The Anthropocene, Reviewed

Today’s topic is the Anthropocene and the many debates around it. If you have never heard of this, the Anthropocene is a proposed new geologic epoch that is named after humanity and our impact on the planet. While not yet officially recognised in the International Chronostratigraphic Chart, this term has entered the popular imagination. Even John Green, author, and YouTube star, has written a book titled The Anthropocene Reviewed. It is a brilliant collection of essays rating different aspects of the human world on a five-star scale, reminiscent of the reviews of restaurants on Google and other online platforms like Goodreads. 

The Anthropocene Reviewed. 

So, if popular culture books have been written on this phenomenon, why is there any debate about whether the Anthropocene is real? Well, because we have no conclusive way to date this new geologic epoch. What geologic evidence exemplifies the impacts of humanity on our planet? The debate spans from tens of thousands of years ago when people first started farming all the way to the 1950s with the detonation of nuclear weapons. What scientists are looking for is a ‘golden spike’ that can unequivocally prove the impact of humans on the geology of our planet. Apparently, scientists all over the world are racing to see if their nation or province will be the one to prove the timing of the Anthropocene with their own ‘golden spike.’ In fact, very recently, a lake in Canada was recommended as the global ‘golden spike.’ 

The very peaceful lake in question.

However, other scientists have questioned whether it is even worth classifying the Anthropocene as a separate geologic epoch. What if humanity burns itself out in the next few centuries and climate systems regulate themselves? Most geologic epochs span over three million years, is this time of anthropogenic climate change large enough to warrant a break from the conventions of naming the epochs? Especially if the start of the Anthropocene falls in the 1950s, is a 70-year period enough to classify a whole new geologic age? What is the length of one single human lifespan in the broader scale of the Earth’s 4.5 billion years? 

This has led several scientists to question whether the Anthropocene should be an epoch, or if it should be classified as event with a clear beginning and end. This is a very interesting argument as it pivots away from the previous debate about whether the Anthropocene is even a real phenomenon. The argument that the Anthropocene is an event compares human activity and its consequences to other atmospheric events like The Great Oxidation and the Devonian Plant Explosion (where plants expanded onto land and spread across all continents).

This author does not argue for or against any one of these arguments. It is clear that humans are having a large impact on our planet, which may warrant the designation of a new geologic time period. What is fascinating about this debate is that it shows how science builds upon itself. The ‘Anthropocene as an event’ argument could not exist without the original argument that the ‘Anthropocene is real and needs to be named.’ And neither of these could exist without the science proving anthropogenic climate change and the impact of human development on our planet. There is no clear answer to this debate, which makes it so interesting. Coming back to the topic of my first blog post, these are the bricks that build up modern science, with each adding more complexity and proof to our collective brick wall. Science benefits greatly from debate and conversation, so we must encourage and engage with its debates and arguments. While it is not my responsibility to name and prove the Anthropocene and its start date, it does fall on me as a young scientist to engage with this topic and allow space for debates to occur.