At the occasion of the Geoethics Day 2024
geoscientific topic + philosophical insight = geophilosophical enquiry
Subsequently, the enquiries could be written as a mathematical ‘set’: {GT i; PI j} = {GPE i,j}.
{ {GT i ; PI j } i=1,n; j=1,m } = {{GPE i,j } n,m } = {GEA n,m }.
The number of specific geophilosophical enquiries ( GPE i,j) and appraisals (GEA n,m) is vast because geoscientific topics (GT i ) are numerous and the applicable (philosophical) insights (PI j) into moral, epistemic or social features of human practices are many.
This question is a specific geophilosophical appraisal (i.e., geoethical issue). It first includes a geoscientific topic, “GT sampling the Ediacaran GSSP for research”, and second, a philosophical insight about applicable norms “PI j”, for example, a specific set of deontological rules [d] [7].
Although the outcome of the given geophilosophical enquiry will depend on the chosen deontological rules, the geophilosophical appraisal can be described as {GE sampling the Ediaaran GSSP for research, various deontological rules }. This set of enquiries might be pretty vast, although not as vast as the set of geophilosophical enquiries into the sampling of geoheritage sites [8] [9] [10] for research, training or education.
As this examples show, no end is visible to the diversity of geophilosophical appraisal. Hence, the issue arises: What systemic description of geophilosophical appraisals is possible?
1. Bohle M, Marone
E (2022) Phronesis at the Human-Earth Nexus: Managed Retreat. Front Polit Sci
4:1–13. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpos.2022.819930
2. Peppoloni S, Di
Capua G (2022) Geoethics: Manifesto for an Ethics of Responsibility Towards the
Earth. Springer International Publishing, Cham
3. Peppoloni S, Di
Capua G (2012) Geoethics and geological culture: Awareness, responsibility and
challenges. Ann Geophys 55:335–341. https://doi.org/10.4401/ag-6099
4. Di Capua G,
Peppoloni S, Bobrowsky P (2017) The Cape Town Statement on Geoethics. Ann
Geophys 60:1–6. https://doi.org/10.4401/ag-7553
5. Sen A (2010) The
idea of Justice. Penguin Books, London, UK
6. Peppoloni S,
Bilham N, Di Capua G (2019) Contemporary Geoethics Within the Geosciences. In:
Exploring Geoethics. Springer International Publishing, Cham, pp 25–70
7. Butler R (2015)
Destructive sampling ethics. Nat Geosci 8:817–818.
https://doi.org/10.1038/ngeo2572
8. Druguet E,
Passchier CWCW, Pennacchioni G, Carreras J (2013) Geoethical education: A
critical issue for geoconservation. Episodes 36:11–18.
https://doi.org/10.18814/epiiugs/2013/v36i1/003
9. Migoń P,
Pijet-Migoń E (2023) The role of geodiversity and geoheritage in tourism and
local development. Geol Soc London, Spec Publ 530:. https://doi.org/10.1144/SP530-2022-115
10. Finney SC,
Hilario A (2018) GSSPs as International Geostandards and as Global Geoheritage.
In: Geoheritage. Elsevier, pp 179–189
11. Potthast T
(2015) Toward an Inclusive Geoethics—Commonalities of Ethics in Technology,
Science, Business, and Environment. In: Peppoloni MW (ed) Geoethics. Elsevier,
pp 49–56
12. United Nations
(2013) World Social Science Report 2013. OECD Publishing
13. Renn J (2020)
The Evolution of Knowledge - Rethinking Science for the Anthropocene. Princeton
University Press, Oxford, UK
14. Rosol C, Nelson
S, Renn J (2017) Introduction: In the machine room of the Anthropocene. Anthr
Rev 4:2–8. https://doi.org/10.1177/2053019617701165
15. Renn J (2018) The
Evolution of Knowledge: Rethinking Science in the Anthropocene. HoST - J Hist
Sci Technol 12:1–22. https://doi.org/10.2478/host-2018-0001
16. Di Baldassarre
G, Sivapalan M, Rusca M, et al (2019) Socio‐hydrology: Scientific Challenges in Addressing a Societal
Grand Challenge. Water Resour Res 2018WR023901.
https://doi.org/10.1029/WR023901
17. Abrunhosa M,
Chambel A, Peppoloni S, Chaminé HI (2021) Advances in Geoethics and Groundwater
Management : Theory and Practice for a Sustainable Development. Springer
International Publishing, Cham
This post explores possible ties between urbanites on Earth and terraformers in Space along a gradient of concepts of human-planet intersections.
Humans living in Space are featured
in science fiction (e.g., (Robinson
2012)), settlements on the Moon and Mars
are scientifically envisioned (Beech
2021), and terraformed planets were
already thought of about half a century ago (Sagan
1973). Such speculation about space-based anthropogenic
planetary change associates concepts such as geoengineering (Morton
2015), ecomodernism (Asafu-Adjaye
et al. 2015), or planetary gardening (Klosterwill
2021), which, in turn, serve as a bridge
to concepts like technosphere (Szerszynski
2017) or ergosphere (Renn
2020).
"Getting the physics and
chemistry right, then 'the rest' would persist, i.e., biological and (human)
social life" is a well-trodden reductionist perspective. Its simple view is flawed, not only because
of a probable Gaian bottleneck [*] (Chopra
and Lineweaver 2016) in the evolution of rocky
planets. Still, a planet’s physical and
chemical qualities mould its climate, geomorphology and hydrology, i.e., the
diversity of non-living nature. Subsequently, climatic, geomorphological and
hydrological features suitable for biological life make habitable planets (Langmuir
and Broecker 2012) which, biological evolution
permitting, also might persist and support social life (Alahuhta
et al. 2022).
The human prowess to alter Earth's
climate, geomorphology and hydrology at the planetary scale is a central
component of current anthropogenic global change (Rosol
et al. 2017) (Otto
et al. 2020). Nowadays, human work and the material
qualities of Earth are linked at the planetary scale (Grinspoon 2016) (Thomas 2022). The planetary
urban realm is the primary human-geosphere intersection, given its size and
dynamic.
The geoethics approach of enquiring
what are "appropriate behaviours and practices, wherever human
activities interact with the [geomorphological] Earth system" (Di
Capua et al. 2017) [p.5] led to descriptions of the intersections
of human activities and Earth (Bohle
et al. 2019). Applying political philosophies
led to amalgamating them into geo-philosophical rationales of the Human-Earth
Nexus (Bohle
and Marone 2021) (Peppoloni
and Di Capua 2022).
The concept of terraforming connotes
adjusting the material qualities of rocky planets (or moons) for possible human
residence. For example, it is envisaged
to alter the features of the atmosphere, e.g. the pressure and temperature at
the planet's surface. Next, more evolved
constituents of the planet’s qualities should adjust, like climate, geomorphology,
or hydrology, and, subsequently, alteration by biological agents is envisaged.
Considering Earth, the notions of geoengineering
(Morton
2015) or planetary gardening (Klosterwill
2021) substitute the notion of terraforming.
Conceptually, these notions superpose, and geoengineering is terraforming
Earth, for example, enhancing carbon-dioxide capture by biological, chemical,
or technical means. Hence, the current
climate engineering discussions, such as solar radiation management to recover
a climate status quo ante, are downscaled variants of more comprehensive
concepts (Möller
2023).
Notwithstanding explicit
geoengineering, the ongoing anthropogenic global change processes of the Great
Acceleration (Steffen
2022) might be viewed as unintentional
geoengineering, and being both precursors of dedicated geoengineering and supplementing
precursors, such as altering terrestrial geomorphology or hydrology, i.e.
landscapes (Meiske 2021).
Looking for inspiration for ideas of
engineering planet Earth, the human activities to build and operate the urban
realm exhibit the underlying thinking (Herrero-Jáuregui
et al. 2018). For example, taking an elementary view, houses
are built to maintain ambient indoor temperatures in a suitable range. Taking a less elementary view, creating an
urban environment is about niche-building (Fuentes
2017) (Xu
et al. 2020) to accommodate the material
qualities of the local natural environment.
The notion of human niche describes
the protected spaces humans set up for living well, i.e., humans' various
complex-adaptive social-ecological systems on planet Earth (Schoon
and van der Leeuw 2015) (Bohle
and Marone 2019). These systems enable people to
produce commodities, goods, or services. In this context, civil engineering
works (e.g., power plants, waterways, and tunnels) are material interconnections
between human activities and the geosphere and socially enacted activities.
Nowadays, most people live in urban areas, which form an interconnected network of metropoles, cities or towns dispersed over the globe. The concept of an urban realm recognises that urban areas are complex, multi-dimensional systems shaped by various social, economic, and environmental factors, i.e., complex-adaptive social-ecological systems. Nevertheless, the concept urban realm also entails the physical environment, i.e., material externalities of the urban areas such as geomorphology or transport infrastructures. As the archetype of the human niche, urban areas encompass the entire engineered environment, including buildings for housing and work, infrastructures above and below ground, and managed open spaces.
Urban realms behave well when
changes in the material qualities of the surrounding physical environments
(e.g., weather) are docile. When they
are erratic, e.g., disruptive flooding, heat wave or dust/snowstorm, the living
conditions of people are challenged because the fluxes of energy, matter, and
information are physically perturbated.
Urban realms shape people's
experiential connections with the geosphere. Urbanites' connections with the
geosphere are often limited to events (e.g., storms, flooding, or heat waves)
that disrupt the engineered structures supporting urban lifestyles (Bohle
et al. 2017). Despite such biased individual experiences,
societies’ literacy in geosciences is vital for well-behaving production
systems, sustainable consumption patterns, and convenient everyday life
spanning work and leisure activities. The weather forecast is the primary
example illustrating the importance of geosciences literacy in modern societies.
Weather news became a ‘prime time’ event decades ago, substituting individual experiences. Since the early 1950s, the regular broadcasting of weather forecasts has become standard (Lynch 2008) (Bauer et al. 2015). Before broadcasting weather news, systematic weather observations were practised for centuries, supported by the development of instruments, communication technologies, and standard observation protocols and organisations. Weather reports for specialised professional audiences have been produced manually and published since the mid-nineteenth century with increasing regularity. Numerical weather forecasting has become feasible since the early 1950s. From those early days, it took half a century to build the web of providers of weather products and their consumers. In a single narrative, the modern media combine the weather forecast with additional information on meteorological phenomena, climate change, and news of impacts on economic and social activities. The reliability and accuracy of these forecasts directly influence people's work and life, which is dependent upon reliable geoscientific information and professional practice.
Subitem: anthropogenic global changeDe-facto, contemporary societies are experimenting
with anthropogenic global change (Otto
et al. 2020). They also conceived the concepts of geoengineering
and terraforming (Morton
2015) (Dickinson
2021). These two concepts are exalting human agency, which
is experienced as: "[w]ith their rapidly evolving culture, humans have
introduced an "ergosphere" (a sphere of work, as well as of
technological and energetic transformations) as a new global component of the
Earth system,… changing the overall dynamics of the system "(Renn
2018) [p. 7]. Scholars of the history of science have
formulated this alternative description of the Human-Earth Nexus for societies on
an Anthropocene trajectory (Steffen
et al. 2018).
Engineered environments, i.e., the
technosphere (Donges
et al. 2017) and the people living because of it
(United Nations 2014) (Rosol et al. 2017), are the primary
representation of the ergosphere. The ergosphere is built and operated
to favour exercising human agency. It is
centred on the urban realm, consisting of urban dwellings and industrialised
agriculture, extraction industries and waste depositories, partly off-site,
i.e., in the 'wilderness'. The
ecomodernist school of thought has developed such perceptions into a cultural
program of geoengineering and urbanised life (Asafu-Adjaye
et al. 2015). Related, although distinct, the concept of 'half-world'
(Wilson
2016) (Ellis
and Mehrabi 2019), i.e., sharing Earth between humans
(World) and other living beings (Nature), see human societies as primarily urban
and set apart. Planetary gardening (Klosterwill
2021) is a further related concept of
intentionally shaping the planet.
Securing a geographical space of steady abiotic features might seem appropriate to describe the engineering of urban and planetary realms. Although steady abiotic features do not make the essence of urban realms, climate, geomorphology, and hydrology constrain economic operability and human life. Hence, geoengineering and terraforming differ by the scale of the related civil engineering endeavours when considering building and operating the urban realm. A shared category of risks is that non-steady abiotic/non-living environments preclude well-functioning economic, social, cultural, and political activities.
Less radical cultural visions than
ecomodernism acknowledge, for example, a defiant (Hamilton
2017), human (Lewis
and Maslin 2018), or altered (Thomas
2022) planet Earth. These appraisals of
the contemporary Human-Earth Nexus combine geoscience knowledge and
philosophical insights at a high level of abstraction. When downscaling the
levels of abstraction, ambition, or association in the quest for
geo-philosophical insights, schools of thought in responsible geosciences are
found. They propose various concepts
named, for example, geo-logic (Frodeman
2014), geo-ethics (Di
Capua et al. 2021) or geo-societal sense-making (Bohle
and Marone 2021).
Although these schools of thought recognise
the role of biological processes in geochemical cycles, they do not consider
planet Earth to be regulated by living beings, i.e., applying a Gaian
hypothesis (Lovelock
J. 1979) (Lenton
and van Oijen 2002). Hence, these schools of thought take as a primary
stance a reductionist approach (getting 'right' the physical / material /
abiotic / non-living qualities) to the well-functioning planet Earth (Bohle
et al. 2020). This apparent limitation can be
patched by applying the theory of complex-adaptive social-ecological systems,
which ties the physical / material / abiotic / non-living subsystem into a
comprehensive mesh of non-separable entities (Preiser
et al. 2018) (Biggs
et al. 2021).
The bulk of contemporary
geo-philosophical thinking, whether driven philosophically or by responsible
geoscience, is not informed by theoretical descriptions of human practices'
socioeconomic and political constraints. Instead, these constraints are treated
case-by-case, reflecting professional experiences (Abrunhosa
et al. 2021) without using a conceptual
(philosophical) framework to describe them.
A popular variant of geo-philosophical thinking, the geoethical approach, can be summarised (Bohle 2020) in five tenets (agency, virtue, responsibility, knowledge base, inclusivity, and universal human rights). As observed (Bohle and Marone 2022), this “approach seems incomplete because it is not informed by socioeconomic constraints, which, for example, limit the freedom of human agents. A remedy can be found in interpreting Hannah Arendt's political philosophy of the “Human Condition” (Arendt 1958) for times of anthropogenic global change. Her notions of labour (for subsistence), work (of agents of technological change), and act (political agency)” allow addressing matters such as social stratification or differential power.
Subsequently, depending on the human
agency category, the application of the tenets of geoethics is modulated. Although the essence of the five geoethical tenets
is kept, a ‘zoo-politikon’ or ‘homo faber’ would probably exercise them more
effortlessly than a ‘laboran’. This
shift is simple but realistic and assigns individual responsibility (Bohle
2021) as the geoethics approach intends (Di
Capua et al. 2017).
Shared application of the adjusted
geo-philosophical concepts in the urban realm (and subsequently in
geoengineering and terraforming) is founded on the fact that all these
environments are complex-adaptive socio-ecological systems, therefore having
similar system dynamics (Bohle
2020): the emergence of new properties;
non-separable subsystems; path-dependent, non-reversible, and non-linear
development with no final solution; failing of engineering like
command-and-control management. Consequently, generic policy choices apply in
various circumstances, although they may guide diverse practices (Bohle
and Marone 2022).
The focus on a stable abiotic
environment is the feature that indicates terraforming is for urbanites, as
studies of SF literature have already revealed (Heise
2016).
The ideas expressed by the notions 'experiencing
anthropogenic global change', 'experimenting with global change', 'ecomodernism'/'geoengineering',
and 'terraforming' describe a suite of concepts about engineering at a
planetary scale, which finds its essential root in ‘building and operating
urban realms’. Hence, terraforming is a variant of geoengineering Anthropocene(s),
and the urban realm is its central feature. Therefore, geo-philosophical (e.g., geoethical)
descriptions of contemporary societies/humans interacting with planet Earth
also apply to humans in terraformed realms.
[*] “the maintenance of planetary habitability is a property
more associated with an unusually rapid evolution of biological regulation of
surface volatiles than with the luminosity and distance to the host star”.
[p.8]
Abrunhosa M, Chambel
A, Peppoloni S, Chaminé HI (2021) Advances in Geoethics and Groundwater
Management : Theory and Practice for a Sustainable Development. Springer
International Publishing, Cham
Alahuhta J, Tukiainen
H, Toivanen M, et al (2022) Acknowledging geodiversity in safeguarding
biodiversity and human health. Lancet Planet Heal 6:e987–e992.
https://doi.org/10.1016/S2542-5196(22)00259-5
Arendt H (1958) The
Human Condition. The University of Chicago Press, Chicago
Asafu-Adjaye J,
Blomqvist L, Brand S, et al (2015) An Ecomodernist Manifesto. Oakl Breakthr
Inst 31
Bauer P, Thorpe A,
Brunet G (2015) The quiet revolution of numerical weather prediction. Nature
525:47–55. https://doi.org/10.1038/nature14956
Beech M (2021)
Terraforming Mars: A Cabinet of Curiosities. In: Terraforming Mars. Wiley, pp
415–465
Biggs R, Vos A de,
Preiser R, et al (2021) The Routledge Handbook of Research Methods for
Social-Ecological Systems. Routledge, London
Bohle M (2020)
Geo-Societal Sense-Making. Geol Soc London, Spec Publ SP508-2019–213. https://doi.org/10.1144/SP508-2019-213
Bohle M (2021)
Citizen, Geoscientist and Associated Terra-former. In: Mercantanti L, Montes S
(eds) Global Threats in the Anthropocene: From COVID-19 to the Future, Il
Sileno. Il Sileno Edizioni, Lago, pp 169–186
Bohle M, Marone E
(2021) Geo-societal Narratives - Contextualising Geosciences. Springer
International Publishing, Cham
Bohle M, Marone E
(2019) Humanistic Geosciences and the Planetary Human Niche. In: Bohle M (ed)
Exploring Geoethics. Springer International Publishing, Cham, pp 137–164
Bohle M, Marone E
(2022) Phronesis at the Human-Earth Nexus: Managed Retreat. Front Polit Sci
4:1–13. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpos.2022.819930
Bohle M, Peppoloni S,
Marone E (2020) Viewing Earth and World through the geoethical lens. Hum.
Futur. 28–29
Bohle M, Preiser R, Di
Capua G, et al (2019) Exploring Geoethics - Ethical Implications, Societal
Contexts, and Professional Obligations of the Geosciences. Springer
International Publishing, Cham
Bohle M, Sibilla A,
Casals I Graells R (2017) A Concept of Society-Earth-Centric Narratives. Ann
Geophys 60:. https://doi.org/10.4401/ag-7358
Chopra A, Lineweaver
CH (2016) The Case for a Gaian Bottleneck: The Biology of Habitability.
Astrobiology 16:7–22. https://doi.org/10.1089/ast.2015.1387
Di Capua G, Bobrowsky
PT, Kieffer SW, Palinkas C (2021) Introduction: geoethics goes beyond the
geoscience profession. Geol Soc London, Spec Publ SP508-2020–191.
https://doi.org/10.1144/SP508-2020-191
Di Capua G, Peppoloni
S, Bobrowsky P (2017) The Cape Town Statement on Geoethics. Ann Geophys 60:1–6.
https://doi.org/10.4401/ag-7553
Dickinson R (2021) The
harsh truth about terraforming. Phys Today 74:10–10.
https://doi.org/10.1063/PT.3.4891
Donges JF, Lucht W,
Müller-Hansen F, Steffen W (2017) The technosphere in Earth System analysis: A
coevolutionary perspective. Anthr Rev 4:23–33.
https://doi.org/10.1177/2053019616676608
Ellis EC, Mehrabi Z
(2019) Half Earth: promises, pitfalls, and prospects of dedicating Half of
Earth’s land to conservation. Curr Opin Environ Sustain 38:22–30.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cosust.2019.04.008
Frodeman R (2014)
Hermeneutics in the Field: The Philosophy of Geology. In: Babich B, Ginev D
(eds) The Multidimensionality of Hermeneutic Phenomenology. Contributions to
Phenomenology. Springer, Cham, pp 69–79
Fuentes A (2017) Human
niche, human behaviour, human nature. Interface Focus 7:20160136.
https://doi.org/10.1098/rsfs.2016.0136
Grinspoon D (2016)
Earth in Human Hands: Shaping our Planet’s Future. Hachette Book Group, New
York
Hamilton C (2017)
Defiant Earth - The Fate of Humans in the Anthropocene. Wiley, Polity Press,
Cambridge
Heise UK (2016)
Terraforming for Urbanists. Novel 49:10–25.
https://doi.org/10.1215/00295132-3458181
Herrero-Jáuregui C,
Arnaiz-Schmitz C, Reyes M, et al (2018) What do We Talk about When We Talk
about Social-Ecological Systems? A Literature Review. Sustainability 10:2950.
https://doi.org/10.3390/su10082950
Klosterwill KJ (2021)
In what style should we terraform? Geoengineering, planetary gardening and the
creation of flourishing ecologies of practice. J Landsc Archit 16:66–75.
https://doi.org/10.1080/18626033.2021.2046775
Langmuir C, Broecker W
(2012) How to build a habitable planet? Princeton University Press, Princeton
Lenton TM, van Oijen M
(2002) Gaia as a complex adaptive system. Philos Trans R Soc London Ser B Biol
Sci 357:683–695. https://doi.org/10.1098/rstb.2001.1014
Lewis SL, Maslin MA
(2018) The Human Planet - How We Created the Anthropocene. Penguin Random
House, London
Lovelock J. (1979)
Gaia. A New Look at Life on Earth. Oxford University Press
Lynch P (2008) The
origins of computer weather prediction and climate modeling. J Comput Phys
227:3431–3444. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcp.2007.02.034
Meiske M (2021) Die
Geburt des Geoengineerings : Großbauprojekte in
der Frühphase des Anthropozäns. Wallstein Verlag, Göttingen
Möller I (2023) The
Emergence of Geoengineering. Cambridge University Press
Morton O (2015) The
Planet Remade - How Geoengineering could Change the World. Princeton University
Press
Otto IM, Wiedermann M,
Cremades R, et al (2020) Human agency in the Anthropocene. Ecol Econ
167:106463. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2019.106463
Peppoloni S, Di Capua
G (2022) Geoethics: Manifesto for an Ethics of Responsibility Towards the
Earth. Springer International Publishing, Cham
Preiser R, Biggs R, De
Vos A, Folke C (2018) Social-ecological systems as complex adaptive systems:
organising principles for advancing research methods and approaches. Ecol Soc
23:art46. https://doi.org/10.5751/ES-10558-230446
Renn J (2020) The
Evolution of Knowledge - Rethinking Science for the Anthropocene. Princeton
University Press, Oxford, UK
Renn J (2018) The
Evolution of Knowledge: Rethinking Science in the Anthropocene. HoST - J Hist
Sci Technol 12:1–22. https://doi.org/10.2478/host-2018-0001
Robinson KS (2012)
2312. Hachette Book Group, New York
Rosol C, Nelson S,
Renn J (2017) Introduction: In the machine room of the Anthropocene. Anthr Rev
4:2–8. https://doi.org/10.1177/2053019617701165
Sagan C (1973)
Planetary engineering on Mars. Icarus 20:513–514.
https://doi.org/10.1016/0019-1035(73)90026-2
Schoon M, van der
Leeuw S (2015) The shift toward social-ecological systems perspectives:
insights into the human-nature relationship. Natures Sci Sociétés 23:166–174.
https://doi.org/10.1051/nss/2015034
Steffen W (2022) The
Earth System, the Great Acceleration and the Anthropocene. In: Sustainability
and the New Economics. Springer International Publishing, Cham, pp 15–32
Steffen W, Rockström
J, Richardson K, et al (2018) Trajectories of the Earth System in the
Anthropocene. Proc Natl Acad Sci 115:8252–8259.
https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1810141115
Szerszynski B (2017)
Viewing the technosphere in an interplanetary light. Anthr Rev 4:92–102.
https://doi.org/10.1177/2053019616670676
Thomas JA (ed) (2022)
Altered Earth. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK
United Nations (2014)
World’s population increasingly urban with more than half living in urban
areas. http://www.un.org/en/development/desa/news/population/world-urbanization-prospects-2014.html.
Accessed 28 Jul 2016
Wilson EO (2016)
Half-Earth -our planet’s fight for life. Liveright Publishing Corporation
Witze A (2018) Attack
of the extreme floods. Nature 555:156–158. https://doi.org/10.1038/d41586-018-02745-0
Xu C, Kohler TA,
Lenton TM, et al (2020) Future of the human climate niche. Proc Natl Acad Sci
117:11350–11355. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1910114117
