In an era where the Anthropocene has become a buzzword, a meme, and a rallying cry for climate action, Daniel Christian Wahl's article "Leaving the Anthropocene" offers a nuanced critique that beckons us to question the very ontological foundations of this term. Wahl's argument resonates with the intellectual lineage of thinkers like Thomas Berry, who envisioned an "Ecozoic" era, a term that transcends the anthropocentric limitations of the Anthropocene.

The Anthropocene, as Wahl elucidates, is a term fraught with the risk of perpetuating a species-centric worldview. It inadvertently continues the Cartesian divide between humanity and nature, a divide that has been the root cause of our ecological crises. This echoes the sentiments of deep ecologists like Bill Devall and George Sessions, who advocated for a more interconnected understanding of human-nature relationships.

Wahl's critique is not merely a semantic argument but a call for a paradigm shift. It aligns with the works of ecofeminists and indigenous scholars who have long argued against the dualistic thinking that separates culture from nature, human from non-human. It also brings to mind the work of Vandana Shiva, who has critiqued the commodification of nature, and Fritjof Capra, who has emphasized systems thinking as a way to understand the interconnectedness of life.

The term Anthropocene, as Wahl points out, also risks diluting the culpability for ecological degradation. It's not humanity as a whole but a fraction, primarily the wealthy 20% and a handful of corporations, that have disproportionately contributed to the crisis. This observation is in line with the works of scholars like Naomi Klein and Rob Nixon, who have critiqued the social and economic systems that perpetuate environmental injustice.

So, what's the alternative? Wahl suggests embracing the Ecozoic era, a term coined by Thomas Berry, which emphasizes the "integral functioning of life systems in their mutually enhancing relations." This is not just a change in nomenclature but a shift in worldview, one that aligns with the principles of regenerative agriculture, circular economy, and social equity.

Wahl's article serves as a philosophical compass. It reminds us that the language we use shapes our reality and our approach to solving complex problems.

Could the Ecozoic era be the narrative that catalyses a more holistic, equitable, and sustainable future? Could it be the ontological shift that realigns our ethical, economic, and ecological compasses?

Indeed, the Ecozoic era offers a vision that is not just post-Anthropocene but also post-dualistic, post-extractive, and post-exploitative—a vision that is regenerative, just, and inclusive.

Let us, then, heed this call to transcend the Anthropocene and usher in the Ecozoic, for the future of our planet—and all its inhabitants—depends on our willingness to reimagine, redefine, and regenerate.