Re: Holocene or Anthropocene?
PS - Personally I don't think 11,700 years is long enough for an epoch, surely they should be measured in the millions of years.
Also in the pinprick of our existence there it is clear we have made a huge impact but we are still nowhere near the extremities of the planet's climate range. There has not been the huge climate changes like ice age, guess that is because it is measured in decades and changes like that are in thousand(s) of years.
We are not in a mass extinction yet, we are still able to reverse or at least minimize our impact (might happen if you;re optimist). And what is the really big impact on the geology of our planet? Have we caused a reverse in polarity? Has anything other than climate change happened that is attributable to us and if not is climate change enough to warrant an epoch change and to put the blame squarely on us?
All things that make me think it is just being anthropocentric claptrap and self indulgence by self serving/self promoting ecologists, climate scientists and the odd geologist too. The people presenting at this are from wide disciplines. it seems that people from the humanities, social science, politics, etc. also have a voice in the geological epoch we are in. Will that mean if you are centre right you will be for it but not wanting to sound too liberal would vote against. Or if you are right wing you will jerk your knee and scream "madness!!" Sorry, just find the idea that politics should have a say on deciding on the end of an geological epoch. Science needs facts, politics needs votes which facts tend to get in the way of. Not the same thing. Let the scientists debate it. What is it that marked the shift from past epochs? Apply the principles that warranted those epoch changes to modern situation and keep the political sphere out of it is what I am saying.