If I was a member of the International Commission on Stratigraphy I would really vote to yes to accept this new epoch in the geological calendar. As it is discussed in the different articles, we may find some reasons for why this is a real topic and that it has its “own” history. In Steffen’s article, he differentiates three stages to describe the Anthropocene epoch, which I think that have an understandable beginning, which is in the 18th century, during the Industrialization, when people really started to use mines and their resources: “The Anthropocene began around 1800 with the onset of industrialization, the central feature of which was the enormous expansion in the use of fossil fuels.” (Steffen, et al., 614). According to Malm’s article, this period is characterized by the influence and “manipulation” of human beings over the planet: “humankind is the new geological force transforming the planet beyond recognition.” (Malm, 1). However, in the Kolbert’s article, the scientist Zalasiewicz states that a group of scientists and him considered that this period has not started because in the future, the impact will be worse than now.
From my point of view, this idea of embracing a concept whether or not you agree can be very dangerous when talking about climate change. According to the article, people, when desiring to belong to a group or community, are asked what stated in the article: “if you are one of us, believe this; otherwise, we’ll know you are one of them.” (Kahan, article). This would create what the author considers as “polluted science-communication environment”, a society that only believe what other believe or that, at least, they are influenced by them. As far as I can remember, Dr. Cathy was focused on talking to Montanans to know their opinions and problems and, with this and her book, she would present to them her achievements and what was going on. So this would be my ideal situation with people: presenting facts and data to let them know that is real and what is not.