Unfortunately the rate of precession is not increasing that much! The difference is only one or two decades per age. Therefore the same conundrum arises - how can we be at the end of an age if there is no evidence that 2150 years ago there is no evidence that an age ended in the 2nd century BC.
Most people think that the Pisces age arrived with Jesus Christ. Is this correct? Most people never even consider the possibility that the Pisces age could have arrived before or after Jesus (by many centuries). However based on the established method of determining the ages by the movement of the Sun at the Vernal Equinox, the Pisces age could not possibly have arrived before the 3rd, 4th or 5th centuries AD. From a technical standpoint, it is impossible for Jesus to have coincided with the start of the Pisces age (this does not mean that the Pisces age commenced in the 3rd to 5th centuires either)
There is no evidence that the arrival of the Pisces age coincided with the life of Jesus. In all my years of research upon the subject i have never seen a convincing case presented that indicates the Pisces age arrived with Jesus. The assumption is so strong that the Pisces age arrived with Jesus that most people consider that it has been proved. It has never been proved.
Why couldn't the Pisces age have arrived with Buddha or Mohammed? In my experience the reason why Jesus is placed at the beginning of the Pisces age is either ethnocentric bias or more likely the desire of earlier astrologers to curry favour with the Christian church - so they would not be burnt at the stake, persecuted or whatever! Astrologers from previous centuies tended to blur the line between religion and astrology, particularly the Christian religion.
So Milo, if you remove the infallible truth that requires no proof that Jesus began the Pisces age - this opens up many possibilities. I think the question "Are we at the end of an age" a very relevant question.