According to Stroemer, who started to use term anthropocene in early 1980s, the term refers to the impact and evidence for the impact of human activities on the planet earth. Widely popularized by Paul Crutzen, anthropocene has been accepted in the scientific community, although there has been a lot of discussions when approximately did this era started. One possible reason of this is that the lack of a concrete definition of the term. For some scientists it is era from the beginning of farming, for others it started with industrial revolution. Despite the fact that no specific time frame is set, anthropocene term is used in modern social science eagerly. At the same time we also define it differently. For me it took little while to understand term. The term itself was incomprehensible to me, and linking it with anthropology was a bit tricky. Now, after finishing this awesome course about anthropocene, I think I have quite good understanding about it. In this essay my goal is to show my view about the matter and what does anthropocene mean to anthropology and me. In theory, anthropocene is a new era in human existence that has many aspects worth consideration, along with anthropological aspect. For example, a great deal of attention in anthropocene is placed on the relative weakness and strength of the human activities in a climate change. Scientist’s attention to the topic of "climate change" is an interesting long-term argumentation about human interaction. Talking about anthropological view Susan A Crate writes in her article “Climate and Culture: Anthropology in the Era of Contemporary Climate Change”(1) that “despite the flurry of activity by anthropologists engaging in issues of climate change and the status of anthropology and climate change as a rapidly expanding field.” To explain it in anthropological view, mostly they analyse climate adaptation in different regions and by that study they have managed to fill the ga