public and academic discourse have firmly embraced the term “Anthropocene,” even though geologists haven’t officially recognized it. Its continued use highlights the profound and undeniable impact humans have on the planet. As discussions around environmental degradation and climate change intensify, the term will likely remain a crucial part of the global conversation.