The Geoscientist team attended the AGM and President’s Day this summer – a wonderfully positive occasion that celebrated the Society’s incredible performance in 2023, and the remarkable achievements and contributions of people across our community.
On the day, we received queries from Fellows asking to what extent articles published in Geoscientist reflect the Society’s views, direction, and policy. So, it seems like a good time to reiterate the magazine’s purpose: As the editorially independent Fellowship magazine, Geoscientist provides a forum to inform on and debate topical science, community, and Society issues. Most articles are submitted voluntarily, with the topics and volume of submissions reflecting areas with significant research or community activity, perhaps due to an injection of funds, a shift in government policy, or galvanised efforts around an initiative.
The Anthropocene – epoch or event?
Geoscientist articles represent the views of the authors, not those of the Editorial Team, Advisory Panel, or the Geological Society itself, but our content does align with Society policy (geolsoc.org.uk/about/policies). For more details, read our updated Terms of Reference at geoscientist.online/about.
In this edition (with beautiful design modifications to maximise impact, courtesy of our new publisher, Redactive), a series of articles discuss the contentious topic of the Anthropocene – epoch or event? The Anthropocene Working Group (AWG) was convened to determine whether evidence exists to support the termination of the Holocene and, if so, the timing of onset of a new epoch, an endeavour that consumed the past 15 years. On page 28, Turner & Waters summarise the AWG’s stratigraphic evidence for a new epoch beginning in the mid-20th century marked indelibly in the global rock archive, while Hadly & Barnosky make an impassioned case that human activity has fundamentally altered the functioning of our planet, bringing the Holocene to a close (p. 16). In contrast, Ellis fervently argues that defining a new epoch with a start point in the mid-20th century undersells human impacts, such as the influence of agriculture on biodiversity and climate, which dates back many thousands of years (p. 20). Earth’s current state could therefore be considered part of a diachronous event (explored in Gibbard et al., J. Quatern. Sci. 37, 395–399, 2022).
While we typically pass our science articles by our entire Editorial Advisory Panel, on this occasion we asked those who were members of the AWG to sit out the review, and instead sought independent advice. While a majority of the AWG feel the evidence for a new epoch is compelling, others in the group voted against the proposal, and ultimately so did the International Commission on Stratigraphy and the International Union of Geological Sciences. And so we officially remain in the Holocene. We’ve published these contrasting perspectives here so that readers can ponder the fascinating ideas for themselves.
Amy Whitchurch, Executive Editor
