Anthropocene

The Anthropocene is a proposed geological epoch (from anthropo = human, cene = new) popularised in 2000 to describe the period in which human activity has rapidly destabilised Earth’s previously stable Holocene climate, especially during the past 60 years of the “Great Acceleration.” Scientists debate when it began (early agriculture, the Industrial Revolution, or the 1950s nuclear era) and what markers (plastics, fossil‑fuel ash, radionuclides) would be significant enough to form a geological “golden spike” detectable millions of years from now.

The concept remains scientifically contested and culturally multivocal: formal recognition requires the International Commission on Stratigraphy to confirm that human impacts have permanently altered rock and fossil records, while outside geology the term has taken on broader social, political and ethical meanings that differ across disciplines and worldviews.(1)

Scientists propose Crawford Lake in Canada as the “golden spike” marking the start of the Anthropocene because its annually layered sediments capture clear geological signals of the mid‑20th‑century Great Acceleration. These sediments include fossil‑fuel fly ash, geochemical shifts, and plutonium from nuclear bomb tests, providing a precise record of humanity’s planetary impact beginning in the 1950s.

The Anthropocene is not just a geological epoch but a political and economic condition driven by global capitalism, especially the post‑1950 Great Acceleration and the intensification of neoliberalism, so framing it as individual responsibility obscures systemic causes and prevents collective action.

Nation‑state politics and resource nationalism are inadequate for planetary crises. Addressing the Anthropocene requires global cooperation, economic reform that targets major polluters, and a cultural shift toward active, justice‑oriented planetary citizenship.(3)

The proposal to formally recognise the Anthropocene as a geological epoch was rejected due to concerns about its short duration and disputes within the geological community, despite strong evidence from the Anthropocene Working Group showing a sharp mid‑20th‑century break in Earth’s systems marked by plutonium fallout, microplastics, invasive species, and other rapid human‑driven signals.

The controversy reflects a deeper scientific misunderstanding: Crutzen’s Anthropocene describes a sudden, unprecedented rupture in planetary stability, whereas others frame human impact as a long “Anthropocene event” spanning millennia; conflating these ideas dilutes the concept and obscures the extraordinary speed and magnitude of recent environmental change.(4)

Education for the Anthropocene requires moving beyond commodified “21st‑century skills” toward forms of learning - often found outside formal institutions - that cultivate emotional connection, imagination, collective action, and a deeper sense of our shared humanity, enabling people to envision and co‑create long‑term futures rather than simply serve economic growth.

“Humans are not the protagonists of this planet's story. If there is a main character, it is life itself, which makes of earth and starlight something more than earth and starlight. But in the age of the Anthropocene, humans tend to believe, despite all available evidence, that the world is here for our benefit.”

The term “Anthropocene” reinforces a myth of human supremacy and falsely universalises responsibility, masking the fact that ecological breakdown is not caused by “humanity” as a whole but by specific industrialised nations. By centering “anthro”, the concept risks reproducing the very anthropocentrism and misattribution it seeks to critique.