Learning in the Anthropocene

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

An interesting and well-researched article, but I do have a few suggestions. First, the title: There seems to be very little content about "learning" in the article, so what do you mean with "learning"? Children suddenly appear in the conclusions but before that learning seems to refer to a lack of specific knowledge and acceptance of the writer's opinion that SRM, large-scale carbon capture and nuclear will be the solutions to the climate crisis. How does "learning" relate to politics and policies? And to science for that matter? I suggest explaining what you mean with the concept of learning, and consider perhaps a better title.

The article covers a wide range of issues, but rather than offering the facile solutions of SRM, carbon capture and more nuclear energy, I would prefer more openness to a larger variety of solutions (this is mentioned at some point) and more focus on how science communication could be improved in order to facilitate "learning" (and perhaps action) about solutions for the effects of the Anthropocene.

Here now are some linguistic and more localized errors to correct:

line 24: what does "this" refer to?

line 43: moving with their feet: do you mean: voting with their feet and moving in ...?

lines 57, 80, 216, 266, 371, 411: take out "that"

line 59: Vuuren & Stehfest need to be added to bibliography

line 88: particularly

line 129-132: Becoming an interplanetary species in the future is a strange reason for humanity's responsibility for stewardship of this earth.

133 add "it" before "is"

139: capitalist in singular

197 US President

202 in lieu of

207: environmentally

234-242: this seems like a strange paragraph, what is StarTrek doing here?

246: couple in singular

286: instead of Nordic, do you mean: of the Northern Hemisphere?

294-95 large scale carbon capture is not just a political issue, but also and economical one, as Elizabeth Kolbert admits, even though she is very in favor of it (Under a White Sky, 2021, page 164).

404 overshoot

437 faces.

 

Author Response

First, I would like to express my gratitude for your insightful and detailed feedback on my article. In response, I have removed some of the more polarizing language in the article (including the reference to Plukrose & Linsday) and tried to make the connection to learning more explicit by early on referencing the work of Jason Kawall on “Information and Virtue in the Anthropocene”. Furthermore, I have revised the language in line with your suggestions.

Regarding “learning”, your feedback made me realize the need to stress that the article is about socio-political learning, i.e. how we as a society can learn about environmental realities and whether or not we are really moving in the right direction with regard to long-term sustainability.

Moreover, thanks for bringing up the role of science communication which is clearly at the centre of many of these issues. However, given the limited possible scope of the article, I am not sure how I will be able to make justice to that much bigger aspect, in particular in relation to Education for Sustainable Development (ESD). 

Reviewer 2 Report

The author(s) of „Learning in the Anthropocene“offers a well-written discussion of implications of politico-philosophical alternatives of low-/high-energy transition into human futures. The patterns of thoughts around either a ‘precautionary’ or ‘ecomodernist’ development path are the discussion items. The issue of a ‘shifting baseline’ is enriching the debate. The conclusion is favourable for an ‘ecomodernist’ development path.

The reader, interested by the title, finds an abstract that refers little to learning, but saying “the necessary learning may end up being both epistemologically and politically difficult”. In the bulk of the paper, reference to learning is limited to two statements like “learning about Anthropocene environmental realities and possible remedies would always be immensely difficult.” This summary statement may be correct but does not match the expectations triggered by the title.

This paper is a failure if ‘learning in the Anthropocene’ is the subject. However, if eclipsing the title, the paper offers an attractive, detailed - although partisan – discussion of two politico-philosophical alternatives ( low-/high-energy futures.).

The claim made in the abstract, “This paper explores the problem of finding indicators suitable for measuring progress towards meaningful climate action and the restoration of an ecologically vibrant planet.”, is not met in the bulk of the paper. Notwithstanding [see line 314], that rightly “indicators for sustainability cannot be understood apart from their ideological foundations”, the authors seem to miss that indicators need to reflect the material world (e.g. go beyond ideological foundation) and that indicators need to support falsification because otherwise, only little learning seems possible.

Publication of the paper in the present form is not advisable. The intelligent reader can be exposed to partisan views, but the author(s) should be explicit about it. The misleading title should be replaced. Maybe using a title like “A partisan leaning in the Anthropocene” can tackle these issues. The phrasing used when referring to indicators should be modified to reflect that the political (partisan) framing of indicators is discussed.

Author Response

Thanks for your feedback on my article. I have tried to tone down some of the “partisan views” that you seem to refer to, including removing the paragraph with the reference to Plukrose & Linsday. I have also inserted a new reference to Jason Kawall’s work on “Information and Virtue in the Anthropocene” and made a number of clarifications to better spell out what I mean with “learning” in the manuscript.

Reviewer 3 Report

The authors present well the state of the research on anthropocene and climate change as well as the debates surrounding it. However, the language is sometimes obscure. Short and clear sentences could add to the quality of the paper. Acronyms should be spelled out when used for the first time in the paper.

Author Response

Thanks for your feedback. I have revised the language of the manuscript with the help of a native speaker and ensured that all acronyms are spelled out.