The ‘geoethical rational’ [*], namely, to act ‘actor-centric, virtue-ethics focused,
responsibility focused, knowledge-based, all-actor-inclusive, and universal-rights
based’ calls upon geoscientists, so I argue in this essay, to engage in
geo-societal future-studies. Holistic studies of the future of the
First Step-stone
Being human ‘in any Anthropocene’ is conceding that people collectively act
at pair with natural geo-processes; because of their number, their
technological prowess and the affluence of many. Depending on the ‘political
spin’ that a given human actor embraces – stewardship or geoengineering of the
human niche, for example – a peculiar geo-societal narrative is spun about the technological
deployments that shall support production and consumption as well as
well-being, societal changes and environmental alterations.
Second Step-stone
Deployment of technology-based systems is how
societies interact with natural systems. Any deployment is two-sided; it is by
installing technological hardware and narratives (software) about social,
societal and economic purpose. Although any deployment poses geo-scientific and
geo-technological challenges, they are economic, societal and cultural endeavours
about the desirable design of a sustainable human niche. Therefore, they need
to be assessed holistically given the individual and societal concerns,
economic and environmental choices as well as philosophical conceptions of the
world, human histories and human futures.
Calling on Practice
Examples of geoscience-related future-oriented assessment
are several; such as abatement of acid rain, mitigation of stratospheric
ozone-depletion, regulation of mining at the seabed or integrated assessments
of climate change pathways. Lead by climate studies; Earth System Sciences
illustrates that anthropogenic global change is as much a cultural theme then a
geoscience theme [1]–[3]. Such experiences show that to handle anthropogenic
global change, that is, to build the human niche, requires transversal insights,
which stem from natural-science disciplines and the disciplines of societal
sciences/humanities. Such transversal insights enable citizenries to alter the
cultural, social and physical processes that shape the interaction of the
various natural and human-made parts of the Earth system; at local, regional
and global scales.
Why Future is an Issue
When comparing time-scales, the swift geo-processes of
the ‘geological present’ such as warming of the atmosphere and rise of the
global sea-level shape a ‘later human future’. Such disparate scales hamper
sense-making of the present. Therefore, to aspire intergenerational justice geoscientists
should study comprehensively possible future configurations of the Earth System;
that is, futures of the networked bio-, geo-, techno- and societal-cultural systems.
Summarising, suchlike ‘political’ geosciences would be
the holistic theory and study of societal-, techno- and geosystems of the past,
present and future. The geo-engineer,
the geo-steward and citizens all need ‘political geosciences’ to argue their particular
case of ‘human niche building’.
[*] Meaning of categories of the Geoethical Rationale
|
Category
|
Meaning of the Category
|
|
|
actor-centric
|
To apply a normative framework
that invests (empowerment) an individual /group to act to their best
understanding in the face of given circumstances, opportunities and purposes;
|
|
|
virtue-ethics focused
|
A corpus of personal traits
(honesty, integrity, transparency, reliability, or spirit of sharing,
cooperation, reciprocity) of an individual/group that furthers operational
(handling of things) and social (handling of people) capabilities of the
individual/group;
|
|
|
responsibility focused
|
The outcome of a normative call
(internal, external) upon an individual /group that frames decisions/acts in
terms of accountability, as well for the intended effects as for unintended
consequences and implications for future generations;
|
|
|
Knowledge-based
|
In the first and foremost
instance, (geosciences / Earth system) knowledge acquired by scientific
methods; experience-based (‘indigenous/traditional) knowledge is a secondary
instance; reproducibility of knowledge by third parties supports any claim of
trustworthiness instead of allusion to faith or ‘authorities’;
|
|
|
All-actor inclusive
|
Achieve a practice of a ‘shared
social licence to operate’ between various individuals/groups by mitigating
differentials of power, voice etc. using participatory processes and capacity
building;
|
|
|
Universal-rights based
|
Guide affective and rational
sense-making of individuals/groups by universal human rights (life, liberty,
justice) to strengthen secondary normative constructs such as utilitarian,
sustainability or precautionary principles;
|
|
[1] B. C. O’Neill et al., “The roads
ahead: Narratives for shared socioeconomic pathways describing world futures in
the 21st century,” Glob. Environ. Chang., vol. 42, pp. 169–180, Jan.
2017.
[2] L. M. Pereira, T. Hichert, M. Hamann,
R. Preiser, and R. Biggs, “Using futures methods to create transformative
spaces: visions of a good Anthropocene in southern Africa,” Ecol. Soc.,
vol. 23, no. 1, p. art19, 2018.
[3] C. Schill et al., “A more
dynamic understanding of human behaviour for the Anthropocene,” Nat. Sustain., Nov. 2019.
