The Anthropocene is best understood as an ongoing, intensifying, diachronous event

Current debate on the status and character of the Anthropocene is focussed on whether this interval of geological time should be designated as a formal unit of epoch/series rank in the International Chronostratigraphic Chart/Geological Time Scale, or whether it is more appropriate for it to be considered as an informal 'event' comparable in significance with other major transformative events in deeper geological time. The case for formalizing the Anthropocene as a chronostratigraphical unit with a base at approximately 1950 CE is being developed by the Anthropocene Working Group of the Subcommission on Quaternary Stratigraphy. Here we outline the alternative position and explain why the time-transgressive nature of human impact on global environmental systems that is reflected in the recent stratigraphical record means that the Anthropocene is better seen not as a series/epoch with a fixed lower boundary, but rather as an unfolding, transforming and intensifying geological event. The case for formalising the Anthropocene as a chronostratigraphic unit with a base at approximately 1950 CE is being developed by the Anthropocene Working Group of the Subcommission on Quaternary Stratigraphy. Here we outline the alternative position and explain why the time-transgressive nature of human impact on global environmental systems is more accurately reflected by defining the Anthropocene as a continuing event, with no fixed basal boundary.

Automated summary

The current debate on the status and character of the Anthropocene focuses on whether it should be designated as a formal unit or an informal event. Arguments exist both for formalizing the Anthropocene as a chronostratigraphic unit and for considering it as an unfolding geological event without a fixed basal boundary.