Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

New opportunities emerge as the Anthropocene epoch vote falls short

  • Comment
  • Published:

From Nature Ecology & Evolution

View current issue Submit your manuscript

The Anthropocene has been rejected as a formal epoch by the International Commission on Stratigraphy. Moving on and recognizing the deeper and more complex roots of human impacts on our planet will enable us to better, and more fairly, address them.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

References

  1. Crutzen, P. J. Nature 415, 23 (2002).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Richardson, K. et al. Sci. Adv. 9, eadh2458 (2023).

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  3. Lewis, S. L. & Maslin, M. A. Nature 519, 171–180 (2015).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Braje, T. J. J. Archaeol. Res. 23, 369–396 (2015).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Ellis, E., Maslin, M., Boivin, N. & Bauer, A. Nature 540, 192–193 (2016).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Davis, H. & Todd, Z. ACME 16, 761–780 (2017).

    Google Scholar 

  7. Boivin, N. L. et al. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 113, 6388–6396 (2016).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  8. Simpson, M. Environ. Plann. D Soc. Space 38, 53–71 (2020).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Malm, A. & Hornborg, A. Anthropocene Rev. 1, 62–69 (2014).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Davies-Venn, M. How did the Anthropocene Working Group get so much wrong? University Affairs (26 October 2020).

  11. Ellis, E. C. Phil. Trans. R. Soc. Lond. B 379, 20220255 (2024).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Bliege Bird, R. & Nimmo, D. Nat. Ecol. Evol. 2, 1050–1052 (2018).

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Gibbard, P. et al. J. Quaternary Sci. 37, 395–399 (2022).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Braje, T. J. & Lauer, M. Sustainability 12, 6459 (2020).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Boivin, N. & Crowther, A. Nat. Ecol. Evol. 5, 273–284 (2021).

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Max Planck Institute for Geoanthropology, Jena, Germany

    Nicole Boivin

  2. School of Social Science, The University of Queensland, Brisbane, Queensland, Australia

    Nicole Boivin

  3. Griffith Sciences, Griffith University, Nathan, Queensland, Australia

    Nicole Boivin

  4. Museum of Natural and Cultural History, University of Oregon, Eugene, OR, USA

    Todd Braje

  5. Department of Anthropology, National Museum of Natural History, Smithsonian Institution, Washington, DC, USA

    Torben Rick

Authors
  1. Nicole Boivin
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Todd Braje
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Torben Rick
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Nicole Boivin.

Ethics declarations

Competing interests

The authors declare no competing interests.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Boivin, N., Braje, T. & Rick, T. New opportunities emerge as the Anthropocene epoch vote falls short. Nat Ecol Evol 8, 844–845 (2024). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41559-024-02392-x

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/s41559-024-02392-x

  • Springer Nature Limited

Search

Navigation