The term ‘Anthropocene’ denote an artificial break in geological and climate history. Defining it, characterizing it, locating its beginning in time are all cause for heavily politicized controversies. One area of contention concerns whether it is correct to attribute such importance to a second of human history. Another source of controversy is whether it is appropriate to employ the term the way it is employed: to accuse humanity of megalomania. In this paper I try first to distinguish and clearly separate these two debates, and compare the term Anthropocene to another radical green construct, ‘the ecological crisis’, as well as to other politicized interpretations of empirical phenomena. Next, I analyze the possible justification(s) for and objection(s) to (1) the rhetorical and political use of stigmatizing use of a (would-be) scientific term and (2) the use by scientists and academics of expert knowledge as a weapon to actively engage in politics.
