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.

 

Fifteen statements in times of pandemics, the Anthropocene [*]

Within geosciences, the label geoethics refers to a school of thought that uses established philosophical concepts to promote responsible professional practices. Initially, geoscientists developed geoethics as an intra-disciplinary field of applied philosophical studies during the last decade. Geoethics reaching beyond the sphere of professional geosciences led to professional, cultural, and philosophical approaches to handle the social-ecological structures of our planet 'wherever human activities interact with the Earth system'; hence, when making the Anthropocene.

1. Although initially designed for professional use, geoethics should support citizens' individual, professional and civic dealings. Nowadays, the technosphere is a vital feature of the contemporary Earth System (or 'human niche'). In these contexts, conceptual benchmarks for geoethical thinking are needed to address i) the operational limits of aspirational stipulations and ii) a stronger socio-political and socio-economic anchorage of geoethical thinking.

2. By delivering analytical insights and resources for affective sense-making, geoethics may enable human agents to mitigate the challenges to sense-making and practices that complex-adaptive social-ecological systems pose for them.

3. Combining insights into complex-adaptive dynamics, social-ecological systems, semiotic-cultural psychology, and geoethics lead to a conceptual perspective of how geoethical practices may evolve into a societal feature.

4. Contemporary humans operate a planetary technosphere to secure their daily living. Nowadays, the technosphere is part of the Earth System. That feature is at the origin of the Anthropocene.

5. Furthermore, citizens need insight into how the Earth System works to make informed decisions. Therefore, the societal responsibility of geoscientists is central because geoscientific expertise is crucial for making anthropogenic change occur.

6. Geoethics can offer citizens cultural baselines (analytical and affective) when facing the human niche's complex-adaptive (wicked) features, such as anthropogenic pressure or participatory governance.

7. Geoethics is not geoscience-specific when promoting to act agent-centric, virtue-ethics-focused, responsibility-focused, and [geoscience] knowledge-based. Therefore, geoethics may shape societal practices beyond geoscience.

8. Geosciences are more than mere techno-scientific disciplines. Geoscience expertise ties geosciences

and people's social lives. Geosciences are relevant for the societies' functioning, namely, to operate a technosphere at local, regional and planetary scales. Therefore, geoscience expertise includes a school of philosophical thinking called geoethics.

9. Geosciences facilitate the understanding of the dynamics of social-ecological systems. Geoethics supports the sense-making of human agents, such as geoscientists acting in a professional capacity.

10. Geoscientific knowledge is a corpus of insights about the functioning of the abiotic systems of planet Earth. It enables contemporary technologies and cultures; hence, it co-shapes the technosphere. Likewise, geoscience knowledge enables people to evaluate anthropogenic changes in societal contexts, even as mere consumers of resources.

11. Geoscientists help achieve anthropogenic change and make the change global. Therefore, they are (like) assistant terra-formers. Subsequently, geoscientists should assume the responsibility that comes with their role as agents of technology-driven change. That is the essence of [geo]ethics and being a citizen.

12. The experiences with the COVID-19 health pandemic provide a lens to situate geosciences/earth-sciences in contemporary societies. The pandemic illustrates the essence of any possible Anthropocene, namely, less a geological epoch than a 'future World'.

13. The 'human niche' is a network of complex-adaptive social-ecological systems, which humans conceive and build to sustain themselves. Human sense-making and practices are intrinsic and non-separable parts of the human niche. The feedback of human sense-making and human practices is iterative. The resulting feedback loop is pivotal for the dynamics of social-ecological systems.

14. The impacts of anthropogenic change do call for strengthening the socio-political and socio-economic anchorage of geoethical thinking. Then geoethics may have societal relevance beyond geosciences.

15. The political philosophies of Bunge, Jonas and Kohlberg about people's social lives (Kohlberg, 'hierarchy of societal coordination (moral adequacy)'; Bunge, 'balance of individual happiness (well-being); Jonas,' 'imperative of responsibility for agents of change') offer foundations for a 'geo-ethical logic', namely act with: agent-centricity, virtue-focus, responsible-focus, reproducible/scientific knowledge, all-agent-inclusiveness, and universal-rights-base.

[*] drawing on: Bohle, M. (2021). A geo-ethical logic for citizens and geoscientists. Sustain. Water Resour. Manag. 7, 85. doi:10.1007/s40899-021-00557-1; Bohle, M., and Marone, E. (2021). Geoethics, a Branding for Sustainable Practices. Sustainability 13, 895. doi:10.3390/su13020895; Bohle, M., and Marone, E. (2021). Geo-societal Narratives - Contextualsing Geosciences. , eds. M. Bohle and E. Marone Cham: Springer International Publishing doi:10.1007/978-3-030-79028-8; Bohle, M. (2021). ‘Citizen, Geoscientist and Associated Terra-former’, in Global Threats in the Anthropocene: From COVID-19 to the Future, eds. L. Mercantanti and S. Montes (Il Sileno Edizioni), 169–186.; Bohle, M., and Marone, E. (2021). ‘Why Geo-societal Narratives?’, in Geo-societal Narratives (Cham: Springer International Publishing), 1–16. doi:10.1007/978-3-030-79028-8_1. ;Nagy, G. M., and Bohle, M. (2021). ‘Geo-scientific Culture and Geoethics’, in Geo-societal Narratives (Cham: Springer International Publishing), 191–199. doi:10.1007/978-3-030-79028-8_14.

Managed Retreat - or What?

 

This essay relates features of the Covid-19 health pandemic [1] to impacts of anthropogenic global change, which societies must manage within the next century [2, 3]. As an illustration, the essay discusses the retreat from ocean shorelines because of the global sea-level rise. Mutual learning may be helpful, so the conclusion of this essay.

 Introduction & Context

Industrialised production, global supply chains, and globalised societies require geoscience knowledge to function. 

Applying geosciences involves decision making with high economic, environmental, and social costs, benefits, and risks. Therefore, professional geoscientists often face circumstances like systemic uncertainty, context-dependency, path-dependency, differentials of power, or conflicting values. These features of socio-ecological systems emerge through profound intersections of natural and social realms impacting professional dealings. Therefore, geoscientists have a genuine praxis of responsible practices, although pertinent philosophical reflections within geosciences consolidated only recently.

The philosophical school ‘geoethics’ evolved within geosciences in the last decades, emphasising the importance of the intersection of both natural and social realms wherever humans interact with the Earth System. The Covid-19 health pandemic is an example of such an intersection. Therefore, it can serve as a lesson, example and test case.  

On the other side of the coin, a specific impact of climate change is forced retreat (migration) from ocean shorelines. The underpinning threat, the century-long rise of the global sea level, is scientifically evident, difficult to mitigate operationally, communicated through media, internalised through insight; and societal response requires lasting and massive cooperation.

 Governing the retreat from ocean shorelines because of rising sea levels due to global warming is one of the 21st and 22nd centuries' challenges to make a ‘good’ Anthropocene.

 

Lessons from the COVID-19 pandemic?

Any pandemic is a social-ecological system. Such systems exhibit complex-adaptive dynamics, including the emergence of counter-intuitive system behaviour. The profound challenges of the Covid-19 health pandemic arise because the economic and engineering prowess of developed societies combines tightly natural processes and cultural practices. That feature is genuine to any anthropogenic global change (e.g. global warming).

The features of the Covid-19 pandemic embed an experience of uncertainty, which is: (1) systemic, because of the complex-adaptive dynamics of the pandemic; (2) operational because action plans were missing; (3) perceptual, because any individual might fall ill seriously or, more likely, not; and (4) cognitive because many people have neither tangible experience (of the illness) nor understand the counter-intuitive dynamics of the pandemic.

The Covid-19 pandemic ruptured societal practices. For many in affluent societies, it is a unique collective experience of challenges to the preferred style of daily life and the perceptions of the likely personal future. The pandemic showed the (un)preparedness of contemporary societies to handle emergencies that cascade into their respective jurisdiction. It may be a cultural defect of contemporary (western) societies to expect a (governmental) plan. However, reacting in a context-depending learning-by-doing mode may be more appropriate because complex-adaptive dynamics of social-ecological systems require such heuristic strategies. 

Hence, the following question: what (ethically sound) principles may render heuristic strategies effective and efficient?

 

Sketching geoethics

Topical studies of the professional obligations of geoscientists led to an aspirational ethical concept called ‘geoethics’ [4]. Broadening this discipline-specific example of ‘responsible science’ lead to a philosophical framework of the societal contexts of the geosciences. Initially, geoethics scholars only envisioned professional applications. However, considering global anthropogenic change shows geoethics also is about proper governance. By design, geoethics is an instrument of empowerment to seek context-dependent solutions.

Six tenets describe geoethical practices [1, 5]: 

• agent-centricity, 
• virtue-focus, 
• responsibility-focus, 
• [scientific] knowledge-base, 
• all-actor inclusiveness, and 
• universal-rights base.

These tenets offer a method, so the implicite claim of geoethical thinking, to reach a balanced decision and guide learning and acting when facing, for example, systemic uncertainty, which in turn suggests the search for effective and efficient heuristic strategies when learning-by-doing is the only option. In its current form, geoethics is less normative than the notion geoethics may indicate; instead, it promotes ‘practical wisdom’ (phronesis). Hence, geoethical thinking might be helpful in the Covid-19 health pandemic and, alternatively, lessons from the Covid-19 health pandemic may inform geoethical practices. 

Example: Managed Retreat

Climate change will cause increased flooding of densely populated and highly productive urban and rural coastal zones. Significant regional differences and major local uncertainties will characterise the unfolding of the global phenomenon. Initially, the flooding (and forced migration) will be local.

 

For many, "retreat" will be a media-reported experience before understanding emerges that a coordinated response is required. A stepwise relocation of the population and infrastructures at a regional scale to higher grounds (behind a new line of shore defences) is needed with a hundred-year planning horizon. This process will involve many uncertainties, will be recurrent, and no unique strategy will be available.

Local retreat for example, from the shorelines of the North Sea because of high sea level, which is expected to exceed the threshold for safe shore defences in the early 22nd Century, would be a historical novum. So far, the lasting cultural response has been to rebuild settlements, protect them, and reclaim land from the sea. On the other side of the world, the options are not the same, for example in the Vanuatu archipelago (0.9 metres above sea level). Also, other island countries are at risk of being a vanishing nation, and their citizens risk Climatic Statelessness‘ refugees status [4].

    Conclusions

Retreating instead of reclaiming, hence, doing things differently will be a tremendous cultural, social, and economic challenge. Therefore, to learn from any experience - a health pandemic included -  to support [geo]ethically and scientifically sound endeavours.

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

2.        Kulp SA, Strauss BH (2019) New elevation data triple estimates of global vulnerability to sea-level rise and coastal flooding. Nat Commun 10:4844. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41467-019-12808-z

3.        Piguet E (2019) Climatic Statelessness: Risk Assessment and Policy Options. Popul Dev Rev 45:865–883. https://doi.org/10.1111/padr.12295

4.        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

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

A story of making

“Geo-societal Narratives - contextualising Geosciences.”

The drafting of the book “Geo-societal Narratives - contextualising Geosciences” [1] was a unique experience: The group of authors was assembled in late 2019 by correspondence. The outlay of the book was agreed upon in early 2020 by correspondence. The book was drafted by correspondence. No meetings, not even by video! Although the book's essays relate little to the COVID-19 pandemic, the turmoil of 2020/2021 facilitated the cooperation because it called for cooperation (Marone and Bohle, 2020). This experience recalls what in the past was named ‘Republic of Letters’ (Mokyr, 2016).

What made this book possible?

All co-authors cooperated, although they never met face-to-face, and most did never meet in the past. The co-authors' scientific networks were segregated from each other before the publication project. More than half of their connections went through the editors' weak links on (scientific) social media platforms. A simple analysis of past cooperation indicates less than two bilateral links between authors. The number drops below one when the editors are excluded from the analysis.

Hence, the willingness of all co-authors to cooperate with unknown peers as well as the trust of the publisher’s editors in this untested partnership was paramount for the making of the book.

 

What is the didactic idea of this book?

So far, geoscientists have engaged with the implications of 'responsible science' on their own. However, studying the societal relevance of geosciences requires the interaction of earth-sciences / geosciences and people-sciences, that is, the social sciences, political sciences, and humanities. Therefore, this book gathers scholars from the people-sciences to join geoscientists in studying geosciences' societal contexts. In that sense, this book offers an antithesis to simplistic views of societal geo-dynamics.

 

What is the background to this book?

Contemporary societies use geosciences know-how in business, public undertakings, and cultural activities (Bohle, 2021). In times of anthropogenic global change, geoscience expertise shall enable people to take care of seven-billion-plus fellow humans. Therefore, geoscience expertise needs a comprehensive understanding of the social and political facets of the 'human condition' (Hamilton, 2017), a ‘human planet’ (Lewis and Maslin, 2018).

So far, and like scientists from other disciplines, professional geoscientists have engaged with the concept of 'responsible science' (United Nations, 2013). This book is a cross-disciplinary exchange of narratives of various philosophical, applied, or political subjects to strengthen interdisciplinary inquiry.

 

What is this book about?

This book initiates a direct exchange between scholars in 'Earth sciences'  (geosciences) and 'People sciences'  (Castree, 2017) in the spirit^[2] of the philosopher and physicists Mario Bunge (1919-2020) and his imperative 'Enjoy life and help live'. Mario Bunge is inspiring because he taught the rebellious character of philosophy that it must be linked with the best of up-to-date science, be happy to give society something in exchange for the education getting, be tolerant regarding all authentic philosophies and rational debates among them. This book applies that philosophy is about engineering thinking, hence 'A philosophy without ontology is invertebrate; it is acephalous without epistemology, confused without semantics, and limbless without axiology, praxeology, and ethics. ^[3]'

 

What is the methodology of this book?

The editors created an environment to extract novel ideas. They gathered a diverse group of authors who, so far, did not cooperate. Ideas and opinions are juxtaposed, e.g. how to approach anthropocentrism in the Anthropocene. As sketched in the first chapter (Bohle and Marone, 2021), the emphasis was on breaking new ground in a common quest for ‘societal geosciences’.

 

References:

Bohle, M. (2021). ‘Citizen, Geoscientist and Associated Terra-former’, in Global Threats in the Anthropocene: From COVID-19 to the Future, eds. L. Mercantanti and S. Montes (Il Sileno Edizioni), 169–186.

Bohle, M., and Marone, E. (2021). ‘Why Geo-societal Narratives?’, in Geo-societal Narratives (Cham: Springer International Publishing), 1–16. doi:10.1007/978-3-030-79028-8_1.

Castree, N. (2017). Speaking for the ‘people disciplines’: Global change science and its human dimensions. Anthr. Rev. 4, 160–182. doi:10.1177/2053019617734249.

Lewis, S. L., and Maslin, M. A. (2018). The Human Planet - How We Created the Anthropocene. London: Penguin Random House.

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

Mokyr, J. (2016). Institutions and the Origins of the Great Enrichment. Atl. Econ. J. 44, 243–259. doi:10.1007/s11293-016-9496-4.

United Nations (2013). World Social Science Report 2013. , ed. UNESCO OECD Publishing doi:10.1787/9789264203419-en.

---

[1] https://www.palgrave.com/us/book/9783030790271

[2] https://a-g-i-l.de/mario-bunge-the-big-questions-come-in-bundles-not-one-at-time/ (accessed 23rd February 2021).

[3] Bunge, M. (2016) Between Two Worlds: Memoirs of a Philosopher-Scientist. Springer Biographies, Springer, 496 p. (p 406).