Talk:Great Acceleration

The Anthropocene
Frunobulax: you might want to reconsider your edit and add to the previously existing introductory paragraph rather than remove detail about the mention of the Anthropocene. See this page for reference to the scientific discussion of the pending definition of the Anthropocene. Your definition is very broad and somewhat nebulous. 2602:306:3047:8870:9CE2:A449:7100:870 (talk) 17:32, 18 October 2019 (UTC)

Per Capita
The exponential growth of many of the impacts discussed here is driven partly by the increasing human population. It would be valuable to divide the graphs by the number of people to show the changes in per capita depredations and reveal how much of the problem is just "too many humans". JHBrewer (talk) 19:37, 19 May 2023 (UTC)

Fossil Fuel usage
It is insane to me that this article hardly mentions the fact that the great acceleration was made possible by the surplus energy provided by fossil fuels, without which none of these “gains” would be possible. We are living in the middle of a one-time temporary carbon pulse which began at the start of the Industrial Revolution and will end. All life including Homo sapiens are heat dissipating structures that find and degrade energy gradients. All will overshoot the carrying capacity of their ecosystem of given the chance. This just happens to be the first time ecological overshoot has occurs due to the actions of a single species on a global scale, that happens to be self aware. 216.130.85.24 (talk) 14:42, 12 July 2023 (UTC)

Article Evaluation
The article mentions that the Great Acceleration could be the epoch, one of the epochs, or defining feature of the Anthropocene, but is very vague in its description of what each of those definitions would mean in the context of the Anthropocene, leaving the reader confused.

The article also names trends without expanding on them, leaving much of it to the reader's interpretation. The graphs used on the page feel clustered and messy. The text is too small too see without zooming in and makes it difficult for people with vision problems to read. Multiple factors measured on different scales are placed on the same graph, making it difficult to interpret. Rather than relying on these graphs to portray the effects of the Great Acceleration, the article should give an explanation for each trend it lists.

The second paragraph seems out of place and incomplete. It mentions two juxtaposing theories without elaborating on the basis for each of them. It could be deleted or expanded on in a more thorough section of its own.

In the last sentence of the third paragraph, it is unclear which source this information came from.

The third and fourth citations appear incomplete, making me question the sources' reliability.Dml108 (talk) 18:44, 1 September 2023 (UTC)