The debate over the Anthropocene, explained

Humans have changed the planet. Should that go on the geologic calendar? This video is presented by Brilliant. Head to for a 30-day free trial and 20% off your annual subscription. Brilliant doesn’t have a say in our editorial decisions, but they make videos like this possible. Subscribe to our channel! The word “Anthropocene” has gained cultural resonance in recent years, as it’s become clearer that humans have made an indelible — and destructive — impact on our planet. But it’s also a term with a specific technical meaning: an epoch, or geologic unit of time, named for humans. In 2009, geologists first started investigating whether the Anthropocene should be formally recognized as part of the way we record geologic time. This video explains what happened next: how a team of scientists looked for the evidence to make their case, and what it means to consider human time as part of the Earth’s 4.6 billion-year history. Note: The title of this video has been updated. Previous title: Should humans get their own geologic era? Future Perfect’s Sigal Samuel has covered the Anthropocene debate for : This website gives a thorough overview of all the sites the Anthropocene Working Group investigated, including Crawford Lake: We don’t mention this in the video, but Phil Gibbard and Erle Ellis co-authored a paper proposing the Anthropocene as an “event” rather than an epoch: For more reading: The New York Times did a lot of great reporting on the International Commission on Stratigraphy’s process for considering the Anthropocene: The New Yorker covered some of the drama behind the Anthropocene decision: Help keep Vox free for everybody: Subscribe to our channel and turn on notifications (🔔) so you don’t miss any videos: is a news website that helps you cut through the noise and understand what’s really driving the events in the headlines. Check out . Watch our full video catalog: Follow Vox on Facebook: Or Twitter: