Question

Passage A
The formalization of subdivisions within the Geologic Time Scale is not merely an exercise in naming; it is governed by rigorous chronostratigraphic conventions established to ensure absolute empirical standardization across all earth sciences. To officially designate a new geological epoch—such as the proposed Anthropocene—stratigraphers require an unambiguous, globally synchronous physical marker preserved in the sedimentary record, formally designated as a Global Boundary Stratotype Section and Point (GSSP), or "golden spike." Proponents of formalizing the Anthropocene have argued that the mid-twentieth-century peak in artificial radionuclide fallout from atmospheric thermonuclear detonations provides the requisite universally detectable isochronous horizon, capturing the rapid intensification of modern global industrial society.

Adhering strictly to these traditional stratigraphic criteria is indispensable for maintaining scientific rigor. While anthropogenic alterations of terrestrial ecosystems, biogeochemical cycles, and biodiversity are undeniably pervasive, designating a formal epoch in the absence of a verified, universally correlatable physical horizon compromises the empirical integrity of chronostratigraphy. Geologic boundaries must remain anchored in observable, physical sedimentary signatures rather than fluctuating socio-political narratives or interdisciplinary convenience. Without such standardized evidentiary discipline, the geological time scale risks forfeiting its primary function as an objective, globally unified chronological baseline.

Passage B
Endeavors to shoehorn the multifaceted reality of human environmental transformation into the rigid taxonomic mold of a chronostratigraphic epoch represent a fundamental conceptual mismatch. Stratigraphic epochs demand a single, globally synchronized inception point—a "golden spike." Yet anthropogenic transformation of the planet is inherently diachronous: deforestation, agricultural intensification, and landscape alteration occurred thousands of years apart across different continents and ecological regions. Forcing a singular mid-twentieth-century radionuclide horizon upon this history may satisfy the narrow bureaucratic checklists of formal stratigraphy, but it artificially divorces the Anthropocene from centuries of preceding industrialization and millennia of ecological modification.

A far more robust and scientifically productive paradigm is to conceptualize human planetary impact not as a formal chronostratigraphic epoch, but as a complex, continuous geological "event." In earth history, recognized geological events—such as the Great Oxidation Event or the Paleocene-Eocene Thermal Maximum—readily accommodate spatial heterogeneity, cumulative duration, and diverse regional dynamics. Classifying human planetary modification as an open-ended geological event liberates researchers across archaeology, ecology, and the historical sciences from rigid chronostratigraphic constraints. Crucially, it recognizes that the profound environmental reality of human activity does not require validation through a singular sedimentary marker.

Based on the passages, which of the following statements express views that BOTH the author of Passage A and the author of Passage B would endorse? Select all that apply.