A disparate group of experts from around the world will meet for the first time on Thursday for talks on what must rank as one of the most momentous decisions in human history.
This article:
Anthropocene: is this the new epoch of humans? | Geology | The Guardian
So, perhaps we have/perhaps we have not entered a new epoch.
my question is: What are the ramifications of naming the new epoch?, is it just a clerical/filing issue? Could it equally be called the "Chocolate Teapot Epoch" or the "Epoch Formerly Known as Holocene"
The title we give it doesn't really affect the reality, or does it?
Is the classification of this new epoch expected or supposed to provoke a reaction from humankind?
In which case should be called the "We've ruined everything Epoch"?
This article seems to me to be hyperbole, and describes what is merely an exercise in (re)classification that will have no real impact. (Except for the alien archaeologist who finds the remnants of our civilisation and has a good laugh (with our future insect overlords) at how anthropocentric we were.)
Edited by Heathen, : No reason given.