> it feels slightly premature I saw a note several years ago (written in opposition to an Anthropocene Epoch) which sketched a fun range of names, contingent o

> it feels slightly premature I saw a note several years ago (written in opposition to an Anthropocene Epoch) which sketched a fun range of names, contingent on future outcomes. I'm regrettably failing to find it, but something very vaguely like (I'm making these up): from 0k glacial minimum, to late holocene thermal excursion, to holocene thermal maximum, to holocene extinction event, to anthropocene epoch, to post-anthropocene epoch, to end-Quaternary mass extinction. My fuzzy understanding is one pro-Epoch argument is that projections exceed past Holocene variance, there's existing global stratigraphic signals, and it's ok that those events are spread out in time, as that's been the case at other boundaries. And one anti-Epoch argument is that while the Great Acceleration makes a fine event signal, human impacts so precede it (eg late pleistocene megafauna extinction), that it makes a poor epoch divider. Sci-hub didn't have the TFA-linked paper. :/ Here's a recent "pro" paper[1], rich in detail. And a recent anti[2]. [1] https://repository.si.edu/bitstream/handle/10088/114765/Scott%20Wing%20-%20Wing2022-Epochsevents.pdf?sequence=1&isAllowed=y https://repository.si.edu/bitstream/handle/10088/114765/Scot... [2] https://anthroecology.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/03/gibbard_2022.pdf https://anthroecology.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/03/gibbard...