Undoubtedly, humans are a driving force on this planet, our ability to create

and destroy is unparalleled in magnitude to any other multi-cellular species that has
existed on this planet. We already have the potential to completely destroy the
planet with nuclear power. We have started the largest mass extinction ever of
plants, animals and micro-ecologies like coral reefs and rainforests. The rate of
extinction is 1000% times higher than what it normally shouldve been. Surely, we
know that humans have created climate change and ecological destruction but is it
on a scale that warrants to be called its own epoch? When the ICS has a conclave
this year to officially decide if we have entered the Anthropocene(Crutzen, P.
J. & Stoermer, E. F. IGBP Newsletter), the question will not be if it should be named
or not, but the official starting date of this epoch and how far reaching its
consequences will be.
As a budding geologist, Im quite comfortable with the geological timeframes.
We are currently in the Cenozoic era, Quaternary period, and Holocene epoch.
These divisions of time were decided based on the differences of the climatic and
atmospheric conditions within those periods of time. The new epoch that scientists
and geologists want to implement is the Anthropocene epoch. There is a debate on
the implementation of this nomenclature only because this is the first time in the
history of geology are we naming an epoch that is starting in our existence and not
already behind us. The question that Geologists are trying to address here is, are
humans a geologic force? By now, we know that Geology is not only the study of
rock layers and plate tectonics but any micro-perturbations that are caused in the
Earths ecology as a whole which defines the direction of the Earth in the future. The
geological effects of the previous epochs were, well, world changing. During the
Pleistocene period, which was the previous epoch, the ice age was the ruling factor.
Where at one point, almost 40% of earth was covered by a thick sheet of ice (Louis
L. Ray, The Great Ice Age). Glaciers so thick, it decreased the sea level height of
entire continents. We have seen numerous instances in the past where geologic
forces caused mass extinction events, where Earth hits the refresh button. But can
it work the other way? Can life itself be a geologic force in shaping the era it is in
and the era there are going to be? The data and evidence for this case is
compelling.
At the cusp of the Pleistocene and the Holocene periods, human made their
presence felt first and have become an exponentially dominant force over the last
10,000 years. Humans are the apex super-predators in the current Earth ecosystem
who hunts apex predators of other food chains. But that in itself, does not validate
the need for the current geological epoch to change. The Earths surface,
atmosphere, biological trends should have changed in a significant manner for a
period of time to be termed as an epoch. To prove the point that we are infact living
in the Anthropocene epoch, lets compare the facts to the criterion. Onset an
atmospheric change? Check. The usual carbon dioxide content of the air is
supposed to 250 ppm, which was the case at the beginning of the Holocene epoch.
For the carbon dioxide content to be reversible or be in quantities to not be harmful

to the environment, it has to be below 300 ppm, we are currently sitting at 378 ppm
of CO2 emitted by our fossil fuel dependence (A. Indermuhle et al., Climate and
Environmental Physics). This has created a global warming trend, which scientists
are currently debating is reversible or not. In either scenario, carbon dioxide levels
leave a permanent watermark on the geological records and earths substrate which
will be detectable for eons to come. Mass extinctions as a criteria has also been
fulfilled. Humans have wiped out the majority of large mammals in the North
American continent like the mammoth, sabretooth and giant sloths. This extinction
event is exacerbated on smaller islands like Hawaii, Tasmania, Madagascar, New
Zealand, where the indigenous species were destroyed in a very short period of
time due to excessive hunting, introduction of non-native species or destruction of
habitat.
Another criterion that we have fulfilled is soil composition change. The advent
of agriculture is the biggest milestone for this (Ruddiman, W. F. Ann. Rev. Earth.
Planet. Sci.). Agricultural land has been at the cost of forests and grasslands, which
were ecosystems teeming with life. The production and use of chemical fertilizers is
another change inducing catalyst which is changing the quality of soil and
underwater resources. Building of dams have created gorges and troughs where
there existed none and led to higher soil erosion. Polluting the rivers with industrial
and domestic waste has permanently changed the chemical content of the oceans.
Ocean acidification and rising temperatures have made many delicate ecosystems
extinct. All of the above evidence point to the fact that we have indeed created a
permanent impact in the workings of this planet, indicative of a correlation with
previous epochs.
The sediment record will change due to agricultural use, pollution of underground
water sources and a thick layer of plastic. Plastic will be the marker where future
geologists should mark the beginning of the end of Anthropocene. Unless, we as a
species do something dafter, like a nuclear winter, plastic is a good milestone. There
is another debate within this debate, what marks the start of the Anthropocene? Is it
when the humans first appeared on fossil records or the first civilization? The advent
of agriculture or the first nuclear bomb test?
There are many opposing views to this idea. Some scientists argue that on the
grand scale of the life of this planet, we are but a microbe. If the age of planet earth
was a year, humans have only started to cause change in the last minute of the last
day of that year (Neil De Grasse Tyson, Cosmos). That we have overestimated our
position on the planet and earth will shake us off like a flea like it did with other
species that preceded us. They have also raised the question if we are letting pop
culture dictate the decision (Autin, W. J. & Holbrook, J. M. GSA Today). This is as
absurd as saying that video games cause violent tendencies. Isnt the pop culture a
reflection of the current world and not the other way around? If anything, this will
make something that weve known for decades, official. No other geological debate
in the past has garnered as much attention in common media as the issue of
Anthropocene and although a little late, this self-realization will mold the way
humans think about the Earth and more people will be willing to lend support to the

idea of a more sustainable future where humanity guides itself to a non-change

creating lifestyle and civilization.