Take it that it is reasonable to say we live in a new geological: ‘the anthropocene’. What is the normative philosophical significance of this? One thing it cannot reasonably mean is the ‘end of nature’ in the sense that the ubiquity and depth of human impact makes it no longer intelligible to raise concerns about human impacts on nonhuman nature. I argue that this is a delusional reading of the situation. I then consider two types of response to the anthropocene. One celebrates it as a sign that human mastery of nature for the sake of anthropocentric ends is proceeding apace. The other is worried by it as a sign that we should be deeply concerned about the implications both for human interests and for nonhuman nature. I argue that the celebratory response partakes too much of the delusional end of nature reading.
