The debate over the Anthropocene, explained

994,340
0
Published 2024-05-03
Humans have changed the planet. Should that go on the geologic calendar?

This video is presented by Brilliant. Head to brilliant.org/vox/ for a 30-day free trial and 20% off your annual subscription. Brilliant doesn’t have a say in our editorial decisions, but they make videos like this possible.

Subscribe to our channel! goo.gl/0bsAjO

The word “Anthropocene” has gained cultural resonance in recent years, as it’s become clearer that humans have made an indelible — and destructive — impact on our planet. But it’s also a term with a specific technical meaning: an epoch, or geologic unit of time, named for humans.

In 2009, geologists first started investigating whether the Anthropocene should be formally recognized as part of the way we record geologic time. This video explains what happened next: how a team of scientists looked for the evidence to make their case, and what it means to consider human time as part of the Earth’s 4.6 billion-year history.

Note: The title of this video has been updated.
Previous title: Should humans get their own geologic era?

Future Perfect’s Sigal Samuel has covered the Anthropocene debate for Vox.com:
www.vox.com/future-perfect/2023/7/11/23791629/anth…
www.vox.com/future-perfect/2024/3/7/24092675/anthr…

This website gives a thorough overview of all the sites the Anthropocene Working Group investigated, including Crawford Lake: www.anthropocene-curriculum.org/the-geological-ant…

We don’t mention this in the video, but Phil Gibbard and Erle Ellis co-authored a paper proposing the Anthropocene as an “event” rather than an epoch: onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1002/jqs.3416

For more reading:

The New York Times did a lot of great reporting on the International Commission on Stratigraphy’s process for considering the Anthropocene:
www.nytimes.com/2022/12/17/climate/anthropocene-ag…

The New Yorker covered some of the drama behind the Anthropocene decision:
www.newyorker.com/news/the-weekend-essay/the-epic-…

Help keep Vox free for everybody: www.vox.com/give-now

Subscribe to our channel and turn on notifications (🔔) so you don't miss any videos: goo.gl/0bsAjO

Vox.com is a news website that helps you cut through the noise and understand what's really driving the events in the headlines. Check out www.vox.com/.

Watch our full video catalog: goo.gl/IZONyE
Follow Vox on Facebook: goo.gl/U2g06o
Or Twitter: goo.gl/XFrZ5H

All Comments (21)
  • @Vox
    In the maps at 5:41 and at 6:25, the marker for Crawford Lake is incorrectly placed. Thanks to those who flagged it! But for more info on Crawford Lake check out this beautiful project that has a ton of detail about the field work there. If you scroll down you'll see the Anthropocene Working Group's study. www.anthropocene-curriculum.org/the-geological-ant…
  • @timseguine2
    My favorite name that I have heard for it is the "Plasticene" Era, playing on Pleistocene, because some people say there should now be enough plastic and microplastic in the current sedimentary layer that it should be obvious to potential future paleontologists that something significant happened around now.
  • It's odd that we feel the need to have such a precise start date to what's clearly a new epoch for the planet. I mean, our uncertainty about the date of the asteroid impact is on the order of tens of thousands of years.
  • @geoqueen25
    Growing up visiting Crawford Lake and then studying under the professors from Brock University who took on this research in my undergrad, to now seeing both these encounters come together has been the coolest experience!
  • @FC-ds9ve
    All I could think of is John Green’s Anthropocene Reviewed podcast/book. Maybe he’ll come back and review that lake.
  • @Neptune0404
    I love it when old school papers I wrote get verified in videos like this. I was asked to write a paper on whether or not the Anthropocene was real, and if so when did it start. And my conclusion was that if any point had any validity, it would be when nuclear testing began. But much more than that, I essentially claimed that picking a time and reason now and declaring that this was the start of a brand new geological era was was not only short sighted, but egotistical. As in, if humans do create an impact that later marks a new geological era, it might well be years off from now (for example, if a nuclear war happens, then that effect will make any before it null and void), and so declaring any point in time before we have the benefit of hindsight is useless. But additionally the idea that our current effects justify enough geological change is probably based on a view of artificially raised importance of humanity. I think the Anthropocene is a great description when used as a historical or a philosophical term. But as a geological term, it simply does not hold water yet.
  • @firebrook9
    5:41 Graphics Error: Crawford Lake is in Southern Ontario, not Northwestern Quebec
  • @jchastain789
    When you look back at the earth. We are all a bunch of worker ants.
  • @dryzalizer
    I'm a bit surprised no mention was made of elevated Pb from leaded gasoline before it was removed, the lake should have a record of that in its sediments too since the dispersal is worldwide.
  • The whole idea of a golden spike, while I'm sure useful in some ways, is nevertheless trying to impose order on the chaos of knowledge; just like trying to impose strict boundaries on geologic time. But we construct these names and spikes and timelines because they are useful. The idea of the Anthropocene is useful—it helps jolt us out of thinking we can continue to act as if we were living in the relatively stable climate of the Holocene. The future will not be like the past. We are no longer humans of the Holocene.
  • @f.c.6441
    I love that those scientists don't need to be in a hurry at all. They literally have millions of years to finish the work :)
  • @RedGoobler
    You had me at Guardians of the geological calendar
  • @bluwaffle966
    Perfect portrait of the scientific community. Global cooperation and conflicts about definitions. It's beautifully broken, and I wouldn't want it any other way ❤
  • @ItsMeHammie
    Idk makes sense to me to mark our era. Sure it's only been roughly a hundred years, but look all around us during that time. We've changed the climate, moved mountains, destroyed countless areas.
  • @MarlosCartinez
    Me and all my homies stuck in the the cretaceuous period
  • @AJ-kf4fc
    This video was super engaging. More of this type of content pls
  • @solssun
    I feel like we’re more akin to an extinction event than a geologic period
  • @dryzalizer
    3:19 Ediacaran is shown twice, the second label should say Cambrian.
  • @Eno-en6fp
    Vox, vice, daily show, and last week tonight are my go to for informational videos. Good stuff