[lainga]

> They acknowledge an anthropogenic "event" is under way but aren't admitting the anthropocene because of its recency and unclear boundaries.

You mean aren't admitting the anthropocene as an epoch? That's not what the article says. The reason it's not admissible as an epoch is because we might blow ourselves up tomorrow and wipe out industrial civilisation. And the whole layer of steel and concrete we laid down would be very thin in the record, like the K-Pg impact. The banded iron formations are kind of on the boundary, they're associated with the Great Oxygenation Event but you could also maybe call it the Jatulian period. That was a couple hundred million years.

> There'd be error bounds on it but eventually no disagreement that the Earth took a corner.

Those are classified as events, not epochs. The K-Pg impact was an event.

Ed. I guess you could also say why can't we have a new Anthropocene period caused by an Anthropocene event, but I don't know what to tell you, it's just confusing to do that. That's why the K-Pg impact is followed by the Danian age, not the The-Start-Of-This-Period-Has-A-Lot-Of-Iridium age. I don't get why the proposal didn't want to call it the Crawfordian if that's where the canonical marker is found

[marcosdumay]

Besides, if we don't blow ourselves up, it's a virtual certainty that there will be another completely different geologic event in the next 100 years. And some completely different one on the following 100 years.

Hell, many of the changes from the current event are not even coherent with each other.

IMO, some people are just way too intent on pushing futurology around. (On something similar, people started pushing some grand event that would mark the end of the 20th century at the 80s. Of course, they pushed lots of different ones.)