Register and access this article for free
As a service to the community, this article is available for free.

As a service to the community, this article is available for free.
View all access options to continue reading this article.
eLetters is a forum for ongoing peer review. eLetters are not edited, proofread, or indexed, but they are screened. eLetters should provide substantive and scholarly commentary on the article. Neither embedded figures nor equations with special characters can be submitted, and we discourage the use of figures and equations within eLetters in general. If a figure or equation is essential, please include within the text of the eLetter a link to the figure, equation, or full text with special characters at a public repository with versioning, such as Zenodo. Please read our Terms of Service before submitting an eLetter.
Log In to Submit a ResponseNo eLetters have been published for this article yet.

Select the format you want to export the citation of this publication.
AAAS login provides access to Science for AAAS Members, and access to other journals in the Science family to users who have purchased individual subscriptions.
Register for free to read this article
As a service to the community, this article is available for free. Login or register for free to read this article.
Buy a single issue of Science for just $15 USD.
The Anthropocene may be more powerful as an informal term (for now)
The Anthropocene concept has gone viral in recent years demonstrated by the multitude of papers published discussing various aspects of the proposed new geological epoch (1). Researchers have strong opinions over where the base of the Anthropocene should be set and the stratigraphic markers used to define it (1,2). However, the term 'Anthropocene' is already being used widely in science, social science and humanities literature. In that sense it is already proving to be a very useful term and is being used in a flexible way. It means slightly different things to different researchers from different disciplines and backgrounds which is fascinating in its own right. If the Anthropocene is formalised as an official geological epoch then its meaning becomes constrained, invalidating the innovative ways in which it is being used.
In addition, rushing into the formalisation of the Anthropocene as an epoch may be pointless. The Earth system continues to change as anthropogenic impacts proliferate. In the future the extent of humanity's impact on the Earth system may be more likely to match past transitions between geological periods rather than epochs in the geological timescale (3). On reflection, a formal Anthropocene epoch serves little purpose for defining the recent geological record as we can use several approaches to date sediment successions such as radiometric dating and age-equivalent markers such as volcanic ash layers. To retain its power and usability, the Anthropocene should be maintained as an informal term and a philosophical concept. It will be fascinating to see how the concept develops.
1. C. N. Waters et al., The Anthropocene is functionally and stratigraphically distinct from the Holocene. Science. 351, 137–148 (2016).
2. G. T. Swindles et al., Spheroidal carbonaceous particles are a defining stratigraphic marker for the Anthropocene. Sci. Rep. 5, 10264 (2015).
3. K. L. Bacon, G. T. Swindles, Could a potential Anthropocene mass extinction define a new geological period? Anthr. Rev. 3, 208–217 (2016).