QUICK 鈥� how many planets are there in the solar system? If you were born in the 20th century, the answer on the tip of your tongue might be nine. Of course, the official answer is eight, ever since an International Astronomical Union vote in 2006 that ejected Pluto from the line-up.
One issue was that if Pluto had been allowed to remain a planet, it would have meant admitting many other Pluto-like bodies to the planetary roster. The group ultimately opted to keep the solar system neat and tidy, dumping Pluto and its ilk in a box marked 鈥渄warf planet鈥�. The decision remains controversial among both scientists and the general public.
Advertisement
Nearly two decades on, history seems to be repeating itself. A vote by the Subcommission on Quaternary Stratigraphy, the guardians of the strata that define geological time, has rejected a proposal to declare a new epoch called the Anthropocene, in which humanity has left a distinct mark on the planet, ending the 11,700-year Holocene (see 鈥淪urprise decision not to define the Anthropocene shocks scientists鈥�).
The term Anthropocene was popularised in the 2000s, and the idea of an official epoch has been in the works for 15 years. In that time, 鈥淎nthropocene鈥� has entered the public lexicon as a way of making sense of a world ravaged by human activity, whether through climate change, plastic pollution or a whole host of other environmental issues. It seems a shame to let it go now.
Part of the argument for rejecting the Anthropocene is a disagreement about when exactly it began. 快猫短视频s need firm definitions, but given that existing epochs last anywhere from hundreds of thousands to tens of millions of years, quibbling about whether humanity鈥檚 influence should be marked by the industrial revolution (around 1760) or the detonation of the first nuclear weapon (1945) feels like a rounding error.
Given climate change is the defining issue of our age, and the Anthropocene is a useful tool for talking about it, perhaps a little fudging is in order 鈥� even if it leaves a few geologists stony-faced in response.
