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 major scientific principles that have 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 acknowledged the rejection by the International Commission on Stratigraphy to recognize the Anthropocene as a new geological epoch. A decision that, while not unanimous, is rather supported by geologists.
Since the emergence of the concept, the Anthropocene has posed problems for many Earth scientists. And this is 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 some 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 concept 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, highlighting this period of environmental and ecological upheaval that we are experiencing and that humans have caused, its use as a scientific tool quickly raised questions. It is important to remember that the geological time scale is, above all, a scientific tool. These different ages, epochs, periods, and eras have been precisely and rigorously described to divide Earth’s long history into portions. Each of these portions 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 span considered. Any disruption of this balance and disappearance of this marker imply a transition to a new geological subdivision. This division allows the study of the evolution of environmental and faunal conditions over Earth’s 4.5 billion years and enables precise communication with the entire scientific community.
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, it must be found globally and, above all, be stable and enduring over time, i.e., it must be present on aA few million years. The purpose of this marker is for it to be visible, recognizable, and interpretable in sediments for potential future geologists. When thinking of the Anthropocene, one immediately considers plastic pollution, for example, or even radioactive pollution. Certainly, these are most likely global markers. But are they truly enduring?
Although 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 mere blip on the geological timescale), there will be virtually no trace of them left in the sediments. The same applies to glass, iron, and even radioactive waste.
### A Time Issue
The question of the Anthropocene thus raises a crucial point, which is to determine the extent of human disturbance on Earth’s systems relative to geological timescales. This is by no means to downplay this dramatic impact or to suggest that action should not be taken to reduce it. However, given our rapid consumption of fossil fuels, 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 the strata of the Eocene, for example (which lasted 31 million years). Therefore, the second issue of the Anthropocene is a matter of temporal dimension.
Moreover, unlike other geological epochs, all defined **a posteriori**, the Anthropocene would be the only one defined **a priori**. We are, in fact, just at its beginning, with no idea of how long it could last. Having the necessary perspective to establish a clear definition is impossible.
### Not an Epoch, but rather a “Anthropogenic Accident”?
Assuming that Humanity cannot continue on this path for much longer (whether it eventually extinguishes itself due to its own fault or radically changes its way of life), let’s say within a few thousand years, the rates of sedimentation andThe degradation of human products will make this so-called Anthropocene epoch visible in the stratigraphy only as an extremely brief and dramatic event (in geological time scale), somewhat like the Cretaceous-Paleogene crisis that saw the extinction of the dinosaurs. Many scientists suggest that the term Anthropocene (which, with its suffix -cene, refers to a geological epoch) should rather be renamed as “anthropic accident,” “anthropogenic crisis,” or even “anthro-problem.” These terms, more precise in the face of scientific reality, would be considerably preferable.
**The Anthropocene dead forever?**
Therefore, should we just leave things as they are and leave it to our descendants, if they still exist in millions of years, to decide whether it is appropriate or not to choose a term to describe this period of human history that we are currently living through? Not necessarily, because we clearly see the importance of characterizing this period and shedding light on the dramatic situation we are in. Since the Anthropocene does not (yet) have value or legitimacy as a geological epoch, it does have significance in social sciences and ecological communication. This concept should therefore continue to be used, especially for awareness purposes.