Kip Hansen’s News Brief – March 5, 2024 – 600 words/3 minutes
BREAKING NEWS: Raymond Chungjournalist’s New York Times, There is a story claiming to have seen “an internal announcement about the voting results” from a subcommittee of the International Geosciences Union:
“A committee of about two dozen scholars, by a large majority, voted down a proposal to declare the beginning of the Anthropocene, a newly created epoch of geological time, according to an internal announcement about the voting results seen by The New York Times.” .” [ quotes in this typeface are from the NY Times here ]
The vote was reported by Zhong as:
“12 to 4, with 2 abstentions. (The three other committee members who did not vote nor officially abstained.)”
This appears to be quite a significant majority – even if all five non-voting members had voted in favor of the Anthropocene declaration, that position would still have no force; The vote will be 12 against and 9 in favor. Formally, a vote requires 60%.
Does this mean that the problem after more than a decade and a half has finally been resolved?
No, or at least, just maybe.
“Even so, it was unclear Tuesday morning whether the results would be considered a final rejection or whether they could still be challenged or appealed. In an email to The Times, the committee chairman, Jan A. Zalasiewicz, said there were “some procedural issues to consider” but declined to discuss them further. Dr. Zalasiewicz, a geologist at the University of Leicester, has expressed support for the canonization of the Anthropocene.” ….
“However, to qualify for inclusion on the geological time scale, the Anthropocene would have to be defined in a very specific way that meets the needs of geologists but not necessarily the needs of Anthropologists, artists, and others have used the term.”
When did all this idea of Anthropoceneism start?
“The Anthropocene proposal began in 2009, when a working group was convened to investigate whether recent changes to the planet deserved a place in the geological timeline. After years of deliberation, the team that included Dr. McCarthy, Dr. Ellis, and about three dozen others decided that they did. The group also decided that the best time to begin a new phase would be around 1950.”
“Last fall, the working group submitted its Anthropocene proposal to the first of three governing committees under the International Geosciences Union. …. Members of the first subcommittee, the Subcommittee on Quaternary Stratigraphy, submitted their votes starting in early February. [these are the results reported here] …. Even if the subcommittee’s vote is upheld and the Anthropocene proposal is rejected, the new era could still be added to the timeline at some later point. However, it will have to go through the entire discussion and voting process again from the beginning.”
It appears that two more subcommittees will vote on the matter, as this subcommittee, the Subcommittee on Quaternary Stratigraphy, appears to be “the first of three management committees.”
So it’s possible.
At this point, the Anthropocene is one of the following: 1) Dead, 2) Delayed, or 3) Pending.
Long live the Anthropocene.
# # # # #
Author’s comments:
At best, the Anthropocene is a propaganda term invented by the environmental movement. It has always been used to refer to the negative consequences of the rise of humans and their civilization.
I am delighted that to date, Geologists, even if for the wrong reasons, have refused to acknowledge this essentially anti-human propaganda term in the Geological History of the planet.
There is no doubt that humans have become a major biological force on Earth, changing the environment to their own whims and purposes. Man has certainly succeeded. Darwin may have said this meant that humans are “the strongest.”
Philosophers There will be different ideas and opinions.
Thanks for reading.
# # # # #
Related
