This visual representation does not appear to begin with the same point you chose as the start date of the Anthropocene in your retelling, what was the intent behind the discrepancy?

I think that this page also really challenged my understanding of the Anthropocene as I tried to reconcile what a polychronic understanding of time would mean. It also made me question how a spiral understanding of time immemorial could look like. In this understanding does time this spiral time begin with the rupture created by the onset of the trans*atlantic slave trade and the docking at the 'point of no return' or does it also include more distant histories? If it were to include more distant histories, past that we are familiar with only through ecological records and not human accounts even be understood in reconciliation with our present reality?

I think planting the seeds of what beginnings could look like would be a great addition here.

I think this sentence challenges my understanding because it feels almost like it is guaranteeing an ending. It doesn't seem to leave room for any of humanity to outlive the ending when it comes, which doesn't feel like it leaves much room for hope.

I think the metaphor of clay being able to be reclaimed only before it has been fired to be a powerful metaphor to whdere we are at in the Anthropocene. Where is the point of no return for us? Or is it just like clay where the point of no return is reached on an individual, gradual timeline; at any given time some can be reclaimed, and other cannot.

I think this page really challenged my understanding of the Anthropocene, and the way that I think about change and points of no return. Once fired the clay has reached a 'point of no return', but is that inherently bad?