Anthropocene

The Anthropocene, as a debatable geological epoch, was first proposed by atmospheric chemist Paul Crutzen in 2000. Crutzen argued that the Earth System had undergone irreversible mutations, entering a state where the current epoch Holocene was no longer appropriate. The Anthropocene Working Group (AWG) later advanced this understanding, asserting that the Anthropocene emerged from mid-twentieth-century planetary transformations, a period closely linked to the onset of the Great Acceleration.

The AWG have been coordinating investigations aimed at confirming the Anthropocene as a formal geological time unit by examining key anthropogenic markers in the geological record. Although the proposal to formalize the Anthropocene as a geological epoch was rejected by the International Commission on Stratigraphy (ICS) in 2024, the identified markers indicate profound alterations to planetary cycles.

The Anthropocene is not an immoderate extension of anthropocentrism. Its root, Anthropo-, reflects not only the extent of human impact on the Earth but also suggests the anthropomorphism of the more-than-human entities, now infused with human-like characteristics. Unlike (meta-)morphism, which implies continuous transformation across various agents, (anthropo-)morphism points to a highly hybrid state where increasing human input becomes irreversibly embedded in both animate and inanimate entities. This epoch is also marked by the actions of these anthropomorphised, which may emote, react, or even seek retribution against those once identified as the Anthropos who no longer could be regarded as one unified agent.

As a new geological epoch, the Anthropocene is where the world-system(s) dominates and impacts the Earth System at unprecedented scales and intensities. This epoch invites critical inquiry in navigating the tensions across these systems, not only regarding humanity as a collective but also concerning individual actors. However, the term Anthropocene itself faces challenges, as it has been interpreted in distinct ways across the various disciplines it traverses. These divergent perspectives often lead to misunderstandings, highlighting a diminishing mutual comprehension within this inquiry. These differences must be rigorously examined and, when necessary, contested.

These controversies expose the lingering inertia from the Holocene, where nature has been viewed as a passive backdrop to human society. The Anthropocene underscores the urgent need for a comprehensive reorganization, particularly in how facts are constructed, how infrastructures are operated and how protocols are settled. Navigating in the Anthropocene demands not trying to “reconciliation” of nature and society into a larger system, but rather a circumvention of that division altogether. This circumvention prompts inquiries into the redistribution and relocation of agencies, the establishment of cosmopolitics, and the forging of bound that ground us to the Earth, where we have long subsisted and will continue to co-inhabit with.