\documentclass[10pt]{article}

\usepackage{fullpage}
\usepackage{CJKutf8} 
\usepackage[utf8]{inputenc}
\usepackage{setspace}
\usepackage{parskip}
\usepackage{titlesec}
\usepackage[section]{placeins}
\usepackage{xcolor}
\usepackage{breakcites}
\usepackage{lineno}
\usepackage{hyphenat}





\PassOptionsToPackage{hyphens}{url}
\usepackage[colorlinks = true,
            linkcolor = blue,
            urlcolor  = blue,
            citecolor = blue,
            anchorcolor = blue]{hyperref}
\usepackage{etoolbox}
\makeatletter
\patchcmd\@combinedblfloats{\box\@outputbox}{\unvbox\@outputbox}{}{%
  \errmessage{\noexpand\@combinedblfloats could not be patched}%
}%
\makeatother


\usepackage{natbib}




\renewenvironment{abstract}
  {{\bfseries\noindent{\abstractname}\par\nobreak}\footnotesize}
  {\bigskip}

\titlespacing{\section}{0pt}{*3}{*1}
\titlespacing{\subsection}{0pt}{*2}{*0.5}
\titlespacing{\subsubsection}{0pt}{*1.5}{0pt}


\usepackage{authblk}


\usepackage{graphicx}
\usepackage[space]{grffile}
\usepackage{latexsym}
\usepackage{textcomp}
\usepackage{longtable}
\usepackage{tabulary}
\usepackage{booktabs,array,multirow}
\usepackage{amsfonts,amsmath,amssymb}
\providecommand\citet{\cite}
\providecommand\citep{\cite}
\providecommand\citealt{\cite}
% You can conditionalize code for latexml or normal latex using this.
\newif\iflatexml\latexmlfalse
\providecommand{\tightlist}{\setlength{\itemsep}{0pt}\setlength{\parskip}{0pt}}%

\AtBeginDocument{\DeclareGraphicsExtensions{.pdf,.PDF,.eps,.EPS,.png,.PNG,.tif,.TIF,.jpg,.JPG,.jpeg,.JPEG}}

\usepackage[utf8]{inputenc}
\usepackage[T2A]{fontenc}
\usepackage[ngerman,polish,english]{babel}



\usepackage{float}








\begin{document}
\begin{CJK}{UTF8}{gbsn}

\title{The Earth-System Humanization Event (ESHE)}



\author[1]{Valentí Rull}%
\affil[1]{Affiliation not available}%


\vspace{-1em}



  
  \date{April 30, 2026}


\begingroup
\let\center\flushleft
\let\endcenter\endflushleft
\maketitle
\endgroup








\sloppy


Valent\selectlanguage{ngerman}í Rull\textsuperscript{1,2}

\emph{\textsuperscript{1}Botanic Institute of Barcelona, Spanish
National Research Council (CSIC), Pg. del Migdia s/n, 08038, Barcelona,
Spain. Email vrull@csic.es}

\emph{\textsuperscript{2}Institut Català de Paleontologia Miquel
Crusafont (ICP-CERCA), Universitat Autònoma de Barcelona, c/ Columnes
s/n, 08193 Cerdanyola del Vallès, Barcelona, Spain. Email
valenti.rull@icp.cat}

Currently, an intense debate exists over whether the Anthropocene should
be considered a formal series/epoch on the International
Chronostratigraphic Chart/Geological Time Scale (ICC/GTS) or a
geological event. Recent developments have cast doubt on the former
option, with the rejection of a proposal submitted to the Subcommission
of Quaternary Stratigraphy (SQS) of the International Commission on
Stratigraphy (ICS) (Voosen, 2024; Witze, 2024). This rejection, which
was further ratified by the International Union of Geological Sciences
(IUGS, 2024), has strengthened the notion of the Anthropocene as a
geological event, as proposed in recent years (Gibbard et al., 2022a,
b). However, the term Anthropocene, originally coined to define an epoch
(Crutzen \& Stoermer, 2000), may be deemed unsuitable for naming an
event. This commentary briefly reviews the most recent developments
regarding the SQS rejection and suggests a more appropriate name for an
alternative event.

The idea of an Anthropocene epoch emerged at the beginning of this
century with the famous proposal by Crutzen \& Stoermer (2000). They
argued that human activities had introduced variability into the Earth
System surpassing natural Holocene variability, thus necessitating the
definition of a new geological epoch, which they called the
`Anthropocene'. They proposed that this epoch could have commenced
during the Industrial Revolution, with geological manifestations such as
increased atmospheric greenhouse gases recorded in polar ice caps and
biotic turnovers in recent lake sediments. Nevertheless, these authors
did not dismiss the possibility that the Anthropocene might be older,
potentially extending to encompass the entire Holocene period.

In 2009, the SQS established a task group, the Anthropocene Working
Group (AWG), to evaluate the possibility of the Anthropocene as a new
series/epoch following the Holocene. As is customary in defining new
chronostratigraphic units, the primary task of the AWG was to identify a
rock body overlying the Holocene, characterized by differential
stratigraphic markers, and to assess the age of its base by geological
methods. For a prospect to be considered a genuine chronostratigraphic
unit, such as a series/epoch, it must represent a planetary-scale
phenomenon evident in globally synchronous rock strata. With all this
information, the proposal should be submitted for approval to the SQS
and the ICS Executive, and then to the International Union of Geological
Sciences (IUGS) for ratification.

After analyzing several possibilities -- including the Late Pleistocene
megafaunal extinction (50,000 yr BP), the Neolithic Revolution
(8000-5000 yr BP), the Columbian exchange (1500 CE), and the Industrial
Revolution (1760 CE) (Lewis \& Maslin, 2015) (Fig. 1) -- the AWG
concluded that the only globally synchronous geological manifestation of
human disruption began with the Great Acceleration (mid-20th century)
(Head et al., 2022). This was marked by increases in radionuclides
emitted by the first atomic bomb tests (1950s), as well as other
stratigraphic markers such as fly ashes resulting from the combustion of
fossil fuels, microplastics, pesticides, novel contaminants, and others.
The AWG identified the first centimeters of sediments in Lake Crawford,
Canada, as the type section for the Anthropocene Global Stratotype
Section and Point (GSSP), or ``golden spike'', along with other
sediments and localities across all continents showing similar
synchronous stratigraphic signals (McCarthy et al., 2023; Waters et al.,
2023).~The AWG proposal remains to be published but is available as a
preprint (Waters et al., 2024).\selectlanguage{english}
\begin{figure}[H]
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[width=0.98\columnwidth]{figures/Epoch-or-event/Epoch-or-event-2}
\caption{{Main prehistoric and historical features considered as potential
starting points and stratigraphic markers for the onset of the
`Anthropocene Epoch', compared with the continuous increasing trend of
the `Anthropocenne Event'. The current AWG proposal is highlighted in
green. Pleistocene and Holocene time scales (blue) are in thousand years
before present (kyr BP) and last-centuries scale is in calendar years
(CE). ~ ~
{\label{645627}}%
}}
\end{center}
\end{figure}

This proposal was not without internal and external controversy. The
main points of debate included the diachronic nature of human
disturbance across the globe, hindering the identification of a single
date for the beginning of the Anthropocene, and the argument that a mere
70 years could not represent a geological epoch, which typically spans
tens of thousands to millions of years (Edwards, 2015; Finney \&
Edwards, 2015; Ellis et al., 2016). Additionally, concerns were raised
about the vulnerability of the GSSP, consisting of only 10-15 cm of
unconsolidated lake sediment, to removal by erosion or environmental
changes such as lake drying. The AWG did not consider the diachronism in
human disturbance across the planet, as this would have threatened its
primary objective, which was to define a globally synchronous
chronostratigraphic unit. The AWG was also reluctant to consider other
possibilities, notably the 'early Anthropocene' as defined by Ruddiman
(2003, 2013), which attributes mid-Holocene atmospheric greenhouse gas
increases to large-scale deforestation (8-7 kyr BP) and rice cultivation
(6-5 kyr BP). These omissions resulted in internal conflicts and led to
the resignation of some AWG members.

As the AWG was finalizing its proposal for submission to the SQS, a
group of stratigraphers, including relevant members of the ICS and the
IUGS, suggested a different proposal based on the spatiotemporal
variability of human impact on Earth. They argued that the Anthropocene
was better defined as a geological event (Gibbard et al., 2022a, b).
Geological events are characterized by their time-transgressive and
multi-temporal nature, ranging from seconds to millions of years and
from local to global scales. Such events do not require GSSPs or
formalization and can cause significant disruptions in the Earth System.
For instance, the Paleoproterozoic Great Oxidation Event (GOE), which
lasted 4 billion years (2.4-2.0 Ga), fundamentally altered life on Earth
by introducing an aerobic atmosphere. Other notable events include the
Great Ordovician Biodiversity Event (GOBE; 485-455 Ma) and the
Middle-Late Devonian forestation of continents (DeFE; 390-360 Ma).

In October 2023, the AWG finally submitted its Anthropocene proposal to
the SQS, including the aforementioned GSSP (Lake Crawford),
stratigraphic markers (radionuclides, fly ashes, etc.), and starting
point (1952 CE) (Rull, 2024). Four months later, the proposal was
rejected by the SQS with 12 votes against (66\%, more than the 60\%
required), 4 in favor, and 2 abstentions. Consequently, progress toward
approval by the ICS Executive and ratification by the IUGS was halted,
and the case was considered closed by most SQS members. However, the AWG
is currently seeking to declare the voting null due to procedural
irregularities (Voosen, 2024; Witze, 2024).

It is evident that the focus of scrutiny lies not in the magnitude of
anthropogenic disturbance on the Earth System, widely accepted as fact,
but rather on the specific proposal put forth by the AWG. Therefore,
there is also the possibility of submitting another proposal. However,
opponents argue that the outcome of the initial vote suggests that any
subsequent proposal would likely face similar rejection (Gibbard, pers.
comm). This is now the situation and an official pronouncement by the
SQS is unavailable.

The difficulty of finding a globally synchronous starting point to
define a formal series/epoch has led to reinforced support for the idea
of the Anthropocene as an event, considered the most suitable term to
encompass the full range of anthropogenic cultural and environmental
effects (Walker et al., 2023). The only drawback is terminological. The
termination `-cene' was initially chosen by Crutzen \& Stoermer (2000)
because it is reserved for epochs of the Cenozoic Era (i.e., Paleocene,
Eocene, Oligocene, Miocene, Pliocene, Pleistocene, Holocene). Therefore,
referring to the Anthropocene as a geological event could be misleading
and terminologically incorrect (Head et al., 2023).

Several years ago, I proposed the term `Humanized Earth System' (HES), a
name devoid of chronostratigraphic meaning, to describe the new physical
and functional state of the planet under global human influence (Rull,
2016). By using the term 'Earth System' instead of simply 'Earth,' it
underscores that human impact has extended beyond local and regional
scales to affect the components of the Earth System (i.e., atmosphere,
hydrosphere, lithosphere, biosphere, cryosphere) and their global
interactions. This perspective has been consistently emphasized by the
AWG in its publications (e.g., Zalasiewicz et al., 2019). Employing this
concept, the recently proposed 'Anthropocene event' could be more
accurately termed the 'Earth-System Humanization Event' (ESHE), aligning
with the current terminology for other events such as the aforementioned
GOE, GOBE, DeFE, and others.

The term `humanized' is preferred over the prefix `anthropo-` because
the latter simply refers to the human condition (from the Greek
`anthropos' meaning `human'), while the former emphasizes the impact of
humans on the Earth System. The prefix `anthropo-` had already been used
in the late 18th century by Stoppani (1873) to define the prospective
`Anthropozoic Era', characterized by the occurrence of human fossils and
objects linked to human presence. This author did not consider human
ancestors -- he was a priest and, as such, did not believe in evolution
-- and was unable to date the beginning of this purported human era.
Modern evolutionary knowledge and the use of current dating methods
showed that Stoppani's `Anthropozoic' coincided almost perfectly with
the current Quaternary Period, initiated approximately 2.6 million years
ago (Rull, 2021). However, human influence on the Earth System, which is
what the `Anthropocene' concept -- regardless of whether it refers to an
epoch or an event -- wants to emphasize, is much more recent and
restricted to the last tens of thousands of years, at most (Lewis \&
Maslin, 2015).

In summary, if we must consider the human influence on the Earth System
as a geological event, as defined by Gibbard et al. (2022a, b) and
Walker et al. (2023), then the term `Earth-System Humanization Event'
(ESHE) appears more appropriate than the `Anthropocene Event' from both
terminological and conceptual points of view.~In this context, the
prefix `anthropo-` could be used to designate Stoppani's `Anthropozoic
Era', which is based on qualitative (presence/absence) evidence, whereas
the ESHE could be viewed as a quantitative feature, in terms of the
intensity of human impact. If this were the case, then the `Anthropozoic
Era' would follow the Cenozoic, which would have ended with the
appearance of the first remains of modern humans or hominins (Rull,
2021).

\textbf{Acknowledgments}

This research did not receive funding specifically for its development.

\textbf{References}

Barnosky, A.D. 2014. Palaeontological evidence for defining the
Amthropocene. Geological Society London, Special Publications 395,
149-165.

Crutzen, P.J., Stoermer, E.F. 2000. The Anthropocene. Global Change
Newsletter 41,17-18.

Edwards, L.E. 2015. What is the Anthropocene? EOS, 96, 6-7.

Ellis, E., Maslin, M., Boivin, N., Bauer, A. 2016. Involve social
scientists in defining the Anthropocene. Nature 540, 192-193.

Finney, S.C., Edwards, L.E. 2015. The Anthropocene epoch: scientific
decision or political statement? GSA Today, 26, 4-10.

Gibbard, P.L., Bauer, A.M., Edgeworth, M., Ruddiman, W.F., Gill, J.L.,
Merritts, D.J., Finney, S.C., Edwards L.E., Walker, M.J.C., Maslin, M.,
et al. 2022a. A practical solution: the Anthropocene is a geological
event, not a formal epoch. Episodes 45, 349-357.

Gibbard, P., Walker, M., Bauer, A., Edgeworth, M., Edwards, L.E., Ellis,
E., Finney, S., Gill, J.L., Maslin, M., Merritts, D., et al. 2022b. The
Anthropocene as an event, not an Epoch. Journal of Quaternary Science
37, 395-399.

Head, M.J., Steffen, W., Fagerlind, D., Waters, C.N., Poirier, C.,
Syvitski, J., Zalasiewicz, J.A., Barnosky, A.D., Cearreta, A., Jeandel,
C., et al. 2022. The Great Acceleration is real and provides a
quantitative basis for the proposed Anthropocene Series/Epoch. Episodes
45, 359-376.

IUGS. 2024. The Anthropocene: IUGS-ICS Statement
(https://www.iugs.org/).

Head, M.J., Zalasiewicz, J.A., Waters, C.N., Turner, S.D., Williams, M.,
Barnosky, A.D., Steffen, W., Wagreich, M., Haff, P.K., Syvitski, J., et
al. 2023. The Anthropocene is a prospective epoch/series, not a
geological event. Episodes 46, 229-238.

Lewis, S.L., Maslin, M.A. 2015. Defining the Anthropocene. Nature 519:
171-180.

McCarthy, F.M.G., Patterson, R.T., Head, M.J., Riddick, N.L., Cumming,
B.F., Hamilton, P.B., Pisaric, M.F.J., Gushulak, A.C., Leavitt, P.R.,
Lafond, K.M. et al. 2023. The varved succession of Crawford Lake,
Milton, Ontario, Canada as a candidate Global boundary Stratotype
Section and Point for the Anthropocene series. Anthropocene Review 10,
146-176.

Ruddiman, W.F. 2003. The anthropogenic greenhouse era began thousands of
years ago. Climatic Change 61, 261-293.

Ruddiman, W.F. 2013. The Anthropocene. Annual Reviews of Earth and
Planetary Sciences 41, 45-68.

Rull, V. 2016. The Humanized Earth System (HES). Holocene 26, 1513-1516.

Rull, V. 2021. The Anthropozoic era revisited. Lethaia 54, 289-299.

Rull, V. 2024. The Anthropocene: \emph{alea iacta est} . EMBO Reports,
doi 10.1038/s44319-024-00065-1.

Stoppani, A. 1873. Corso di Geologia. Vol. II, Geologia Stratigrafica.
G. Bernardoni \& G. Brigola, Milano.

Voosen, P. 2024. The Anthropocene is dead. Long live the Anthropocene.
Science, doi 10.1126/science.z3wcw7b.

Walker, M.J.C., Bauer, A.M., Edgeworth, M., Ellis, E.C., Finney, S.C.,
Gibbard, P.L., Maslin, M. 2023. The Anthropocene is best understood as
an ongoing, intensifying, diachronous event. Boreas 53, 1-3.

Waters, CN., Turner, S.D., Zalasiewicz, J., Head, M.J. 2023. Candidate
sites and other reference sections for the Global boundary Stratotype
Section and Point of the Anthropocene series. Anthropocene Review 10,
3-24.

Waters, C.N., Turner, S., An, Z., Barnosky, A.D., Cearreta, A., Cundy,
A., Fairchild, I., Fa\selectlanguage{polish}ł\selectlanguage{english}kiewicz-Kozie\selectlanguage{polish}ł, \selectlanguage{english}B., Ga\selectlanguage{polish}ł\selectlanguage{english}uszka, A., Grinevald, J.,
et al. 2024. Excetuvive summary. The Anthropocene Epoch and Crawfordian
Age: proposals by the Anthropocene Working Group. EarthArXiv, doi
10.31223/X5VH70.

Witze, A. 2024. Geologists reject the Anthropocene as Earth's new epoch
-- after 15 years of debate. Nature 627, 249-250.

Zalasiewicz, J., Waters, C., Williams, M., Summerhayes, C.P. 2019. The
Anthropocene as a geological time unit. Cambridge University Press,
Cambridge.

\selectlanguage{english}
\FloatBarrier
\end{CJK}\end{document}

