Introduction*
Throughout
their history humans developed their skills to alter their
environments and nowadays it is obvious that they are altering Earth.
So far, this kind of ' human geo-biosphere intersections' was
collateral to the human activities, which are undertaken to
appropriate resources or to shape the environment in view of
world-views and preferences. Thus anthropogenic global change is a
composite societal and natural process at a planetary scale, which
includes attributes of the geo-biosphere and artefacts of the
noosphere [1 - 5].
The
noosphere is understood to be the ensemble of shared mental concepts,
such as social, cultural or political insights of people and their
interactions [6:130]. Understanding the features of the noosphere
belongs to scholarly disciplines summarized as "humanities".
With
the aim of describing the composite of human geo-biosphere
intersections that characterize the Anthropocene, this essay proposes
the notion ‘geo-humanities' and presents some aspects of its scope.
In such a synthesis (‘geo-humanities'), the natural sciences
contribute to understanding the abiotic and biotic processes, which
determine earth-systems dynamics. The humanities contribute to
understanding how people interact given their subjective
characteristics, which are expressed as world-views, culture, values,
preferences, etc. [7
-10].
Observations: Scope of geo-humanities
The
scope of matters that could be gathered into a corpus of “of
geo-humanities may be derived from the purpose that a respective
scholarly subject should address [11 - 15]. We propose as outset,
four goals: i) the particular knowledge about the functioning of the
intersections of geosphere and noosphere, ii) the societal and
individual intentions how to handle these intersections, and iii) the
ethical choices how to intersect in a particular manner; [from 30]:
Managing Knowledge
Many
people may not recognize how geoscience know-how mediate the
interaction of human activities and processes in the geosphere
because that know-how is part of habitual experiences, common sense,
general education or specific vocational training. Nevertheless,
societies abundantly apply geosciences for their economic activities,
e.g. the features of rock, soil, water and air is essential for the
production of many goods. Craftsmen, technicians, architects, and
engineers apply geoscience know-how when engineering environments or
creating artefacts, e.g. extraction of minerals, the laying
foundations for buildings, or managing floodplains. Geoscience
know-how makes the engineering works (transport systems, energy
systems, dwellings, agriculture, waste treatment,
etc.) dovetailing the
economic activities and geosphere. Likewise, maintaining living
conditions and individual well-being requires geoscience know-how,
e.g. ventilation, evacuation of excess water, controlling pollution
from combustion engines, or maintaining radio connections when solar
storms hit the Earth.
Among
people's "works", engineering has the peculiarity to be the
intended a value-driven change of environments with the purpose to
facilitate production and reproduction. To that end, for example,
engineering includes the building of infrastructures like shore
defences, which visibly interact with the geosphere. Likewise,
engineering includes designing production systems, urban dwellings
and consumption patterns that firmly but invisibly couple human
activity with the geosphere through cycles of matter and energy. Last
but not least, engineering is about how people arrange the
appropriation of living and non-living resources from the
environment. Thus, intrinsically engineering is about value systems,
cultural choices and lifestyles because it reflects the societal
choices of people.
At
present times, the production and consumption pattern of humankind
causes fluxes of matter that modify Earth-system dynamics. The notion
Anthropocene captures this feature and conveys the message that the
development paths of humankind's history and natural earth-systems
intersect. Therefore to understand global processes, know-how of
social sciences, humanities and natural sciences have to be
synthesized. The link from the noosphere to the geosphere is provided
by insights on how people collectively pursue their economic
activities with the purpose to maintain their well-being, mutual
care-taking, reproduction, and interaction. Through their "works"
people couple humankind's activities to the geosphere. The particular
manner how these 'works' are conceived, designed, built and
maintained depends on people's world-views, culture, values, and
preferences.
Understanding
anthropogenic global change is a demanding process that has to handle
multifaceted content. Understanding and addressing the problem of
stratospheric ozone depletion has taught a first lesson on this. The
impact of increased UV-radiation because of a depleted ozone layer in
the stratosphere was quite easy to conceptualize, as there were
observed and reported effects ranging from increased mutation rates
to abandoning sunbathing on Australian beaches. Likewise addressing a
solution through some quite limited technological changes was
relatively easy. As later experiences with climate change processes
confirmed, the cause-effect relations of the human geosphere
intersections are difficult to determine, even in hind-cast. The
processes are non-linear, networked having positive and negative
feedbacks. Such systems exhibit chaotic dynamics that show a behavior
that is difficult to forecast. Notwithstanding this difficulty, when
human geosphere intersections get altered, then some forecasting
skills will be needed.
Shaping Intentions
The
interactions of people in the noosphere are of diverse nature and
form, e.g. of technical, economic, social, cultural, artistic nature,
and of public, collective or individual form. Furthermore, these
people-people interactions are both loaded with worldviews and
preferences, and purposefully shape personal and shared views and
coordinate actors. Thus, the making of the Anthropocene is as much a
‘mental' process in the noosphere, as it results from the
‘material' intersection of humankind's activities and the
bio-geosphere. In that context, civil engineering and applied
geosciences are the human activities that shape the “Commons” of
the Anthropocene, and thus their implementation is prescribed by how
these activities are intended in the noosphere.
During
the last centuries, the scholarly studies records show both, the
appraisal of human works and concern of the state of flora and fauna
impacted by these works. The scholarly study records includes tales
how to master hostile conditions, description of processes (in the
noosphere), how skills developed, and accounts of deplorable
intersections of human activities with the biosphere. Following an
extended period of admiration for human prowess to intervene into
biosphere and geosphere, today anthropogenic global change is part of
a widespread perception of ‘an endangered state of the globe'. That
change of opinion began during the previous century with concerns
about the state of the biosphere. It was perceived as endangered at
the regional scale by industrial pollution, the inherent risk of
chemical or nuclear technologies, or losses of species. Similar
concerns about the biosphere were also voiced in the 18th and 19th
century at local scale when industrialization started. Nowadays,
people worry about the implications for their lifestyle and
well-being, and also they wonder how 'to better design' human
interventions into biosphere and geosphere.
Justifying Choices
The
manner how the debate on climate change is evolving shows that this
debate is about world-views. Specialists, decision makers, and people
ponder what hypotheses, theories or facts are. It is discussed how to
handle uncertainty or hazards or whether to consider benefits for
other people, in the past or for future generations.
When
making choices people are driven by both, their world-views and
preferences and their insights into societal, technical or natural
processes. Within that context, the attitude of people towards risk,
uncertainties, perception of facts and theories is very different.
People's choices are subjective and vary with the context, e.g.
whether the own person, the relatives, or the own group is concerned,
or whether an action is immediate, has happened, or will happen in
the future. Going beyond concerns like 'whether it is functioning',
people intuitively tend to opt for what they consider as 'right' or
'worth' in the context of their individual world-view. When people
are debating opportunities, changes or risks then much of the debate
is about 'virtue' and what course of action is 'worthwhile' to take.
Anthropogenic
global change is loaded with implicit societal issues (ethical
dilemmas) to an unprecedented level because of the impact on all
people. Among these issues there will be conflicting values, uneven
distribution of risks, impacts, losses, and benefits, or collateral
impacts including exposure to unexpected side-effects. The
side-effects may range from challenging individual lifestyles to
compromising basic needs. Nowadays the altering of human geosphere
intersections is an intentional act or an act of intended negligence.
Thus ethics of risk-taking, managing uncertainties or revising
options will be needed in a context of applied geoscience.
People
need insights into how the intersection of human activity and
geosphere function to make these intersections work. The Anthropocene
brings these insights to the centre of people's lifestyles. The
degree of understanding "how to build a habitable planet"
may vary depending on the paradigm. Notwithstanding the different
degree or form of people's insight, they have to acknowledge both,
the existence of human geosphere intersections and the challenges
that their alteration at planetary scale implies.
The
non-linearity of process at human geosphere intersections renders
design, implementation, and operation of change processes
challenging; Further, a non-intended and counter-intuitive system
behaviour is likely to manifest, and with that the societies have to
cope. In the past when societal or environmental problems could not
have been tackled successfully then emigration was an option.
Evidently, leaving Earth is not an option. However, 'internal
migration' to avoid the regional impact of the anthropogenic global
change is an option that already is depicted by some as an emerging
feature of world-politics. That dimension of “non-escape”
sharpens the issues of anthropogenic global change.
Discussion
Our
species has acquired the power to engineer planet Earth. However,
even if many people may not take notice of the processes and
phenomena that characterize the intersections of human activity and
geosphere, the anthropogenic global change is subject to the human
value-systems, which underpin people's world-views and preferences.
People can tackle anthropogenic global change as part of their
world-views and preferences only if insights into human geosphere
intersections become integrated into their interactions in the
noosphere; e.g. reflecting people's lifestyle, preferences, values,
and world-views. To that end, the practitioners, professionals, and
researchers who understand how intersections of human activity and
geosphere function have to share their insights and have to show how
value-loaded are the interventions into human geosphere
intersections. For any 'culture', the particular issues of 'altering
Planet Earth' require that people have insights into the functioning
of the human geosphere intersections. Thus for 'altering planet
Earth', reliable insights provided by humanities and social sciences
are needed, which have to enlarge sound scientific, engineering,
technical and economic knowledge that was accumulated during the last
decades. Such an enlarged body of knowledge could settle under the
notion of "geo-humanities".
*Summary
of our (R. Casals i Graells, A. Sibilla, M. Bohle*) presentation “Why
Geo-Humanities”
(poster 1300) at EGU
General Assembly (Vienna
17-22 April 2016), session: “Geoethics:
theoretical and practical aspects from research integrity to
relationships between geosciences and society”; * European Commission, DG RTD / Corresponding Citizen Scientist – IAPG (Rome), orcid.org/0000-0002-8794-5810, ResearchGate: D-4508-2014; Disclaimer: For the lawyers, this are my views and not of my employer.
[1]
Bonneuil, C.; Fressoz, J.-B. L’événement Anthropocène - La
terre, l'histoire et nous; Le Seuil, 2013.
[2]
Braje, T. J.; Erlandson, J. M. Looking forward, looking back: Humans,
anthropogenic change, and the Anthropocene. Anthropocene 2013, 4,
116–121 DOI: 10.1016/j.ancene.2014.05.002.
[3]
Ellis, Erle C. “Ecology in an Anthropogenic Biosphere.”
Ecological
Monographs
85 (3) 2015.:
287–331. doi:10.1890/14-2274.1.
[4]
Monastersky, R. The Human Age. Nature 2015, 519 (7542), 144–147
DOI: 10.1038/519144a.
[5]
Waters, C. N., Zalasiewicz, J., Summerhayes, C., Barnosky, A. D.,
Poirier, C., Galuszka, A., Cearreta, A., Edgeworth, M., Ellis, E. C.,
Ellis, M., et al. “The
Anthropocene is functionally and stratigraphically distinct from the
Holocene.” Science
(80)
2016,
351
(6269), aad2622–1 – aad2622–10 DOI: 10.1126/science.aad2622.
[6]
Deutsch D. The
Beginning of Infinity – Explanations that Transform the World;
Allen Lane 2012.
ISBN:
978-0-141-96969-5 [page 130: “people
consist of abstract information, including the distinctive ideas,
theories, intentions, feelings and other state of mind that
characterize an 'I'
“]
[7]
Palsson, G.; Szerszynski, B.; Sörlin, S.; Marks, J.; Avril, B.;
Crumley, C.; Hackmann, H.; Holm, P.; Ingram, J.; Kirman, A.; et al.
Reconceptualizing the “Anthropos” in the Anthropocene:
Integrating the Social Sciences and Humanities in Global
Environmental Change Research. Environ. Sci. Policy 2012, 1–11 DOI:
10.1016/j.envsci.2012.11.004.
[8]
Wilson, E. O. The meaning of human Existence; W.W. Norton &
Company New York, 2014.
[9]
Latour, Bruno. 2015. “Fifty Shades of Green.” Environmental
Humanities
7: 219–225. doi:10.1126/science.269.5220.31.
http://environmentalhumanities.org/archives/vol7/.
[10]
Hamilton, Clive, Christophe Bonneuil, and Francois Gemenne. 2015. The
Anthropocene and the Global Environmental Crisis.
Routledge.
[11]
Hulme, Mike. 2011. “Meet the Humanities.” Nature
Climate Change
1 (4) (June 26): 177–179. doi:10.1038/nclimate1150.
http://www.nature.com/doifinder/10.1038/nclimate1150.
[12]
Fressoz, J.-B. L’Apocalypse joyeuse - Une histoire du risque
technologique; Le Seuil, 2012.
[13]
Hamilton, C. Bonneuil, Ch. Gemenne, F. “Thinking
the Anthropocene.” in Hamilton, C. Bonneuil, Ch. Gemenne (eds.)
The
Anthropocene and the Environmental Crisi 2015,
Routledge, ISBN:978-1-138-82123-8
[14]
Bai, Xuemei, Sander van der Leeuw, Karen O’Brien, Frans Berkhout,
Frank Biermann, Eduardo S. Brondizio, Christophe Cudennec, et al.
2015. “Plausible and Desirable Futures in the Anthropocene: A New
Research Agenda.” Global
Environmental Change
(October). doi:10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2015.09.017.
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0959378015300546.
[15]
Brondizio, Eduardo S., Karen O’Brien, Xuemei Bai, Frank Biermann,
Will Steffen, Frans Berkhout, Christophe Cudennec, et al. 2016.
“Re-Conceptualizing the Anthropocene: A Call for Collaboration.”
Global
Environmental Change
(March). doi:10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2016.02.006.
http://linkinghub.elsevier.com/retrieve/pii/S0959378016300176.
[16]
Bohle, Martin. “Handling of Human-Geosphere Intersections.”
Geosciences
6 (1): doi:10.3390/geosciences6010003.
http://www.mdpi.com/2076-3263/6/1/3.
