Digital resources in the Social Sciences and Humanities OpenEdition Our platforms OpenEdition Books OpenEdition Journals Hypotheses Calenda Libraries OpenEdition Freemium Follow us

Are we heading towards an “Anthropocene 2.0”?

In diesem Beitrag geht Mark Lawrence der Frage nach, ob wir uns bereits in einem neuen Zeitalter befinden, in dem die Menschheit ein neues Verhältnis zum aktiven Umgang mit dem Planeten Erde entwickelt (hat).

The Anthropocene concept challenges us to rethink humanity’s role in the Earth system. Is it time to start thinking about the implications of the ongoing shift from uncoordinated and largely unintended global environmental impacts towards coordinated, intentional stewardship of the planet?

Das Konzept des Anthropozäns erfordert ein neues Verständnis der Rolle der Menschheit im Erdsystem. Ist es an der Zeit, über die Bedeutung des gegenwärtigen Übergangs von unkoordinierten und weitgehend unbeabsichtigten globalen Umweltauswirkungen zu einer koordinierten und bewussten Verantwortung für unseren Planeten nachzudenken?


“Stop talking about the Holocene! We’re not living in the Holocene anymore; we’re living in the… uh… the Anthropocene!”

When Paul Crutzen blurted out that exclamation at a meeting of the International Geosphere-Biosphere Programme (IGBP) nearly 25 years ago, he probably had no idea of the storm he was about to unleash. Then again, Crutzen was no stranger to groundbreaking ideas that had major influences on the world – his capacity to shake up science won him the Nobel Prize in Chemistry in 1995. This moment, however, was less a casual outburst than a spark that set off a paradigm shift in how we understand Earth’s history.

At the time, Earth System indicators – such as atmospheric CO₂ levels and unprecedented global temperatures – painted a picture of rapid, human-driven change. Crutzen believed that the new reality, in which humanity had become the dominant force shaping the planet, was no longer reflected in the Holocene, the stable geological epoch spanning the past 12,000 years which we had used to define our place in time. In his viewpoint – and mine as well – we have entered the Anthropocene.

Paul Crutzen with his close colleagues Klaus Töpfer, Susan Solomon and Jos Lelieveld at the Anthropocene Symposium, 12. December 2013. Copyright: Carsten Costard

While Crutzen popularized the term, the Anthropocene wasn’t entirely new. It had surfaced before: Russian geologist Alexei Petrovich Pavlov used it in 1922, and biologist Eugene Stoermer had been using it informally since the 1980s. Others had floated related terms such as “Anthroposphere” or “Noösphere”. But when Crutzen revived the term in the late 1990s, it struck a chord. At the heart of his argument was a simple but profound observation: the changes in Earth’s System over the past century have been greater than the fluctuations during the entire rest of the Holocene.  The impact of humanity – deforestation, mass extinctions, and greenhouse gas emissions – had reached a scale that could no longer be ignored. Crutzen’s credibility as a scientist lent weight to the concept of the Anthropocene, while his persistence kept the term in the spotlight.

Crutzen and Stoermer joined forces in 2000 and published a seminal article in the IGBP Newsletter introducing the Anthropocene. Crutzen’s follow-up article in Nature in 2002, boldly titled “Geology of Mankind,” propelled the Anthropocene into both public consciousness and scientific discourse. Central to Crutzen’s vision was a call for formal recognition of the Anthropocene as a new geological epoch. He argued that humanity’s impact, captured in markers such as the CO₂ concentration, plastics, and radioactive isotopes, was so profound that it warranted its own distinct place in Earth’s timeline.

Layers of rock, known as strata, preserve a record of millions of years of Earth’s history, capturing changes in environmental conditions over time, as shown in this photo of the Painted Desert in Arizona, USA.

I had the privilege of continuing to work with Crutzen after he retired to what he humorously called his “post-postdoc” phase, freeing him from administrative leadership responsibilities so that he could better pursue his scientific interests. His office was just across the hall from mine, and I often had the privilege of witnessing his boundless curiosity firsthand as he frequently popped in and radiated enthusiasm as he discussed his latest ideas. On the day that he returned from the now famous IGBP meeting where he declared the Holocene Epoch obsolete, he excitedly told me about his experience. For him, the term Anthropocene better captured the unprecedented human-driven changes transforming the Earth system. This spontaneous moment of frustration became a rallying cry and a catalyst for discussion with colleagues around the world. And as it turned out, the Anthropocene resonated not only with Earth scientists but also with philosophers, artists, policy makers, journalists and others.

The Anthropocene quickly became a lightning rod for interdisciplinary exploration. At the Research Institute for Sustainability (RIFS, formerly IASS), we explored its cultural, political, and ethical implications. Klaus Töpfer, the institute’s founding director, often referred to Crutzen’s work, using it to underscore humanity’s collective responsibility for the planet. Töpfer and I invited prominent thinkers to RIFS to deepen the conversation. Collaborations with organizations such as the House of World Cultures (HKW) and the Max Planck Institute for the History of Science enriched these discussions and underscored the power of the Anthropocene to bridge science and society.

In 2009, the International Committee on Stratigraphy (ICS) established the Anthropocene Working Group (AWG) to investigate whether the Anthropocene could be formally recognized as a geological epoch. Paul Crutzen, a member of the group until his passing in 2021, contributed to its efforts to identify stratigraphic markers-evidence preserved in the Earth’s layers-that could define the beginning of the epoch. They found compelling evidence in many different markers, including the very prominent signal of radioactive fallout from mid-20th century nuclear weapons tests, and submitted a proposal to formalize the Anthropocene as an epoch starting in the 1950s. Despite the quality of the evidence they had gathered, the proposal was rejected by the ICS in early 2024. But the decision has reignited debate about the future of the term. The ICS noted several criticisms, including that an Anthropocene starting in the 1950s would neglect the millennia of human development leading up to the present state, and suggested that the Anthropocene could remain an informal concept, for instance repurposing the term as a geological “event” or episode, outside the formal Geological Time Scale (GTS) framework. However, this repurposing would be a relativization and a significant change from what Crutzen and the AWG proposed that the Anthropocene should stand for, and I would strongly support that the proposal for the Anthropocene as a geological epoch starting in the mid-1900’s should be resubmitted in the near future, with further accumulated evidence, as well as clear counterarguments to the concerns expressed in the IUGS statement, and, perhaps, a new term for an informal geological episode leading up to the formal Anthropocene.

Worldwide light pollution showcasing the growth and expansion of human presence. (Data courtesy of Marc Imhoff of NASA GSFC and Christopher Elvidge of NOAA NGDC. Image by Craig Mayhew and Robert Simmon, NASA GSFC)

As we consider what to do with the term Anthropocene, it might also be time to start considering what might happen beyond the Anthropocene.  In this sense, might there one day be significant shifts in the character of the Anthropocene, like the sub-epochs of the Holocene? And if so, what would be different? 

In the early days of RIFS (while it was still the IASS), these questions led Klaus Töpfer and me to consider the idea of an “Anthropocene 2.0”. Nearly a decade ago, we began exploring what a shift might look like as humanity moves from the Anthropocene as we know it – characterized by mostly unintended environmental impacts that result from our activities to provide food, shelter, energy, transportation and entertainment to an exponentially growing global population – to a possible new, intentional, conscious and coordinated form of global impact, which we thought could be characterized as an Anthropocene 2.0. Töpfer and I had slightly different perspectives on what the “Anthropocene 2.0” might look like. Töpfer saw it through the lens of global governance, imagining a world where international climate negotiations and coordinated environmental policies revolved around collective human responsibility and cooperation to stabilize the Earth’s systems. My own interpretation was influenced by my critical observation and assessment of the growing number and seriousness of proposals for immense, globally coordinated technological intervention in the earth system, known under the umbrella term of “climate geoengineering” – the deliberate manipulation of the Earth’s climate to attempt to counteract the effects of global warming. These hypothetical approaches, ranging from solar radiation management to large-scale carbon capture, raise profound questions about humanity’s role in the Earth system. Would such interventions represent an incremental evolution in our relationship with the planet, or a radical, qualitative shift to an altogether new form of the Anthropocene (at least as significant as the differences between the sub-epochs in the Holocene and other recent epochs)? While I favor the latter interpretation, an extensive, community-wide discussion would be needed to come to any form of consensus around these and other possible interpretations.

While the idea of an “Anthropocene 2.0” is provocative, it is not intended to be interpreted as automatically optimistic or desirable. Both Töpfer and I shared concerns about the risks of such a future – technological hubris with its associated ethical dilemmas and unintended environmental and societal consequences could all pose serious challenges. But exploring this possibility helps us imagine how humanity’s relationship with the global environment might evolve. What would it mean for humanity to act as a conscious and coordinated geological force? Could such a transformation ever be consistent with principles of equity and sustainability? But perhaps before we address these questions about an “Anthropocene 2.0” further, we should first reconsider how to reach an international agreement on the meaning and use of the term “Anthropocene” itself. Over the last quarter century, the concept of the Anthropocene has already reshaped how we view our relationship with the planet. Whether or not the Anthropocene becomes an official geological epoch, it has been and will likely continue forcing us to confront uncomfortable truths about our impact on the Earth system, as well as challenging us to imagine a future in which that impact is equitable and sustainable, regardless of the degree to which it becomes intentional and coordinated. The Anthropocene has its roots in geology and Earth system science – but as the global debate over its use and interpretation continues, one thing has become clear: the meaning of the Anthropocene goes far beyond geology. It’s really about humanity’s collective history – and future.


Mark Lawrence is scientific director at the RIFS in Potsdam and an integrative scientist who addresses key challenges of the Anthropocene by bringing together and applying a wide range of academic expertise in his team as well as involving societal actors in a transdisciplinary approach.


Title picture: Will humanity end up attempting to engineer the planet as a whole, and would that constitute an Anthropocene 2.0? Copyright: Research Institute for Sustainability (RIFS)


OpenEdition schlägt Ihnen vor, diesen Beitrag wie folgt zu zitieren:
Lab 2.3 ZeitRaum-Wahrnehmungen des Anthropozäns (27. März 2025). Are we heading towards an “Anthropocene 2.0”? Value of the Past. Abgerufen am 18. April 2025 von https://doi.org/10.58079/13l5k


Autor: Lab 2.3 ZeitRaum-Wahrnehmungen des Anthropozäns

Das Lab 2.3 untersucht in einem interdisziplinären, Natur-, Sozial- und Geisteswissenschaften verbindenden Ansatz und verschiedenste Forschungseinrichtungen vernetzenden Projekt das epistemische Potential einer Verknüpfung geo-biologischer Zeitlichkeiten und lokal-planetarer Raumbezüge.

Schreibe einen Kommentar

Deine E-Mail-Adresse wird nicht veröffentlicht. Erforderliche Felder sind mit * markiert

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.