Nov 7, 2025 04:45 PM
As a scientific concept, the Anthropocene is dead. But it’s such a helpful idea to think with, should we use it anyway?
https://aeon.co/essays/declared-dead-las...much-alive
EXCERPTS: [...] Geologists are not silly, of course. They do not claim that an epoch spanning millions of years literally began at some specific point in time (or place): this is an artefact of the system of classification. But a similar determination would have to be made for the Anthropocene for it to qualify even for the ICS vote.
[...] In 2016, the group made its recommendation that the Anthropocene should be considered as the new epoch. This recommendation was later forwarded to higher ICS organs for consideration and voting. A series of votes was expected, but the proposal was rejected early on in the process in March 2024. Although technically the proposal could be renewed in a decade, for now it seems that the debate is over. In stratigraphic terms, we are still living in the Holocene.
[...] Despite being officially declared dead, however, the term ‘Anthropocene’ is very much alive. Early on, it broke out of the confines of stratigraphy and was adopted widely in public discussion, in the arts, and also in various other sciences, both natural and social. Myriad scientific journals, conferences, artworks and novels still carry it forward.
But how should the term be understood now, when its lifetime as an official geological concept is over? Should we stop using it, or define it in a new way? I believe that the term still has value, but it needs to be freed from certain entrenched positions that carry unnecessary baggage... (MORE - missing details)
https://aeon.co/essays/declared-dead-las...much-alive
EXCERPTS: [...] Geologists are not silly, of course. They do not claim that an epoch spanning millions of years literally began at some specific point in time (or place): this is an artefact of the system of classification. But a similar determination would have to be made for the Anthropocene for it to qualify even for the ICS vote.
[...] In 2016, the group made its recommendation that the Anthropocene should be considered as the new epoch. This recommendation was later forwarded to higher ICS organs for consideration and voting. A series of votes was expected, but the proposal was rejected early on in the process in March 2024. Although technically the proposal could be renewed in a decade, for now it seems that the debate is over. In stratigraphic terms, we are still living in the Holocene.
[...] Despite being officially declared dead, however, the term ‘Anthropocene’ is very much alive. Early on, it broke out of the confines of stratigraphy and was adopted widely in public discussion, in the arts, and also in various other sciences, both natural and social. Myriad scientific journals, conferences, artworks and novels still carry it forward.
But how should the term be understood now, when its lifetime as an official geological concept is over? Should we stop using it, or define it in a new way? I believe that the term still has value, but it needs to be freed from certain entrenched positions that carry unnecessary baggage... (MORE - missing details)