As we move into the third millennium, anxiety over the growing imbalance in the planet’s climate patterns continues to increase. In parallel, the suspicion that the concomitant ecosocial aftermath marks the passage into a new geohistorical era is reflected in the search for a name for the current times (and, thus, for an appropriate perspective from which to understand what is happening). Among such names, “Anthropocene” enjoys wide currency in the scientific community. However, as many authors have warned, this name is problematic and highly biased. Against such a backdrop, this article evaluates ten of the alternative names proposed in recent decades to designate the new era—and their implications when assessing current planetary ecosocial tensions. Methodologically, the paper is based on a critical comparison (with no equivalent so far in the state of the art) of these names and a review of their plausibility as an alternative to the Anthropocene. The review of the meaning and theoretical assumptions of the proposals shows that (i) although the effort to baptize our epoch has been mainly oriented by approaches from the Global North that criticize the nature/culture division, in the end, most of them give primacy to the naturalistic vision, turning their backs partially or totally on the developments of political ecology; (ii) from the perspective of the Global South, if we want to obtain an accurate picture of the current planetary situation, it is urgent to correct this bias and take more seriously the socio-historical dimension of environmental problems.