Introduction
In the first instance, geoethics emerged as an intra-disciplinary endeavour in responsible geosciences. During the last few years, geoethics’ scope expanded [1] [2]. Therefore, my study programme aggregates insights from other disciplines, iteratively reconstructs geo-philosophical enquiries, and consolidates philosophical foundations.
How the practice and theory of ‘comparative Justice’ [a] emerged in geoethical studies illustrates this learning programme:· From early on [3], the practice of ‘comparative Justice’ characterised geoethical thinking. For example, the ‘Cape Town Statement on Geoethics’ (2106) stressed that ethically sound operational practices depend on the respective environmental, social and cultural settings [4], or worded differently, “a strong awareness of the technical, environmental, economic, cultural and political limits existing in different socio-ecological contexts” [b]. The Indian Economist, Philosopher, and Nobelist Armatya Sen investigated the Rawlsian theory of ‘Justice as Fairness’ in the book ‘The Idea of Justice’ [5], published in 2010, showing why ethically just choices “taken in a specific social and cultural setting, that respect the ethical norms of this setting, may appear unethical elsewhere”, to quote scholars in geoethics [6] (p.30). Hence, from the onset, geoethics advocated pluralism of ethically sound choices (i.e., comparative Justice). However, those (the author included) who pursue developing geoethical thinking only recently noticed essential philosophical studies supporting this approach.
This experience illustrates that interdisciplinary and comparative study could further geo-philosophical enquiries, including geoethics. In the following, this exploration is extended, venturing into the field of the theory of the history of science.
Problem Statement
Part One
In recent years, it became clear (for me) that geoethics is a notion in plural. It could be schematised like this:
geoscientific
topic + philosophical insight = geophilosophical enquiry
Subsequently, the enquiries could be written as a mathematical ‘set’: {GT i; PI j} =
{GPE i,j}.
Considering that for a given geo-philosophical appraisal the geoscientific topics and philosophical insights likely are composites the description of a geophilosophical appraisal should be
{ {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.
Example:
To illustrate why to pursue this quest to schematise geoethics: The Global Boundary Stratotype Section and Point (GSSP) of the
Ediacaran period [c] is a unique geoscientific feature. How to rule sampling this site for research purposes?
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?
Part Two
In the first instance, a conceptual description of all geophilosophical enquiries “GE i;j” may appear of little practical value for responsible geosciences. However, the recent development of geoethical thinking raises the stakes. Initially, professional experiences led geoscientists to put together epistemic-moral hybrids [11], e.g. The Cape Town Statement on Geoethics [4], a relatively regular program of responsible sciences [12]. Then, combining geosciences and political philosophies more comprehensively, geo-philosophical assessments of human practices as part of the Earth System emerged [1] [2].
Hence, geoethical thinking addresses more general subjects than the responsible conduct of geoscience professionals [9] [10]. The respective geo-philosophical enquiries assess the Human-Earth Nexus by amalgamating insights into (a) the dynamics of the Earth System; (b) socio-historical features of human societies; (c) philosophical appraisals of socio-political choices.
Given such a complex geo-societal application context of geoethical thinking, understanding the general nature of geo-philosophical appraisals is needed. Again, the issue arises: What systemic description of geo-philosophical enquiries is possible?
A partial Remedy – An Exploration
Drawing on the experience made with the concept of ‘comparative Justice’, a systemic approach to describe geo-philosophical enquiries are likely found outside geosciences. I discovered an approach in J. Renn’s book “The Evolution of Knowledge – Rethinking Science for the Anthropocene” [13].
Scholars of the History of Science recently developed a theory of the Evolution of Knowledge [13] [14] [15]. When applying this thery to societies experiencing anthropogenic global change, they discern the concept of an ergosphere to depict the essence of the Human-Earth Nexus:
“With 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, in addition to the lithosphere, the hydrosphere, the atmosphere, and the biosphere, thus changing the overall dynamics of the system.“ [15] [p. 7].
When studying the theory of the Evolution of Knowledge from a Geoethics perspective, it results that the respective study subjects overlap, and subsequently, there is potential to transfer concepts and notions.
In the following, the interest is in transfer from the History of Science to enrich geo-philosophical enquiries, i.e., geoethical studies. Several concepts/notions seem applicable for a systemic description of geo-philosophical appraisals because they offer general concepts/notions for assessing human practices. In particular, the three following concepts, ‘borderline problem’, ‘economy of knowledge’, and ‘external representation’ are of interest because [13]
- (i) a ‘borderline problem’ is defined as “problems that belong to multiple distinct systems of knowledge. Borderline problems put these systems into contact… (and sometimes into direct conflict) with each other, potentially triggering their integration and reorganisation” [p.427];
- (ii) an ‘economy of knowledge’ is defined as “societal processes pertaining to the production, preservation, accumulation, circulation, and appropriation of knowledge mediated by its external representation” [p.429];
- (iii) an ‘external representation’ is defined as “any aspect of the material culture or environment of a society that may serve as an encoding of knowledge” [p.224].
I like to argue: A given geo-philosophical enquiry, “GE i,j” describes a specific borderline problem that links a geoscientific topic and a philosophical insight. The subsequent appraisal shall be into (a) the economy of knowledge associated with the borderline problem, looking into (b) societal processes and (c) external representations mediating the knowledge.
The geoethical issues of hydrology [16], including recent events [e] ‘encoding’ the associated knowledge [17], illustrate the power of these generic concepts/notions (borderline problem, economy of knowledge, and external representation) from the History of Science. Although the notions are pretty general, the concepts are intuitive and provide structure to geo-philosophical enquiries. The least intuitive notion might relate to the concept of ‘external representation’ because it englobes anything with a material side that is shaping how society ‘records’ knowledge for use and practices. In this sense, and as examples, the Cap Town Statement on Geoethics [4] and the geoethics sessions at the EGU General Assembly are external representations of geoethics.
Conclusion
Taking a geo-philosophical perspective means, per se, specifying a borderline problem, an economy of knowledge, and an external representation. Subsequently, J. Renn’s (and coworkers) theory of the Evolution of Knowledge [13] offers a methodology to standardise geo-philosophical enquiries, namely studying:
- · What is the given Borderline Problem?
- · What is the given Economy of Knowledge?
- · What is the given External Representation?
To illustrate the application of this study programme: When studying GSSP sites, Finney and Hilario conclude [10]:
“These international geostandards [GSSPs] are an essential part of the geological heritage of the world and therefore they should be included whenever possible in national or regional geosite or natural monument inventories to ensure their protection. They also represent a great educational and even touristic resource for local communities, as exemplified by the Basque Coast UNESCO Global Geopark”.
The authors sketch in these two phrases the geoethical borderline problem (GSSP as protected sites), the economy of knowledge (scientific, educational and touristic resources), and external representation (national inventories, UNESCO Global Geopark). Using the initial ‘schematic’ notation, the Finney and Hilario geophilosophical appraisal can be specified as:
geoscientific topic "GSSP"
+
philosophical insights "rules for protection national heritage”.
Further research will show how practical the concepts of borderline problem, the economy of knowledge, and external representation will be for geophilosophical appraisals.
Acknowledgement: This text is an extended abstract of the accepted contribution EGU23-1024 to the EGU General Assembly 2023 (Vienna);
https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-egu23-1204
[a] https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/justice/#CompVersNonCompJust
[b] http://www.geoethics.org/definition
[c] The bronze disk in the lower section of the picture below,
Ediacara, South Australia. Ediacaran Global Boundary Stratotype Section and Point - Wikipedia; By Peter Neaum at English Wikipedia, CC BY-SA 3.0, https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?curid=12030107
[d] Examples for destructive sampling: https://www.nature.com/articles/ngeo2572/figures/1
[e] See, for example, the 1st Congress on Geoethics and Groundwater Management (GEOETH&GWM'20), Porto - Portugal 2020
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
No comments:
Post a Comment