克勞福德湖被選為辨識人類世起始時間的主要標記

 原文網址：https://www.southampton.ac.uk/news/2023/07/crawford-lake-anthropocene.page

一組國際研究團隊選擇該地最能代表「人類世」(Anthropocene)——一個地質新時代的開始。

克勞福德湖。圖片來源：Sarah Roberts

定義人類世

 原文網址：https://www.u-tokyo.ac.jp/focus/en/press/z0508_00233.html

海洋物質的微量放射性標示了現代的起點

透過海洋沉積物和珊瑚裡的微量放射性物質，研究人員首次能以高度量化的方法來定義「人類世」(Anthropocene)。就人類對地球環境和生態系的衝擊來說，「人類世」從實際層面上標記了其中的重大轉折，使得許多領域的研究人員對此都十分看重。海洋沉積物與珊瑚骨骼記錄了核試爆產生的放射性落塵，研究人員將兩者結合起來，顯示出世界各地進行核試爆的期間與前後，海洋環境出現了明顯的變化，他們將這段時期定義為人類世的起點。

珊瑚的年輪 這張珊瑚剖面的掃瞄影像顯示出它的生長輪。每道生長輪對應到不同年份，因此研究人員可以找出特定的大氣變化事件標記來探討其發生時間。 圖片來源：橫山祐典等人，2022

環境科學家對於定義人類世的「金釘子」有了更進一步的決議

 原文網址：https://le.ac.uk/news/2022/may/anthropocene-berlin

萊斯特大學的研究人員正在尋找「金釘子」(golden spike)來正式定義人類當下所處的地質時代——也等同於承認人類對地球造成了衝擊。星期三的一場國際會議中，他們發表分析結果有了重大進展。

舊金山灣區採到的黑龍江河藍蛤，以及金門大橋一景。圖片來源：Stephen Himson

科學家正逐步找出可以標記人類世的「金色之釘」

原文網址：https://www2.le.ac.uk/offices/press/press-releases/2018/january/scientists-home-in-on-a-potential-anthropocene-2018golden-spike2019

科學家正逐步找出可以標記人類世的「金色之釘」

包括萊斯特大學地理、地質暨環境學院的地質學家Jan Zalasiewicz、Mark Williams 和Colin Waters，以及考古學家Matt Edgeworth的國際工作小組自2009年開始就在分析可以用來正名人類世的實例。有望成為地質年代表中新時代的人類世，最主要的特徵便是人類對地球的影響已經大到不容忽視。

團隊發現有許多類型的物理、化學和生物標記都可以成為人類世的特徵，其中在全世界都能見到的最明顯標記是核武試爆降下的落塵中的放射性核種訊號，以及燃燒化石燃料造成碳的化學性質發生變化――它們都在1950年代早期至中期開始呈現特別顯著的變化。

團隊跟幾名他們邀請的科學家合作之下，近期回顧了現有知識中可以找到上述和其他類型標記，明確度、清晰度以及穩定性最高的訊號所在地層。或許可以運用它們來將人類世正式定義為地質年代表上的單位。

團隊最近的研究刊登於期刊《Earth-Science Reviews》，內容為向科學界表達他們會從哪些方面開始著手收集並分析有連續紀錄的岩芯樣本。這些岩芯涵蓋的地層會跨越他們提議的全新世和人類世之間的交界。

對於是否需要一個在世界各地，只要條件適合就有機會出現在不同環境中的「金色之釘」(golden spike)來定義人類世，有許多反對及支持的意見。研究剖析各種意見之後，發現人類世的地層雖然通常都很薄，但在世界各地皆有分布而可以被地質學家清楚辨識出來。

主持這項研究的Colin Waters表示：「在地質年代表上目前被認可的65根『金色之釘』都是位在沉積於海床的地層當中。唯一例外便是定義全新世起始時間的標記是位在冰芯當中。」

「這項研究仔細探究了那些可以良好紀錄人類世十分短暫歷史的環境。除了傳統地質學所用的地層之外，我們也考慮了人類製造的沉積物、累積在湖床的沉積物、河口、三角洲、泥炭沼、沉積在洞穴的礦物，甚至還有生物體，像是珊瑚和樹木。這些環境和生物當中許多都是一年堆積一層沉積物或形成一道生成紋，不管人類世基準的主要標記最後選擇在哪，這些環境和生物都在地質學上提供了絕無僅有的精準度來讓我們決定標記的所在位置。」

Jan Zalasiewicz教授表示：「這項對世界各地『金色之釘』的候選地點進行的初步評估相當重要，它清楚顯示我們的選擇實在太多而難以決定――許多候選地點的標記都可以有效定義人類世。現在，我們前方還有許多工作要進行，我們必須仔細檢視最有潛力的幾個地點，看它們是否有足夠的細節可以將人類世的起始位置給真正固定下來，而且在全世界都可以被清楚並精準地辨識出來。」

Mark Williams教授表示：「我們探討的環境種類相當多樣――從極地的冰雪到深不見底的湖泊、海床、珊瑚礁的骨骼以及洞穴裡的石筍。人類世的訊號在這些事物中都清晰可見的事實，顯示在二次大戰後人類的影響已經遍及地球的每個角落。」

人類世工作小組的科學家正致力於規劃一份提案，其根據是要先找到一根「金色之釘」，技術上來說是叫做全球界線層型剖面和點位(Global Boundary Stratotype Section and Point, GSSP)

這意味著研究人員將提出世上某個最近形成的地層，其中有條基準線可以將這道變化最為清楚一致地劃分出來：代表地球地質歷史最近11700年的全新世已經轉變成從65年前左右開始的人類世。

要讓此名詞被數個不同的地質組織正式認可的過程必須得花上未來數年的時間。一旦細節工作完成，提案會先呈交給國際地層學委員會之下的第四紀地層學小組來嚴格審查，但無法百分之百保證提案會被接受。

Scientists home in on a potential Anthropocene 'Golden Spike'

The international working group, which includes geologists Jan Zalasiewicz, Mark Williams and Colin Waters, from the University of Leicester’s School of Geography, Geology and the Environment and archaeologist Matt Edgeworth has, since 2009, been analysing the case for formalisation of the Anthropocene, a potential new epoch of geological time dominated by overwhelming human impact on the Earth.

The group has found that a broad range of potential physical, chemical and biological markers characterise the Anthropocene, the clearest global markers being radionuclide fallout signals from nuclear testing and changes in carbon chemistry through fossil fuel burning – these in particular show marked changes starting in the early to mid-1950s.

The group, with a number of invited scientists, has now reviewed present knowledge on where these and other markers form the clearest, sharpest, and most stable signal in strata that might be used to define the Anthropocene as a formal unit of the Geological Time Scale.

The current study, which is published in the journal Earth-Science Reviews, informs the scientific community where they should start the process of collecting and analysing continuous core samples of strata across the proposed Holocene–Anthropocene transition.

The study considered a range of arguments in support of and against hosting a ‘golden spike’ in a range of potentially suitable environments across the globe. They found that Anthropocene strata are often thin – but also that they are globally distributed and may be clearly recognised by geologists.

Professor Colin Waters, who led the study, said: “Of the 65 ‘golden spikes’ of the Geological Time Scale currently ratified, all but one are located in strata that accumulated on the sea floor, the one exception being the ice core used to define the base of the Holocene Epoch.

“This study considers those environments in which the very short history of the Anthropocene is best recorded. In addition to such traditional geological strata, we have also considered human-generated deposits, sediments accumulating in lakes, estuaries and deltas, peat bogs, cave mineral deposits and even biological hosts such as corals and trees. The presence of annual layers or growth rings within many of these provides geologically unprecedented accuracy in the placement of the primary reference marker, wherever this might be ultimately chosen.”  

Professor Jan Zalasiewicz said: “This preliminary assessment of potential ‘golden spike’ locations around the world is important in that it clearly shows we are spoilt for choice – there are very many possibilities where the Anthropocene might be effectively defined. Now we have a lot of work in front of us in examining the most promising locations in enough detail to really pin down how the Anthropocene might be clearly and precisely recognised around the world.”

Professor Mark Williams said: “The range of environments we are working with is remarkable – from polar ice and snow layers to deep lake and sea floors to the skeletons of reef corals and stalactites in caves. The fact that signals of the Anthropocene are so sharply visible in all of these shows just how pervasive human impact has been on the planet in post-war times.”

Scientists within the Anthropocene Working Group are working towards developing a proposal, based upon finding a ‘golden spike’, more technically known as a Global Boundary Stratotype Section and Point (GSSP).

This is a reference level within recent strata somewhere in the world that will be proposed to most clearly and consistently characterise the changes as the Holocene, which represents the last 11,700 years of geological time on this planet, gave way into the Anthropocene about 65 years ago.

Once this detailed work is completed in a few years’ time — a required part of the process in seeking formalisation of the term by a number of geological bodies —  it will first be submitted for scrutiny to the Subcommission on Quaternary Stratigraphy of the International Commission on Stratigraphy. There is no guarantee, though, that the proposal will be accepted.  

原始論文：Colin N. Waters, Jan Zalasiewicz, Colin Summerhayes, Ian J. Fairchild, Neil L. Rose, Neil J. Loader, William Shotyk, Alejandro Cearreta, Martin J. Head, James P.M. Syvitski, Mark Williams, Michael Wagreich, Anthony D. Barnosky, An Zhisheng, Reinhold Leinfelder, Catherine Jeandel, Agnieszka Gałuszka, Juliana A. Ivar do Sul, Felix Gradstein, Will Steffen, John R. McNeill, Scott Wing, Clément Poirier, Matt Edgeworth. Global Boundary Stratotype Section and Point (GSSP) for the Anthropocene Series: Where and how to look for potential candidates. Earth-Science Reviews, 2017; DOI: 10.1016/j.earscirev.2017.12.016

引用自：University of Leicester. "Scientists home in on a potential Anthropocene 'Golden Spike'."

科學家提出人類對地球的影響程度之大已經改變了地球歷史的進程

原文網址：http://www2.le.ac.uk/news/blog/2017-archive/october/scientists-suggest-significant-scale-of-human-impact-on-planet-has-changed-course-of-earth2019s-history

科學家提出人類對地球的影響程度之大已經改變了地球歷史的進程

人類世工作小組的科學家發表了正名新地質年代的提議。

由萊斯特大學的科學家領導的國際科學家團隊，提出人類對地球的影響程度之大已經改變了地球歷史的進程。

「人類世」(Anthropocene)的概念係由諾貝爾獎得主Paul Crutzen於2000年即席提出，而研究人員提出人類造成的諸多影響已經改變了地球歷史的進程，其程度足以構成正當理由，促使他們擬定人類世應該成為地質年代表一部份的正式提案。

人類對地球造成的急遽變化包括侵蝕和沉積速率加速；大規模擾動碳、氮、磷和其他元素的化學循環；開始對全球氣候和海平面造成顯著變化；以及在生物方面的影響，包括物種侵入至全球各處的速度達到史無前例的程度。

以上是此國際工作團隊的發現和暫定提案的結論。該團隊自2009年開始研究人類世，並在2016年於南非開普敦舉辦的國際地質研討會中首次發表這些發現和暫定提案，最近則刊登於期刊《人類世》(Anthropocene)的線上版。

萊斯特大學地理、地質和環境學院的教授Jan Zalasiewicz表示：「全新世代表的是自從末次冰河期消退之後，從11700年前開始環境相對穩定的地質年代。但我們的發現顯示我們進入了地球歷史上一個更加不穩定且迅速演變的階段，因此應該在全新世之後獨立出人類世。」

包括萊斯特大學的地質學家Jan Zalasiewicz、Mark Williams和榮譽主席Colin Waters，以及考古學家在內Matt Edgeworth的人類世工作小組成立自2009年，他們分析各種案例來正名「人類世」的存在，這段時期因為人類對地球造成的影響主導地球歷史而有望成為新的地質年代。

Scientists suggest significant scale of human impact on planet has changed course of Earth’s history

Anthropocene Working Group scientists publish recommendations for formalising new geological epoch

The significant scale of human impact on our planet has changed the course of Earth history, an international team of scientists led by the University of Leicester has suggested.

The researchers suggest that a multitude of human impacts have changed the course of Earth’s geological history, and the scale of these justifies developing a formal proposal that the Anthropocene  – a concept improvised by the Nobel Prize-winning scientist Paul Crutzen in 2000 – should be made part of the Geological Time Scale.

Rapid changes to the planet include acceleration of rates of erosion and sedimentation; large-scale chemical perturbations to the cycles of carbon, nitrogen, phosphorus and other elements; the inception of significant change to global climate and sea level; and biotic changes including unprecedented levels of species invasions across the Earth.

This is a summary of the findings and interim recommendations of the international working group that has been studying the Anthropocene since 2009. Initially reported to the 2016 International Geological Congress at Cape Town, South Africa, the findings and recommendations have just been published online in the journal Anthropocene.

Professor Jan Zalasiewicz from the University of Leicester's School of Geography, Geology and the Environment, said: “Our findings suggest that the Anthropocene should follow on from the Holocene Epoch that has seen 11.7 thousand years of relative environmental stability, since the retreat of the last Ice Age, as we enter a more unstable and rapidly evolving phase of our planet’s history.”  

The Anthropocene Working Group - which includes Leicester geologists Jan Zalasiewicz, Mark Williams and honorary chair, Colin Waters, and archaeologist Matt Edgeworth - has been active since 2009, analysing the case for formalisation of the Anthropocene, a potential new epoch of geological time dominated by human impact on the Earth.

原始論文：Jan Zalasiewicz, Colin N. Waters, Colin P. Summerhayes, Alexander P. Wolfe, Anthony D. Barnosky, Alejandro Cearreta, Paul Crutzen, Erle Ellis, Ian J. Fairchild, Agnieszka Gałuszka, Peter Haff, Irka Hajdas, Martin J. Head, Juliana A. Ivar do Sul, Catherine Jeandel, Reinhold Leinfelder, John R. McNeill, Cath Neal, Eric Odada, Naomi Oreskes, Will Steffen, James Syvitski, Davor Vidas, Michael Wagreich, Mark Williams. The Working Group on the Anthropocene: Summary of evidence and interim recommendations. Anthropocene, 2017; 19: 55 DOI: 10.1016/j.ancene.2017.09.001

引用自：University of Leicester. "Scale of human impact on planet has changed course of Earth's history, scientists suggest: Anthropocene Working Group scientists publish recommendations for formalizing new geological epoch." 

訴說人類工業史的岩石

原文網址：www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2017/03/170327114255.htm

訴說人類工業史的岩石

研究人員正對灘岩(beachrock)進行研究。位於畢爾包河口的這種岩石其基質保存了工業革命的紀錄

「由於某些地質事件能記下一切事物，研究它們有助於重建過去的環境並且測定人類如何影響環境。它們甚至能提供寶貴的資訊讓我們得以處理氣候變遷可能造成的效應。」這篇分析灘岩(beachrock)的研究作者Nikole Arrieta如此主張。灘岩這種岩層一般形成於熱帶和副熱帶地區的潮間帶。儘管如此，在西班牙比斯開灣的海岸也能找到它們的蹤影。

界定人類世時要讓更多社會科學學者參與其中

原文網址http://www.nature.com/news/involve-social-scientists-in-defining-the-anthropocene-1.21090

界定人類世時要讓更多社會科學學者參與其中

Erle Ellis, Mark Maslin, Nicole Boivin & Andrew Bauer  07 December 2016

地球時代的交替是由人類和社會引起，Erle Ellis及其同僚寫道，因此在正名(人類世)時必須讓更多這些領域的學者參與其中。

大約有30多名的學者正準備改寫地球的歷史。國際地層委員會(International Commission on Stratigraphy)之下的人類世工作小組(Anthropocene Working Group，作者之一Erle Ellis為其中一名成員)於八月公開發表在接下來的三年期間，他們將會把地球歷史分成兩部分：其一是人類已成為最強地質作用力之一的時期，稱作人類世(Anthropocene)；另一部分則涵蓋了人類對地球運作造成重大影響之前的所有時間。

要將兩者分界定在何處則是一項爭議十足的議題。討論結果是用一個或多個「金色之釘」(golden spikes)來精準定出分界：目前是利用自20世紀中葉起發明的科技，其產物留存在全球岩石紀錄中的明顯訊號，從放射性核種至塑膠皆在此列。之後國際地質科學研討會審核人類世的正名與否時，這類標記會被提出來作為重要依據。

我們同意人類應該正式承認自身對地球的影響，但是人類世的正名不應太過倉促。而我們也質疑1950年代標記的優先地位，因其忽略了人類在過去數千年間，從人類開始用火以至於農業的興起所造成的影響。更重要的是，這些標記完全沒有呈現出人類對地球的改變是漸進式的本質。他們灌輸了一種歐洲本位、菁英主義及專家政治的敘述方式，呈現出來的是人與環境處於互相敵對的立場，這跟現今社會科學及人文科學的思潮是互相違背的。

數十年以來對人類長期重塑地球系統的整體歷史、背後原因和造成結果所進行的嚴謹科學研究卻在小組討論結果中隻字未提。在定義一段以人類為主軸的地質時期時，怎麼能完全沒有提到社會活動、都市化、殖民、貿易網絡、生態工程以及能源從生質轉變成化石燃料等現象的演變過程？

我們要求重新建立一個更加嚴謹、透明、公開且永續經營的組織來主導人類世的正名過程，在這之中人文科學必須佔有一席之地。

更加深遠的過程

人類世並非在一天之內造成，於各地的形成過程也不一致：記下人類如何改變地球的物質紀錄可謂相當深厚且包羅萬象。它們的內容強調出社會、文化和科技發展在不同時空疆域上的巨大差異。

過去10,000年以來，人類活動造成許多生物步入滅絕，也重新分配了全球野生及經馴化後的植物、動物甚至微生物的活動範圍。開墾改變了侵蝕作用的運作模式，也讓土壤蘊含的溫室氣體排放至大氣當中。人類創造出各式各樣的物質，例如陶瓷、磚塊和混凝土，同時還有汙染物。阡陌縱橫的廣大運河、水庫和灌溉系統―像是柬埔寨吳哥窟寺廟群中建立的―改變了當地地景以及生態系。

從10,000年前開始，許多地方於不同時間點各自發展出農業，並在地球陸地的大部分區域留下了許多無可抹滅的紀錄。雖然目前尚未有人知曉塑膠的命運會是如何，但農業的化石紀錄已經完整記載於古代花粉、種子、寄生蟲、骨骸以及木炭與土壤沉積物當中。而宏偉的灌溉網路也可以從空中或太空追溯其脈絡。

地球科學很久以前便已經放棄藉由精確界定地層分界來得到連續性變化的紀錄。他們改以同位素「代用指標」(proxies)來追溯全球溫度、冰層體積以及大氣氣體成分的起伏漲落。地球系統模型將大氣碳含量、海平面、海水同位素和海洋沉積物等面向中的緩慢改變連結在一起。類似地，農業、貿易、工業化等人類活動也是全球各地形成時間並不一致的漸變過程。

要瞭解「人類系統」(human system)必需奠基於各種形式的紀錄(包括考古、歷史和古生態)，並以各方觀點(比如：政治生態學、政治經濟學、歷史生態學、文化演變和環境倫理)來建立起一個龐大的學術體系。舉例而言，了解全球氣候變遷時，我們需要知道社會和文化過程如何促使人們開墾農業用地，並造成土壤與大氣之間的溫室氣體、水氣和能量產生交換。這些過程從農業土地管理的實施，到人口結構轉移、土地掠奪和社會衝突皆涵蓋在內。

雖然人類世工作小組曾經提出一些年代較久遠的人為訊號，像是人類首度開始冶金造成的汙染，但它們都很少被接受進一步的考慮，因為這些紀錄的顯著程度、形成時間和發現地點皆十分多變。取而代之的是，小組幾乎完全倚重於能指出全球同時發生某種事件的地質沉積物。就我們來看原因顯而易見。雖然小組成員的確包括了自然科學領域以外的人員(像是一名新聞工作者、一名律師及數名科學史學家)，但37位成員當中僅有三位是研究長期社會變化的社會科學家(兩位考古學家及一位歷史學家)。

囊括更多意見

人類世的正名過程必須更加透明，並納入更多方面的意見以及評估。評鑑新紀元科學意義的標準需要公開發表且接受同儕審查，而非只是在私人會議中頷首通過即可。這需要一個公開網路平台，可以容納來自各領域的提議和研究論文，同時能讓他人對這些意見提出回饋並討論。聯合國政府間氣候變化專門委員會、英國皇家學會和美國國家科學基金會出版的評估報告可以作為參考。

我們應當成立一個致力於統籌這件事務的科學機構，或許可以命名為「國際人類世委員會」(International Anthropocene Commission)。它可以在國際地質委員會、未來地球計畫(Future Earth，一項氣候變遷的10年國際研究計劃)和聯合國的資助之下成立。成員中的半數必須從人類學、考古學、歷史學、社會學、地理學、古生態學、經濟學和哲學領域中遴選而出。且該機構所做的任何決議應當要有一套正式流程。

定義一個以人類為主軸的新時代絕非一蹴可幾。這需要由各個領域的專家學者以應有的嚴肅態度認真看待。

 Involve social scientists in defining the Anthropocene

The causes of Earth's transition are human and social, write Erle Ellis and colleagues, so scholars from those disciplines must be included in its formalization.

Three dozen academics are planning to rewrite Earth's history. The Anthropocene Working Group of the International Commission on Stratigraphy (of which one of us, E.E., is a member) announced in August that over the next three years it will divide Earth's story into two parts: one in which humans are a geological superpower — an epoch called the Anthropocene — and the other encompassing all that came before our species had a major influence on Earth's functioning¹.

Where to put the transition is being debated. Discussions have narrowed to defining one or more 'golden spikes': sharp global signatures in the rock record derived from the introduction of mid-twentieth century technologies, from radionuclides to plastics. Such markers will be put forward as the basis for ratifying the epoch by the International Geological Congress.

We agree that human influences on the planet should be recognized — but the formalization of the Anthropocene should not be rushed. And we question the privileging of 1950s-era markers. This ignores millennia of previous human influences, from our use of fire to the emergence of agriculture^2–6. Moreover, these markers misrepresent the continuous nature of human changes to our planet. They instil a Eurocentric, elite and technocratic narrative of human engagement with our environment that is out of sync with contemporary thought in the social sciences and the humanities^3, 7–9.

Decades of rigorous scientific research into the history, causes and consequences of the long-term reshaping of Earth systems by humans is being ignored in the group's discussions. How can a human-centred geological period be defined without characterizing the development of societies, urbanization, colonization, trading networks, ecosystem engineering and energy transitions from biomass to fossil fuels?

We call for the Anthropocene formalization process to be rebuilt on a rigorous, transparent, open and sustainable foundation in which the human sciences have a major role.

Deeper and thicker

The Anthropocene was not made in a day, nor was it created uniformly: the material records of human alterations of Earth are thick, deep and heterogeneous. They highlight huge social, cultural and technological differences across time and space^7, 8.

Human activities over the past 10,000 years have caused extinctions and global changes in the distribution of wild and domesticated plants, animals and microflora. Land clearance has altered patterns of erosion and released greenhouse gases into the atmosphere. Humans have created materials such as ceramics, brick and concrete as well as pollutants. Vast networks of canals, reservoirs and irrigation — such as those associated with the Angkor Wat temple complex in Cambodia — have shaped lands and ecologies^{2–4, 6, 10}.

Agriculture, which emerged in more than a dozen places at different times starting more than 10,000 years ago, has left a vast and indelible record across most of Earth's continents. Although no one yet knows the fate of plastics, the fossil record of agriculture is well documented in ancient pollen, seeds, parasites, bones, deposits of charcoal and soils. Giant irrigation networks can be traced from the air or space.

Earth sciences long ago moved away from defining precise stratigraphic boundaries to developing records of continuous change⁴. Isotope 'proxies' trace the rise and fall of global temperatures, ice volumes and atmospheric gases. Earth-systems models link together slow shifts in atmospheric carbon, sea levels and isotopes in seawater and marine deposits. Likewise, agriculture, trade and industrialization are gradual processes that emerged at different times across Earth (see 'The deep roots of the Anthropocene').

Understanding 'human systems' requires engaging a vast body of scholarship based on a diverse array of records (including archaeological, historical and palaeoecological) and perspectives (from political ecology, political economy, historical ecology, cultural evolution and environmental ethics, for instance). Understanding changes in global climate, for example, requires knowing how social and cultural processes drive the clearance of agricultural land and exchanges of atmospheric greenhouse gases, moisture and energy. These processes range from the practices of agricultural land management to demographic shifts, land grabbing and societal conflict.

The Anthropocene Working Group has thrown in a few deeper anthropogenic signals, such as pollution caused by the first production of metals. But these have hardly been considered because the records vary in extent, timing and geographical availability. Instead, the group has focused almost exclusively on geological deposits that pinpoint one event simultaneously around the world. The reason seems clear to us. Although the group does include members outside the natural sciences (such as a journalist, a lawyer and historians of science) only 3 of the 37 members are social scientists who study long-term social change (two archaeologists and one historian).

More inclusive

The formalization of the Anthropocene must be more transparent and have wider input and assessment. The criteria for assessing the sciences of the new epoch need to be published and peer reviewed, rather than agreed in private meetings. An open online platform could host the full range of proposals and research papers as well as feedback and discussion. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change and the UK Royal Society and US National Science Foundation Assessment Reports serve as models.

A dedicated scientific institution, perhaps called the International Anthropocene Commission, should coordinate this. It could be set up and funded under the auspices of the International Geological Congress, Future Earth (a ten-year international research initiative on global change) and the United Nations. Half of its members should be drawn from anthropology, archaeology, history, sociology, geography, palaeoecology, economics and philosophy. It should have a formal procedure for inclusion.

Defining a human-centred epoch will take time. It should be treated by scholars from all disciplines with the seriousness it deserves.

原始文章：Nature 540, 192–193 (08 December 2016) doi:10.1038/540192a