An Anthropocene Epoch, Event?

In 2000 Crutzen and Stroemer (2000) proposed the concept of a new geological epoch the Anthropocene (C/S-proposal), following the Holocene. The core of the C/S-proposal is the end of a period of climatic homeostasis, the Holocene.

Specifying the Anthropocene as a geological event within the Holocene instead of an epoch introduced at the end of the Geological Time Scale is a geoethical problem. The geoscience communities appear exposed to such an alternative (Bauer et al. 2021).

The current ‘event vs epoch’ quandary implies different geo-philosophical perspectives and has societal repercussions. The scientific foundation of the two alternative geological concepts of an Anthropocene is comparable. Differences arise in how interpreting the science to conceive the respective concept.

Whether conceiving the Anthropocene as an event occurring during the Holocene or as a geological epoch following the Holocene is an assessment of more than geoscientific matters. It is a borderline problem (Renn 2020) from which a particular topic emerges: (1) whether to prioritise a scientific notion (e.g., the geological epoch Anthropocene) because it is scientifically sound and facilitates political and cultural change; or (2) whether to prioritise a scientific notion (e.g., the geological event Anthropocene) because it is scientifically sound and facilitates scientific cooperation. A quandary emerges if both prioritisations are juxtaposed as alternatives, and choosing the preferred geoscientific concept implies valuing extra-scientific matters.

The geoscience communities could sidestep the emerging geoethical problem if the juxtaposition of ‘facilitating political and cultural change’ versus ‘facilitating scientific cooperation’ is avoided, and both societal benefits (valued non-geoscientific matters) could both be obtained. A suggestion to this end is made, namely ending the Geological Time Scale in the historical past. Subsequently, the most recent epoch of the geological past, as described by the Geological Time Scale, the Holocene, would end. This feature would correspond to the initial C/S-proposal, and the AWG findings might specify the Holocene's end date. The geological concept of an event of anthropogenic global change (Anthropocene event) would apply within the Holocene to illustrate how human activity influenced the dynamics of planet Earth. The geological present (informally or formally) named Anthropocene would be understood as disjunct from the geological past.

Hence, a choice seems to be up for the (geological) community, namely, between an Anthropocene event plus the end of the Geological Time Scale (in the historical past) or an Anthropocene epoch for the most recent part of an open-ended Geological Time Scale. Both choices would conform to what a (philosophical) notion ‘Anthropocene’ could label, namely “debate and discussion within and beyond science about human impact of the Earth System, which is the true paradigm shift in our thinking.“ (Maslin and Lewis 2015;  p.7).

Bauer AM, Edgeworth M, Edwards LE, et al (2021) Anthropocene: event or epoch? Nature 597:332–332. https://doi.org/10.1038/d41586-021-02448-z
Crutzen PJ, Stroemer EF (2000) The “Anthropocene.” Glob Chang Newsl 41:17–18
Renn J (2020) The Evolution of Knowledge - Rethinking Science for the Anthropocene. Princeton University Press, Oxford, UK
Maslin MA, Lewis SL (2015) Anthropocene: Earth System, geological, philosophical and political paradigm shifts. Anthr Rev 2:108–116. https://doi.org/10.1177/2053019615588791

Cape Town Geoethics– A Problem Statement

Martin Bohle, Dr. és sc.
ResearchGate D-4508-2014
- International Association for Promoting Geoethics (IAPG)
- Ronin Research Scholar @edgeryders; Member of EGU, AGU
- recent publication: Geo-societal Narratives - Contextualising Geosciences 

Recent research into the societal context of geosciences led modern geo-philosophical frameworks to guide professionals and citizens when interacting with World and Planet Earth.  These frameworks combine insights into societal and geoscientific features of the World and Earth into a joint knowledge system (Bohle et al., 2020). Hence, how they are constructed is paramount.

Introduction

Geo-philosophical frameworks are epistemic problems at the borderline of different knowledge domains (Renn, 2020).  Generally, these frameworks often are tacit about their philosophical foundations, exceptions apart (Frodeman, 2003; Marone and Bohle, 2020).  This silence is disadvantageous because the particular philosophical foundation determines how societal practices are understood when shaping the Human-Earth Nexus, the bundle of planet Earth, a planetary technosphere, and a hegemonic culture (Haff, 2014; Lemmens et al., 2017; Rosol et al., 2017; Dyer-Witheford, 2018; Dryzek and Pickering, 2019).  

Various modern geo-philosophical frameworks inspect the Human-Earth Nexus; see, for example (Zen, 1993; Peppoloni and Di Capua, 2012; Frodeman, 2014; Cherkashin and Sklyanova, 2016; Nikitina, 2016; Di Capua et al., 2017; Bohle, 2020).  These frameworks differ by an epistemic foundation in modern Earth System Literacy from earlier frameworks like noosphere (Vernadsky, 1945; Oldfield and Shaw, 2006; Korobova and Romanov, 2014) or Gaia (Lovelock J., 1979; Lovelock, 1990; Lenton and Van Oijen, 2002; Onori and Visconti, 2012).

The modern geo-philosophical frameworks apply, at least implicitly, realist-materialist epistemologies to understand geoscientific features (Bunge, 2006; Marone et al., 2019). Other epistemological concepts for geo-philosophical frameworks like hermeneutic phenomenology exist (Raab and Frodeman, 2002; Frodeman, 2014).  Hence, geo-philosophical frameworks are distinguished by their epistemic foundation and the specific philosophical foundations, which refer to insights into societal features and normative settings.  

Example: Cape Town Geoethics

The following illustrative description looks into the school of geo-philosophical frameworks called ‘geoethics’ because the author is familiar with it.  The analysis starts with a variant of geoethics, which was summarised in the Cape Town Statement on Geoethics (Di Capua et al., 2017) at the occasion of the 35^th International Geological Congress and detailed in 2019 (Peppoloni et al., 2019); hence, for the following, this variant is called ‘Cape Town Geoethics’.

Among the notions that label modern geo-philosophical frameworks, geoethics stands out, despite the term having different connotations (Bohle and Marone, 2021b).  As an emergent moral philosophy, geoethics was defined (Peppoloni and Di Capua, 2015b; p.4) as “research and reflection on the values which underpin appropriate behaviours and practices, wherever human activities interact with the Earth system”.  Summarising the state-of-the-art of this school of thought, Peppoloni et al. (2019) describe Cape Town Geoethics as an aspirational virtue-ethics for the individual human agent acting at the Human-Earth Nexus.  Potthast (2021) defines geoethics as an epistemic-moral hybrid, and Peppoloni and Di Capua (2021a; p. 20) qualify an updated variant of Cape Town Geoethics as a “modern virtue-ethics”.  The Cape Town Geoethics and later variants are founded on (implicit) Kantian moral philosophies (Marone and Bohle, 2020).

Emerging within geology (Lambert, 2012), geoethics was an intra-disciplinary endeavour (Peppoloni, 2012a, 2012b; Peppoloni and Di Capua, 2015a, 2015b) striving for responsible geosciences (Manduca and Mogk, 2006; Mogk, 2018).  Although neighbouring fields such as environmental ethics (Yannacone, 1999; Martínez-Frías, 2008; Hourdequin, 2015), similar constructs in geosciences (Frodeman, 2003) and other disciplines (Forbes and Lindquist, 2000; Lynn, 2000; Cutchin, 2002; Kirby and Houle, 2004; Jennings et al., 2009), and open issues (Bohle and Di Capua, 2019) are known, these sources like general studies in ethics (see for example (Callahan and Engelhardt, 1981; Shearman, 1990; Han, 2015)) were not much explored.

Although the vastness of fields related to geoethics may be frightening, likely significant contributions are missed when staying ‘parochial’, as illustrated by the following example.  As designed from the onset (Peppoloni and Di Capua, 2012), Cape Town Geoethics should enable ethically sound operational practices of geoscientists depending on environmental, social and cultural settings.  Hence, geoethical practices aim at comparative Justice and pluralism of sound choices.  This idea of Justice is well-established (Sen, 2010), of which, however, those who pursue developing geoethics (the author included) have not been adequately and early aware.

Such experience of parochial circumstances motivated some authors to seek interdisciplinary exposure and study the philosophical foundations of Cape Town (Bohle et al., 2019; Marone and Marone, 2019; Marone and Bohle, 2020; Bohle and Marone, 2021a).  In due course of study, it became apparent that Cape Town Geoethics has a compound design and shows conceptual discontinuities.  For example, insights into the functioning of the Earth System (Earth Science Literacy) are gained by implementing realist-materialist philosophies.  However, the geoethical practice of comparative Justice is founded on aspirational norms, which implement subjectivist-idealist moral philosophies.  Consequently, the geo-philosophical framework underpinning Cape Town Geoethics is hybrid, and it is exceeding the realm of a realist-materialist scientific epistemology (Bunge, 2006).  

 Acknowledging the compound design of Cape Town Geoethics led to the understanding that variants are possible on the same epistemic foundation in Earth Science Literacy.  Conceptually, alternatives of the Cape Town Geoethics can be constructed by choosing a specific philosophy for insights into societal features and normative settings.  Hence, Cape Town Geoethics is one of several geo-philosophical frameworks (epistemic-moral hybrids).  Subsequently, the authors explored variants by using Kohlberg’s, Jonas’, and Bunge’s political philosophies to account more explicitly for societal features (Marone and Bohle, 2020), such as the level of cooperation (Kohlberg, 1981), the responsibility of agents of change (Jonas, 1984), and the balance of individual wellbeing and duty (Bunge, 1989).  

Several valuable features characterise Cape Town Geoethics, its predecessors and variants, which, however, may need examination:

• First, the autonomy of the human agent is the pivotal tenet of any variant of Cape Town Geoethics, most explicit for the variant envisioning ecological humanism (Peppoloni and Di Capua, 2020; p.17).  The concept of autonomy of the human agent encapsulates the moral core of geoethics, applying a subjectivist-idealist philosophy for normative settings.  However, human autonomy is limited in any societal reality.  Human autonomy is contextual and not ‘categorial’ (e.g. Kantian; see (Marone and Bohle, 2020)).  For example, differentials of power, voice, sense-making skills, group pressure or access to resources (knowledge included) limit human autonomy.  Thus, free will or free agency would be bounded, if not precluded.  Therefore, this pivotal tenet of the geo-philosophical framework ‘geoethics’ needs deeper examination.

• Second, diverging practices emerge when responsible and ethically sound choices depend on environmental, social and cultural settings, which are given.  Such ‘operational pluralism’ or ‘functional plasticity’ is a central design feature of geoethics, acknowledging, for example for Cape Town Geoethics, that choices “taken in a specific social and cultural setting, that respect the ethical norms of this setting, may appear unethical elsewhere” (Peppoloni et al., 2019; p.30). This feature is essential to handle the diversity of circumstances at the Human-Earth Nexus, and therefore, it should be kept while also acknowledging the partial autonomy of human agents.

• Third, comparative Justice and operational pluralism are essential in any geo-philosophical framework for agents acting at the Human-Earth Nexus.  However, it exposes the human agent to high decision-loads and requires adjusting messages to audiences and circumstances.  Under these complex conditions (see (Sen, 2010)), aspirational norms give only limited guidance because these norms are categorical and independent of the agent, circumstance and audience. For example, the acclamations of the Geoethical Promise (Matteucci et al., 2014), such as “I will never misuse my geoscience knowledge, resisting constraint or coercion”, are praiseworthy. However, the question arises, how they can be applied given challenging circumstances of partial autonomy of human agents?

Conclusion

None of the current variants of geoethics (Cape Town Geoethics, its predecessors and variants) examined the impact of the limited autonomy (also understood as limited free agency) of human agents and related features.   This lacuna should be addressed within the general operational structure of the Cape Town Geoethics. Methodologically it could be done by enlarging its foundations with specific political and moral philosophies, which apply a realist-materialist scientific epistemology (Bunge, 2006) to understand the societal fabric.

 

Bohle, M. (2020). Geo-Societal Sense-Making. Geol. Soc. London, Spec. Publ., SP508-2019–213. doi:10.1144/SP508-2019-213.

Bohle, M., and Di Capua, G. (2019). ‘Setting the Scene’, in Exploring Geoethics, ed. M. Bohle (Cham: Springer International Publishing), 1–24. doi:10.1007/978-3-030-12010-8_1.

Bohle, M., and Marone, E. (2021a). Geo-societal Narratives - Contextualising Geosciences. , eds. M. Bohle and E. Marone Cham: Springer International Publishing doi:10.1007/978-3-030-79028-8.

Bohle, M., and Marone, E. (2021b). Geoethics, a Branding for Sustainable Practices. Sustainability 13, 895. doi:10.3390/su13020895.

Bohle, M., Nauen, C. E., and Marone, E. (2019). Ethics to Intersect Civic Participation and Formal Guidance. Sustainability 11, 773. doi:10.3390/su11030773.

Bohle, M., Peppoloni, S., and Di Capua, G. (2020). Viewing Earth and World through the geoethical lens. Hum. Futur., 28–29.

Bunge, M. A. (1989). Treaties on Basic Philosophy -Ethics: The Good and The Right. Dordrecht: D. Reidel Publishing Company.

Bunge, M. A. (2006). Chasing Reality. Toronto St. Toronto: University of Toronto Press doi:10.3138/9781442672857.

Callahan, D., and Engelhardt, H. T. (1981). The Roots of Ethics. , eds. D. Callahan and H. T. Engelhardt Boston, MA: Springer US doi:10.1007/978-1-4613-3303-6.

Cherkashin, A. K., and Sklyanova, I. P. (2016). The manifestation of the principles of geoecological ethics: Environmental approach. Geogr. Nat. Resour. 37, 271–280. doi:10.1134/S1875372816030112.

Cutchin, M. P. (2002). Ethics and geography: continuity and emerging syntheses. Prog. Hum. Geogr. 26, 656–664. doi:10.1191/0309132502ph393pr.

Di Capua, G., Peppoloni, S., and Bobrowsky, P. (2017). The Cape Town Statement on Geoethics. Ann. Geophys. 60, 1–6. doi:10.4401/ag-7553.

Dryzek, J. S., and Pickering, J. (2019). The politics of the Anthropocene. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Dyer-Witheford, N. (2018). ‘Struggles in the Planet Factory: Class Composition and Global Warming’, in Interrogating the Anthropocene (Cham: Springer International Publishing), 75–103. doi:10.1007/978-3-319-78747-3_2.

Forbes, W., and Lindquist, C. (2000). Philosophical, Professional, and Environmental Ethics An Overview for Foresters. J. For. 98, 4–10.

Frodeman, R. (2003). Geo-Logic: Breaking Ground Between Philosophy and the Earth Sciences. Albany: State University of New York Press.

Frodeman, R. (2014). ‘Hermeneutics in the Field: The Philosophy of Geology’, in The Multidimensionality of Hermeneutic Phenomenology. Contributions to Phenomenology, eds. B. Babich and D. Ginev (Cham: Springer), 69–79. doi:10.1007/978-3-319-01707-5_5.

Haff, P. K. (2014). Humans and technology in the Anthropocene: Six rules. Anthr. Rev. 1, 126–136. doi:10.1177/2053019614530575.

Han, H. (2015). Virtue Ethics, Positive Psychology, and a New Model of Science and Engineering Ethics Education. Sci. Eng. Ethics 21, 441–460. doi:10.1007/s11948-014-9539-7.

Hourdequin, M. (2015). Environmental Ethics - from Theory to Practice. London, UK: Bloomsbury Publishing Ülc.

Jennings, B., Heltne, P., and Kintzelle, K. (2009). Principles of Water Ethics. Minding Nat., 25–28.

Jonas, H. (1984). The Imperative of Responsibility: In Search of Ethics for the Technological Age. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Kirby, K., and Houle, F. A. (2004). Ethics and the Welfare of the Physics Profession. Phys. Today 57, 42–46. doi:10.1063/1.1839376.

Kohlberg, L. (1981). The Philosophy of Moral Development: Moral Stages and the Idea of Justice. San Francisco: Harber & Row.

Korobova, E., and Romanov, S. (2014). Ecogeochemical exploration of noosphere in light of ideas of V.I. Vernadsky. J. Geochemical Explor. 147, 58–64. doi:10.1016/j.gexplo.2014.01.024.

Lambert, I. B. (2012). Geoethics: a perspective from Australia. Ann. Geophys. 55. doi:10.4401/ag-5556.

Lemmens, P., Blok, V., and Zwier, J. (2017). Toward a Terrestrial Turn in Philosophy of Technology. Techné Res. Philos. Technol. 21, 114–126. doi:10.5840/techne2017212/363.

Lenton, T. M., and Van Oijen, M. (2002). Gaia as a complex adaptive system. Philos. Trans. R. Soc. B Biol. Sci. doi:10.1098/rstb.2001.1014.

Lovelock J. (1979). Gaia. A New Look at Life on Earth. Oxford University Press.

Lovelock, J. E. (1990). Hands up for the Gaia hypothesis. Nature 344, 100–102. doi:10.1038/344100a0.

Lynn, W. S. (2000). Geoethics: Ethics, Geography and Moral Understanding.

Manduca, C. A., and Mogk, D. W. (2006). Earth and Mind: How Geologists Think and Learn about the Earth. Boulder, Colorado: Geological Society of America doi:10.1130/SPE413.

Marone, E., and Bohle, M. (2020). Geoethics for Nudging Human Practices in Times of Pandemics. Sustainability 12, 7271. doi:10.3390/su12187271.

Marone, E., and Marone, L. (2019). ‘Ethical Dimensions of Ocean Governance’, in The Future of Ocean Governance and Capacity Development, eds. D. Werle, P. R. Boudreau, M. R. Brooks, M. J. A. Butler, A. Charles, S. Coffen-Smout, et al. (Brill | Nijhoff), 34–39. doi:10.1163/9789004380271_008.

Marone, L., Lopez de Casenave, J., and González del Solar, R. (2019). The synthetic thesis of truth helps mitigate the “reproducibility crisis” and is an inspiration for predictive ecology. Humanit. J. Valparaiso, 363–376. doi:10.22370/rhv2019iss14pp363-376.

Martínez-Frías, J. (2008). Geoethics: Proposal of a geosciences-oriented formal definition and future planetary perspectives. 1. Available at: http://tierra.rediris.es/documentos/Geoethics_Tierra_Network_2008.pdf.

Matteucci, R., Gosso, G., Peppoloni, S., Piacente, S., Wasowski, J., Matteucci, R., et al. (2014). The “ Geoethical Promise ”: A Proposal. Ital. Fed. Earth Sci. 37, 190–191.

Mogk, D. (2018). Geoethics and Professionalism: The Responsible Conduct of Scientists. Ann. Geophys. 60. doi:10.4401/AG-7584.

Nikitina, N. (2016). Geoethics: Theory, Principles, Problems. Geoinformmark Ltd. Moscow.

Oldfield, J. D., and Shaw, D. J. B. (2006). V.I. Vernadsky and the noosphere concept: Russian understandings of society–nature interaction. Geoforum 37, 145–154. doi:10.1016/j.geoforum.2005.01.004.

Onori, L., and Visconti, G. (2012). The GAIA theory: From Lovelock to Margulis. from a homeostatic to a cognitive autopoietic worldview. Rend. Lincei 23. doi:10.1007/s12210-012-0187-z.

Peppoloni, S. (2012a). Ethical and cultural value of the Earth sciences. Interview with Prof. Giulio Giorello. Ann. Geophys. 55. doi:10.4401/ag-5755.

Peppoloni, S. (2012b). Social aspects of the Earth sciences Interview with Prof . Franco Ferrarotti. doi:10.4401/ag-5632.

Peppoloni, S., Bilham, N., and Di Capua, G. (2019). ‘Contemporary Geoethics Within the Geosciences’, in Exploring Geoethics (Cham: Springer International Publishing), 25–70. doi:10.1007/978-3-030-12010-8_2.

Peppoloni, S., and Di Capua, G. (2012). Geoethics and geological culture: Awareness, responsibility and challenges. Ann. Geophys. 55, 335–341. doi:10.4401/ag-6099.

Peppoloni, S., and Di Capua, G. (2015a). Geoethics, the role and responsibility of geoscientists. Lyell Coll. , ed. Peppoloni S. and Di Capua G. London: Geological Society of London doi:10.1144/SP419.0.

Peppoloni, S., and Di Capua, G. (2015b). ‘The Meaning of Geoethics’, in Geoethics, ed. Wyss M. and Peppoloni S. (Elsevier), 3–14. doi:10.1016/B978-0-12-799935-7.00001-0.

Peppoloni, S., and Di Capua, G. (2020). Geoethics as global ethics to face grand challenges for humanity. Geol. Soc. London, Spec. Publ., SP508-2020–146. doi:10.1144/SP508-2020-146.

Peppoloni, S., and Di Capua, G. (2021). ‘Current Definition and Vision of Geoethics’, in Geo-societal Narratives (Cham: Springer International Publishing), 17–28. doi:10.1007/978-3-030-79028-8_2.

Potthast, T. (2021). ‘Geosciences and Geoethics in Transition: Research Perspectives from Ethics and Philosophy of Science—A Commentary’, in Geo-societal Narratives (Cham: Springer International Publishing), 213–216. doi:10.1007/978-3-030-79028-8_16.

Raab, T., and Frodeman, R. (2002). What is it like to be a geologist? A phenomenology of geology and its epistemological implications. Philos. Geogr. doi:10.1088/0022-3719/14/26/011.

Renn, J. (2020). The Evolution of Knowledge - Rethinking Science for the Anthropocene. Oxford, UK: Princeton University Press.

Rosol, C., Nelson, S., and Renn, J. (2017). Introduction: In the machine room of the Anthropocene. Anthr. Rev. 4, 2–8. doi:10.1177/2053019617701165.

Sen, A. (2010). The idea of Justice. London, UK: Penguin Books.

Shearman, R. (1990). The meaning and ethics of sustainability. Environ. Manage. 14, 1–8. doi:10.1007/BF02394014.

Vernadsky, W. I. (1945). The Biosphere and the Noösphere. Am. Sci. 33, 1–12.

Yannacone, V. J. (1999). Science, Ethics, and Scientific Ethics in the Modern World. Environ. Geosci. 6, 164–171. doi:10.1046/j.1526-0984.1999.64002.x.

Zen, E.-A. (1993). The Citizen-Geologist. GSA Today 3, 2–3.