Even though the recent decision to reject the Anthropocene as a new geological epoch has caused a stir within the geological community, the verdict seems to be in line with the fundamental scientific principles that have so far governed the establishment of the geological time scale. However, this does not mean that the concept is dead. On the contrary.
On March 4, 2024, the geoscientific community took note of the International Commission on Stratigraphy’s refusal to designate the Anthropocene as a new geological epoch. A decision that, while not unanimously supported, is rather approved by geologists.
It must be said that since the emergence of the concept, the Anthropocene has posed problems for many Earth scientists. And this for very valid reasons.
The Anthropocene: an essential concept to describe the ecological situation
A little reminder: the concept of the Anthropocene was not proposed by a geologist, but by a chemist, Paul Joseph Crutzen, Nobel Prize winner in 2000, to describe the current era and the fact that human beings, or at least certain societies, interfere with natural forces and major geological processes. In fact, the environmental impact caused by humans (pollution, climate change, excessive erosion, reduction of biodiversity, even mass extinction) could leave traces in sedimentary archives. Hence the idea of incorporating this notion of the Anthropocene into the famous geological time scale as a new epoch succeeding the Holocene (the current period that began 12,000 years ago).
The geological time scale, a tool for geologists
While the Anthropocene quickly found media and societal resonance by highlighting this period of environmental and ecological upheaval that we are experiencing and that humans have caused, its use as a scientific tool has quickly raised questions. Because we must not forget that the geological time scale is above all a scientific tool. These different ages, epochs, periods, and eras have indeed been described in a precise and rigorous manner in order to divide the long earthly history into segments. Each of these segments represents a period of time during which a certain faunal balance is observed, characterized by fossil markers that are global and enduring over the time frame considered. Any disturbance of this balance and disappearance of this marker imply a transition to a new geological subdivision. This division thus allows for the study of the evolution of environmental and faunal conditions over Earth’s 4.5 billion years, and for precise communication with the scientific community as a whole.
The problem of the permanence of anthropogenic markers
In this context, the Anthropocene as a geological epoch has posed several problems. The first is that of the marker. As mentioned, this must be found globally and above all be stable and enduring over time.That is, over at least a few million years. The purpose of this marker is indeed for it to be visible, recognizable, and interpretable in the sediments for any future geologists. When thinking of the Anthropocene, one immediately thinks of pollution such as plastic pollution or even radioactive pollution. Admittedly, these are certainly global markers. But are they truly enduring?
While plastic pollution is ubiquitous today and poses a major ecological problem, these are carbon-based materials that will eventually degrade over time. In a few million years (a speck on the geological timescale), there will be virtually no trace of them left in the sediments. The same goes for glass, iron, and even radioactive waste.
### A Time Issue
The question of the Anthropocene thus raises a major point here, which is to understand the extent of human disruption to Earth systems relative to geological timescales. This is by no means to downplay this dramatic impact or to say that action should not be taken to reduce it. However, given our speed of fossil fuel consumption, it is unlikely that human societies (following their current model) will survive long enough to leave a fossil footprint interpretable as a true geological epoch, comparable to strata from the Eocene, for example (which lasted 31 million years). The second issue of the Anthropocene is thus a temporal dimension problem.
Moreover, unlike other geological epochs, all of which have been defined a posteriori, the Anthropocene would be the only one to be defined a priori. We are, in fact, just at its beginning, with no idea of how long it could last. It is impossible to have sufficient hindsight to establish a clear definition.
### Not an Epoch, but Rather an “Anthropogenic Accident”?
Assuming that Humanity will not be able to continue on this path for very long (whether it eventually extinguishes itself due to its own fault or drastically changes its way of life), let’s say within less than ten thousand years, the rates of sedimentation…The degradation of human-made products will make this so-called Anthropocene era visible in stratigraphy as an extremely brief and dramatic event, somewhat similar to the Cretaceous-Paleogene crisis that saw the extinction of dinosaurs. Many scientists suggest that the term Anthropocene, with its geological epoch suffix “-cene,” should be renamed as “anthropic accident,” “anthropogenic crisis,” or “anthroproblem.” These terms, more accurate in the face of scientific reality, would be much preferable.
Title: Is the Anthropocene Dead Forever?
Should we then leave things as they are and leave it to our descendants, if they still exist in a few million years, to decide whether it is appropriate to choose a term to describe this period of human history that we are currently living through? Not necessarily, as we can see the importance of characterizing this period and shedding light on the dramatic situation we are in. Because while the Anthropocene does not (yet) have value or legitimacy as a geological epoch, it does have significance in social sciences and ecological communication. Therefore, this concept should continue to be used, especially for awareness purposes.