The concept of the 'Anthropocene' has gained significant traction in geological and environmental circles as a proposed new epoch defined by human impact on Earth's systems. Proponents argue that markers such as nuclear fallout, plastic pollution, and elevated carbon dioxide levels constitute a distinct stratigraphic signature. However, critics contend that the term oversimplifies complex human-environment interactions and risks obscuring the uneven responsibilities of different societies. They suggest that a more nuanced framework, such as 'capitalocene', better captures the role of economic systems. This debate is not merely semantic; it influences policy priorities and public perception of environmental crises. Ultimately, the choice of terminology shapes how we understand humanity's role in shaping planetary futures.