Many species have had worldwide spread/effect even pre-dating homo-sapiens, think seed-dispersing plants. It is arrogant to think we are the first.
When is the tipping point into the Anthropocene? Humans do not work alone, no species doesn't depend on another. The "issues about naming relevant to the Anthropocene, Plantationocene, or Capitalocene have to do with scale, rate/speed, synchronicity, and complexity."
Anna Tsing suggests in 'Feral Biologies' the reduction (almost extinction) of refugia (places of refuge) for species both human and non-human, is the tipping point from Holocene to Anthropocene.
'Cheap nature' cannot continue or be a solution.
Haraway sees the Anthropocene as more of a 'boundary' than 'epoch'. It "marks severe discontinuities". Does this suggest a romanticised and removed conception of nature however?
She suggest the Chthulucene: all-inclusive; all-temporal; fictional; speculative; scientific. Named after "the diverse earth-wide tentacular powers and forces and collected things with names like Naga, Gaia, Tangaroa..."
"It matters which stories tell stories, which concepts think concepts"
Jim Clifford (environmental & digital historian) taught Haraway, "we need stories (and theories) that are just big enough to gather up the complexities and keep the edges open and greedy for surprising new and old connections."
Kim Stanley Robinson said in '2312', that 2005 to 2060 was 'the dithering' or a 'state of indecisive agitation'. We are yet to seal our fate and make our move, however what we do now will be imprinted on the earth either way.
The slogan of the Chthulucene is 'Make Kin Not Babies!'.
Shakespeare compared kin and kind, kin need not be a blood relative, only someone/thing that is kind. It is "something other/more than entities tied b ancestry or genealogy" says Haraway.