• BertramDitore@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    42
    ·
    1 month ago

    I get why geologists might be hesitant to add a whole new epoch named after us, they deal in absurdly long timescales. That said, I’ve read a number of climate and environment papers going back at least 5 to 10 years where Anthropocene is used without a second thought.

    We did this, so it’s only fitting that we at least take the inconsequential step of calling a spade a spade.

    • 14th_cylon@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      16
      ·
      edit-2
      1 month ago

      there is also plastic age…

      https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2019/sep/04/plastic-pollution-fossil-record

      After bronze and iron, welcome to the plastic age, say scientists

      Plastic pollution is being deposited into the fossil record, research has found, with contamination increasing exponentially since 1945.

      Scientists suggest the plastic layers could be used to mark the start of the Anthropocene, the proposed geological epoch in which human activities have come to dominate the planet. They say after the bronze and iron ages, the current period may become known as the plastic age.

      The study, the first detailed analysis of the rise in plastic pollution in sediments, examined annual layers off the coast of California back to 1834. They discovered the plastic in the layers mirrors precisely the exponential rise in plastic production over the past 70 years.

    • Ephera@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      1 month ago

      Well, there’s also the point that the holocene just started 11,700 years ago. That’s basically yesterday, in geology terms. We can be the dominant occurence of the holocene. We don’t need to give it a new name, just because we’ve now entered industrialization and whatnot.