> isn't labeling this epoch "Anthropocene" somewhat premature and mostly political in nature? The Anthropocene epoch has little to do with the climate change i

> isn't labeling this epoch "Anthropocene" somewhat premature and mostly political in nature? The Anthropocene epoch has little to do with the climate change issues that you're focusing on. Of course temperature variation and the like will be captured in the geological record. However, what's far more relevant is the abundance of man-made materials like plastics and radioactive isotopes. Is it premature? Of course, we're naming a geological epoch that's barely even begun. One could argue that we're anticipating history. Is it political? Only inasmuch as any conversation about the future of the planet is political. Is it inaccurate? The evidence that humans have profoundly affected the future of this planet is overwhelming. And I think it would be quite radical to suggest that we won't continue to affect the planet in the future.