We don't need to expend much energy in speculation about organisations that don't like the term anthropocene. > opinion that any Anthropocene classification sh

We don't need to expend much energy in speculation about organisations that don't like the term anthropocene. > opinion that any Anthropocene classification should reflect the major impacts humans introduced as they cut down forests and turned land over to agriculture, which would put the start date many thousands of years in the past. It isn't that small-scale activity has ever been the problem. It isn't that our species is incompatible with the Earth's biosphere -- we evolved on this planet. It is in that our reckless pursuit of industrialism and consumerism (particularly in the past century), have we have scaled our population and our lazy, short-sighted, narcissistic hubris beyond what's even sustainable to keep ourselves healthy. The Anthropocene is a valuable concept and it will be present in the geological record: = significant loss of species because of destruction of natural habit to favour burning wood, coal, and cultivation of unsustainable food industries = climate change because of the petroleum industry = plastic in the oceans, in the food chain, in remote locations and in arctic snowfall = chemical hormone disruptors in the food chain = enormous dumps full of machine waste