The ‘Anthropocene Proposal’: A Possible Quandary and A Work-Around
Abstract
:1. Introduction
2. Societal Contexts of the Geosciences
2.1. Planetary Human Agency and Anthropogenic Global Change
2.2. Planetary Human Agency and Geosciences
3. Ethical Contexts of the Geosciences and the ‘GTS Amendment’
3.1. The ‘GTS Amendment’ seen through the Lens of the ‘Geoethical Promise’
3.2. Accepting or Rejecting the ‘GTS Amendment’—An Ethical Matter
- Geoscientists have a particular societal responsibility because of the corpus of expertise that they can offer in times of anthropogenic global change, including what to do with the ‘GTS amendment’ proposal.
- Within the context of debates about scientific methodology, the competent experts (geologists including chronostratigraphers) define what ‘methodological rigour in amending the geological time scale’ requires or how scientific methods to describe the geological time scale may evolve. Within that constraint, chronostratigraphic methodologies are taken ‘as given’.
- The first is that the bodies of the IUGS agree to the ‘GTS amendment’ having also upheld the condition that the proposal meets the existing methodology to determine the International Chronostratigraphic Chart (in line with the first of the three postulates set out earlier in this essay). In this case, all six relevant statements of the ‘geoethical promise’ (I–III, IV, V and VII) would be complied with. It follows that, when seen through the lens of the ‘geoethical promise’, the decision to approve the ‘GTS amendment’ would not give rise to an ethical issue, and no further analysis would be deemed necessary.
- The second is that the bodies of the IUGS uphold the methodological rigour required for amending the International Chronostratigraphic Chart but reject the ‘GTS amendment’ because it does not meet the existing scientific methodology to determine the International Chronostratigraphic Chart. In this case, the guidance of the ‘geoethical promise’ would be split. Statements IV, V and VII (about impartiality and ‘scientific methods’) would be complied with, but statements I–III (about the societal context of the geosciences) would not be complied with. It follows that, when seen through the lens of the ‘geoethical promise’, the decision to reject the ‘GTS amendment’ would give rise to an ethical quandary, and further analysis would be needed.
4. Discussion
4.1. What Ethical Quandary would Arise from Rejecting the ‘GTS Amendment’?
4.2. What Remedy may be Found?
4.3. What Reconciliations Can Be Achieved?
5. Conclusions
Author Contributions
Funding
Acknowledgments
Conflicts of Interest
References
- Waters, C.N.; Zalasiewicz, J.; Summerhayes, C.; Barnosky, A.D.; Poirier, C.; Gauszka, A.; Cearreta, A.; Edgeworth, M.; Wolfe, A.P. The Anthropocene is functionally and stratigraphically distinct from the Holocene. Science 2016, 351, aad2622. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Finney, S.C. The ‘Anthropocene’ as a ratified unit in the ICS International Chronostratigraphic Chart: Fundamental issues that must be addressed by the Task Group. Geol. Soc. Lond. Spec. Publ. 2014, 395, 23–28. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Biermann, F. The Anthropocene: A governance perspective. Anthr. Rev. 2014, 1, 57–61. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Hamilton, C.; Bonneuil, C.; Gemenne, F. Thinking the Anthropocene. In The Anthropcene and the Environmental Crisis; Hamilton, C., Bonneuil, C., Gemenne, F., Eds.; Routledge: Abingdon-on-Thames, UK, 2015; pp. 1–13. [Google Scholar]
- Olvitt, L.L. Education in the Anthropocene: Ethico-moral dimensions and critical realist openings. J. Moral Educ. 2017, 46, 396–409. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kunnas, J. Storytelling: From the early Anthropocene to the good or the bad Anthropocene. Anthr. Rev. 2017, 4, 136–150. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Arizpe Schlosser, L. Culture, International Transactions and the Anthropocene; Brauch, H.G., Ed.; Springer: Berlin/Heidelberg, Germany, 2019; Volume 17. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Lundershausen, J.G. Marking the boundaries of stratigraphy: Is stratigraphy able and willing to define, describe and explain the Anthropocene? GEO Geogr. Environ. 2018, 5, 1–18. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Bernal, J.D. The Social Function of Science; Georg Routledge & Sons Ltd.: London, UK, 1939. [Google Scholar]
- Bohle, M.; Preiser, R.; Di Capua, G.; Peppoloni, S.; Marone, E. Exploring Geoethics—Ethical Implications, Societal Contexts, and Professional Obligations of the Geosciences; Bohle, M., Ed.; Springer International Publishing: Cham, Switzerland, 2019. [Google Scholar]
- Finney, S.C.; Edwards, L.E. The “Anthropocene” epoch: Scientific decision or political statement? GSA Today 2016, 26, 4–10. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Chin, A.; Gillson, L.; Quiring, S.M.; Nelson, D.R.; Taylor, M.P.; Vanacker, V.; Lovegrove, D. An evolving Anthropocene for science and society. Anthropocene 2016, 13, 1–3. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Sklair, L. Sleepwalking through the Anthropocene. Br. J. Sociol. 2017, 68, 775–784. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ellis, E.C. Anthropocene: A very Short Introduction; Oxford University Press: Oxford, UK, 2018. [Google Scholar]
- Hamilton, C.; Grinevald, J. Was the Anthropocene anticipated? Anthr. Rev. 2015, 2, 59–72. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Maslin, M.A.; Lewis, S.L. Anthropocene: Earth System, geological, philosophical and political paradigm shifts. Anthr. Rev. 2015, 2, 108–116. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Bohle, M. Handling of Human-Geosphere Intersections. Geosciences 2016, 6, 3. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Rull, V. What If the ‘Anthropocene’ Is Not Formalized as a New Geological Series/Epoch? Quaternary 2018, 1, 24. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Hamilton, C. Defiant Earth—The Fate of Humans in the Anthropocene; Wiley: Cambridge, UK; Polity Press: Cambridge, UK, 2017. [Google Scholar]
- Di Capua, G.; Peppoloni, S.; Bobrowsky, P. The Cape Town Statement on Geoethics. Ann. Geophys. 2017, 60, 1–6. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Bobrowsky, P.; Cronin, V.; Di Capua, G.; Kieffer, S.; Peppoloni, S. The emerging field of geoethics. In Scientific Integrity and Ethics: With Applications to the Geosciences; Gundersen, L.C., Ed.; Wiley & Sons: Hoboken, NJ, USA, 2017; pp. 175–212. [Google Scholar]
- Matteucci, R.; Gosso, G.; Peppoloni, S.; Piacente, S.; Wasowski, J.; Matteucci, R.; Wasowski, J. The “ Geoethical Promise ”: A Proposal. Ital. Fed. Earth Sci. 2014, 37, 190–191. [Google Scholar]
- Wagreich, M.; Draganits, E. Early mining and smelting lead anomalies in geological archives as potential stratigraphic markers for the base of an early Anthropocene. Anthr. Rev. 2018, 5, 177–201. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Zalasiewicz, J.; Williams, M.; Fortey, R.; Smith, A.; Barry, T.L.; Coe, A.L.; Stone, P. Stratigraphy of the Anthropocene. Philos. Trans. R. Soc. A Math. Phys. Eng. Sci. 2011, 369, 1036–1055. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Zalasiewicz, J.; Waters, C.N.; Wolfe, A.; Barnosky, A.; Cearreta, A.; Edgeworth, M.; Williams, M. Making the case for a formal Anthropocene Epoch: An analysis of ongoing critiques. Newsl. Stratigr. 2017, 50, 205–226. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Zalasiewicz, J.; Waters, C.; Summerhayes, C.; Williams, M. The Anthropocene. Geol. Today 2018, 34, 177–181. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Simon, Z.B. The limits of Anthropocene narratives. Eur. J. Soc. Theory 2018, 21, 136843101879925. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Bauer, A.M.; Ellis, E.C. The Anthropocene Divide: Obscuring Understanding of Social-Environmental Change. Curr. Anthropol. 2018, 59, 209–227. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Lorimer, J. The Anthropo-scene: A guide for the perplexed. Soc. Stud. Sci. 2017, 47, 117–142. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Edgeworth, M.; Ellis, E.C.; Gibbard, P.; Neal, C.; Ellis, M. The chronostratigraphic method is unsuitable for determining the start of the Anthropocene. Prog. Phys. Geogr. Earth Environ. 2019, 43, 030913331983167. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Bonneuil, C.; Fressoz, J.-B. L’événement Anthropocène—La Terre, L’histoire et Nous; Le Seuil: Paris, France, 2013. [Google Scholar]
- Mokyr, J. Institutions and the Origins of the Great Enrichment. Atl. Econ. J. 2016, 44, 243–259. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kopnina, H. Environmental justice and biospheric egalitarianism: Reflecting on a normative-philosophical view of human-nature relationship. Earth Perspect. 2014, 1, 8. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Simon, Z.B. Why the Anthropocene has no history: Facing the unprecedented. Anthr. Rev. 2017, 4, 239–245. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Crutzen, P.J.; Stroemer, E.F. The “Anthropocene.”. In Earth System Science in the Anthropocene; Springer: Berlin/Heidelberg, Germany, 2006; pp. 13–18. Available online: http://www.igbp.net/download/18.316f18321323470177580001401/1376383088452/NL41.pdf (accessed on 13 March 2019).
- Castree, N. Speaking for the ‘people disciplines’: Global change science and its human dimensions. Anthr. Rev. 2017, 4, 160–182. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Steffen, W.; Persson, S.; Deutsch, L.; Zalasiewicz, J.; Williams, M.; Richardson, K.; Svedin, U. The Anthropocene: From Global Change to Planetary Stewardship. AMBIO 2011, 40, 739–761. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ogden, L.; Heynen, N.; Oslender, U.; West, P.; Kassam, K.-A.; Robbins, P. Global assemblages, resilience, and Earth Stewardship in the Anthropocene. Front. Ecol. Environ. 2013, 11, 341–347. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Redman, C.L.; Miller, T.R. The Technosphere and Earth Stewardship. In Earth Stewardship; Rozzi, R., Chapin, F.S., Pickett, J.B.C.S.T.A., Power, M.E., Armesto, J.J., May, R.H.J., Eds.; Springer International Publishing: Cham, Switzerland, 2015; pp. 269–279. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Lenton, T.M.; Latour, B. Gaia 2.0. Science 2018, 361, 1066–1068. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Peppoloni, S.; Di Capua, G. Ethics. In Earth Sciences Series. Encyclopedia of Engineering Geology; Bobrowsky, P.T., Marker, B., Eds.; Springer International Publishing: Berlin, Germany, 2018. [Google Scholar]
- Bohle, M.; Nauen, C.; Marone, E. Ethics to Intersect Civic Participation and Formal Guidance. Sustainability 2019, 11, 773. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Sayre, N.F. The Politics of the Anthropogenic. Annu. Rev. Anthropol. 2012, 41, 57–70. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Haraway, D. Anthropocene, Capitalocene, Plantationocene, Chthulucene: Making Kin. Environ. Humanit. 2015, 6, 159–165. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Veland, S. Transcending Ontological Schisms in Relationships with Earth, Water, Air, and Ice. Weather Clim. Soc. 2017, 9, 607–619. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Palsson, G.; Szerszynski, B.; Sörlin, S.; Marks, J.; Avril, B.; Crumley, C.; Weehuizen, R. Reconceptualizing the ‘Anthropos’ in the Anthropocene: Integrating the social sciences and humanities in global environmental change research. Environ. Sci. Policy 2013, 28, 3–13. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Lövbrand, E.; Beck, S.; Chilvers, J.; Forsyth, T.; Hedrén, J.; Hulme, M.; Vasileiadou, E. Who speaks for the future of Earth? How critical social science can extend the conversation on the Anthropocene. Glob. Environ. Chang. 2015, 32, 211–218. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Emmett, R.; Lekan, T. (Eds.) Whose Anthropocene? Revisiting Dipesh Chakrabarty’s “Four Theses.” RCC Perspectives Transformations in Environment and Society; Rachel Carson Center for Environment and Society: München, Germany, 2016; Available online: http://www.environmentandsociety.org/perspectives/2016/2/whose-anthropocene-revisiting-dipesh-chakrabartys-four-theses (accessed on 13 March 2019).
- Autin, W.J. Multiple dichotomies of the Anthropocene. Anthr. Rev. 2016, 3, 218–230. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Rosol, C.; Nelson, S.; Renn, J. Introduction: In the machine room of the Anthropocene. Anthr. Rev. 2017, 4, 2–8. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Olsson, P.; Moore, M.-L.; Westley, F.R.; McCarthy, D.D.P. The concept of the Anthropocene as a game-changer: A new context for social innovation and transformations to sustainability. Ecol. Soc. 2017, 22, 31. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Clark, N.; Yusoff, K. Geosocial Formations and the Anthropocene. Theory Cult. Soc. 2017, 34, 3–23. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Walton, T.; Shaw, W.S. Living with the Anthropocene blues. Geoforum 2015, 60, 1–3. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ellis, E.C. Ecology in an anthropogenic biosphere. Ecol. Monogr. 2015, 85, 287–331. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Fuentes, A. The Extended Evolutionary Synthesis, Ethnography, and the Human Niche: Toward an Integrated Anthropology. Curr. Anthr. 2016, 57, S13–S26. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ruddiman, W.F. Three flaws in defining a formal ‘Anthropocene.’. Prog. Phys. Geogr. Earth Environ. 2018, 42, 451–461. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Bohle, M. Ideal-Type Narratives for Engineering a Human Niche. Geosciences 2017, 7, 18. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Gill, J.; Bullough, F. Geoscience Engagement in Global Development Frameworks. Ann. Geophys. 2017, 60. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Krausmann, F.; Wiedenhofer, D.; Lauk, C.; Haas, W.; Tanikawa, H.; Fishman, T.; Haberl, H. Global socioeconomic material stocks rise 23-fold over the 20th century and require half of annual resource use. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 2017, 114, 1880–1885. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Krausmann, F.; Erb, K.-H.; Gingrich, S.; Haberl, H.; Bondeau, A.; Gaube, V.; Searchinger, T.D. Global human appropriation of net primary production doubled in the 20th century. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 2013, 110, 10324–10329. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Reyers, B.; Folke, C.; Moore, M.-L.; Biggs, R.; Galaz, V. Social-Ecological Systems Insights for Navigating the Dynamics of the Anthropocene. Annu. Rev. Environ. Resour. 2018, 43, 267–289. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Moores, E.M. Geology and culture: A call for action. GSA Today 1997, 7, 7–11. [Google Scholar]
- Peppoloni, S.; Di Capua, G. Geoethics and geological culture: Awareness, responsibility and challenges. Ann. Geophys. 2012, 55, 335–341. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Bohle, M. Simple geoethics: An essay on daily Earth science. Geol. Soc. Lond. Spec. Publ. 2015, 419, 5–12. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Bohle, M.; Sibilla, A.; Casals, I.; Graells, R. A Concept of Society-Earth-Centric Narratives. Ann. Geophys. 2017, 60. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Phillips, J. Storytelling in Earth sciences: The eight basic plots. Earth-Sci. Rev. 2012, 115, 153–162. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kvellestad Isaksen, K. Where does Nature End and Culture Begin? Available online: http://cas.oslo.no/full-width-article/where-does-nature-end-and-culture-begin-article1830-1082.html (accessed on 7 November 2016).
- Langmuir, C.; Broecker, W. How to Build a Habitable Planet; Princton University Press: Princeton, NJ, USA, 2012. [Google Scholar]
- Purdy, J. After Nature A Politics for the Anthropocene; Havard University Press: Cambridge, MA, USA, 2015. [Google Scholar]
- Fressoz, J.-B. L’Apocalypse Joyeuse—Une Histoire du Risque Technologique; Le Seuil: Paris, France, 2012. [Google Scholar]
- Ellis, E.C. The Planet of No Return Human Resilience on an Artificial Earth. Breakthr. Inst. 2011, 2, 11–16. [Google Scholar]
- Ruddiman, W.F.; Ellis, E.C.; Kaplan, J.O.; Fuller, D.Q. Defining the epoch we live in. Science 2015, 348, 38–39. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Brown, A.G.; Tooth, S.; Bullard, J.E.; Thomas, D.S.G.; Chiverrell, R.C.; Plater, A.J.; Aalto, R. The geomorphology of the Anthropocene: Emergence, status and implications. Earth Surf. Process. Landf. 2017, 42, 71–90. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Häusler, H. Did anthropogeology anticipate the idea of the Anthropocene? Anthr. Rev. 2018, 5, 69–86. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Wysession, M.E.; LaDue, N.; Budd, D.A.; Campbell, K.; Conklin, M.; Kappel, E.; Tuddenham, P. Developing and Applying a Set of Earth Science Literacy Principles. J. Geosci. Educ. 2012, 60, 95–99. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Haff, P.K. Technology as a geological phenomenon: Implications for human well-being. Geol. Soc. Lond. Spec. Publ. 2014, 395, 301–309. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Zalasiewicz, J.; Williams, M.; Waters, C.N.; Barnosky, A.D.; Palmesino, J.; Ro nnskog, A.-S.; Wolfe, A.P. Scale and diversity of the physical technosphere: A geological perspective. Anthr. Rev. 2017, 4, 9–22. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Rosol, C.; Steininger, B.; Renn, J.; Schlögl, R. On the Age of computation in the epoch of humankind. Nat. Outlook 2018, 1–5. Available online: https://www.nature.com/articles/d42473-018-00286-8 (accessed on 13 March 2019).
- Zhang, X.; Davidson, E.A.; Mauzerall, D.L.; Searchinger, T.D.; Dumas, P.; Shen, Y. Managing nitrogen for sustainable development. Nature 2015, 528, 51. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Morseletto, P. Confronting the nitrogen challenge: Options for governance and target setting. Glob. Environ. Chang. 2019, 54, 40–49. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Campbell, B.M.; Beare, D.J.; Bennett, E.M.; Hall-Spencer, J.M.; Ingram, J.S.I.; Jaramillo, F.; Shindell, D. Agriculture production as a major driver of the Earth system exceeding planetary boundaries. Ecol. Soc. 2017, 22, 8. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Barnosky, A.D.; Hadly, E.A.; Bascompte, J.; Berlow, E.L.; Brown, J.H.; Fortelius, M.; Smith, A.B. Approaching a state shift in Earth’s biosphere. Nature 2012, 486, 52–58. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Steffen, W.; Broadgate, W.; Deutsch, L.; Gaffney, O.; Ludwig, C. The trajectory of the Anthropocene: The Great Acceleration. Anthr. Rev. 2015, 2, 81–98. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Zalasiewicz, J.; Williams, M.; Waters, C.N.; Barnosky, A.D.; Haff, P. The technofossil record of humans. Anthr. Rev. 2014, 1, 34–43. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Hamilton, C.; Bonneuil, C.; Gemenne, F. The Anthropocene and the Global Environmental Crisis: Rethinking Modernity in a New Epoch. Routledge: Abingdon, Oxon, 2015. [Google Scholar]
- Dalby, S. Framing the Anthropocene: The good, the bad and the ugly. Anthr. Rev. 2015, 3, 1–19. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Dryzek, J.S.; Pickering, J. The Politics of the Anthropocene; Oxford University Press: Oxford, UK, 2019. [Google Scholar]
- Heemskerk, E.M.; Takes, F.W. The Corporate Elite Community Structure of Global Capitalism. New Political Econ. 2016, 21, 90–118. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Moore, J.W. The Capitalocene, Part I: On the nature and origins of our ecological crisis. J. Peasant Stud. 2017, 44, 594–630. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Wright, C.; Nyberg, D.; Rickards, L.; Freund, J. Organizing in the Anthropocene. Organization 2018, 25, 455–471. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- United Nations. World Social Science Report; UNESCO, Ed.; OECD Publishing: Paris, France, 2013. [Google Scholar]
- Jonas, H. The Imperative of Responsibility; University of Chicago Press: Chicago, IL, USA, 1984. [Google Scholar]
- Murphy, C.; Gardoni, P.; Bashir, H.; Harris, C.E.; Masad, E. Engineering Ethics for a Globalized World; Murphy, E., Gardoni, C., Bashir, P., Harris, H., Masad, C.E., Eds.; Springer International Publishing: Cham, Switzerland, 2015; Volume 22. [Google Scholar]
- Haff, P.K. Humans and technology in the Anthropocene: Six rules. Anthr. Rev. 2014, 1, 126–136. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Leach, M.; Reyers, B.; Bai, X.; Brondizio, E.S.; Cook, C.; Díaz, S.; Subramanian, S.M. Equity and sustainability in the Anthropocene: A social–ecological systems perspective on their intertwined futures. Glob. Sustain. 2018, 1, e13. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Herrmann-Pillath, C. The Case for a New Discipline: Technosphere Science. Ecol. Econ. 2018, 149, 212–225. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Anshelm, J.; Hansson, A. Battling Promethean dreams and Trojan horses: Revealing the critical discourses of geoengineering. Energy Res. Soc. Sci. 2014, 2, 135–144. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Morton, O. The Planet Remade—How Geoengineering could Change the World; Princton University Press: Princeton, NJ, USA, 2015. [Google Scholar]
- Boettcher, M.; Schäfer, S. Reflecting upon 10 years of geoengineering research: Introduction to the Crutzen +10 special issue. Earth’s Future 2017, 5, 266–277. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Swyngedouw, E.; Ernstson, H. Interrupting the Anthropo-obScene: Immuno-biopolitics and Depoliticizing Ontologies in the Anthropocene. Theory Cult. Soc. 2018, 35, 3–30. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Galaz, V. Global Environmental Governance, Technology and Politics; Edward Elgar Publishing: Cheltenham, UK, 2014. [Google Scholar]
- Ellis, E.C. Why is human niche construction transforming Planet Earth? RCC Perspect. Transform. Environ. Soc. 2016, 5, 63–70. Available online: https://www.jstor.org/stable/26241405 (accessed on 13 March 2019).
- Srbulov, M. Practical Guide to Geo-Engineering; Springer: Dordrecht, The Netherlands, 2014; Volume 29. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Peppoloni, S.; Bilham, N.; Di Capua, G. Contemporary Geoethics Within the Geosciences. In Exploring Geoethics; Springer International Publishing: Cham, Switzerland, 2019; pp. 25–70. [Google Scholar]
- Steffen, W.; Richardson, K.; Rockström, J.; Cornell, S.E.; Fetzer, I.; Bennett, E.M.; Sorlin, S. Planetary boundaries: Guiding human development on a changing planet. Science 2015, 347, 1259855. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Fujita, S.; Mizuno, S.; Fujikawa, T.; Reed, A.I.; Kim, R.D.; Howard, R.J.; Hemming, A.W. Liver Transplantation From Donation After Cardiac Death: A Single Center Experience. Transplantation 2007, 84, 46–49. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Schneider, F.; Kläy, A.; Zimmermann, A.B.; Buser, T.; Ingalls, M.; Messerli, P. How can science support the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development? Four tasks to tackle the normative dimension of sustainability. Sustain. Sci. 2019, 14, 0123456789. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Bohle, M. One Realm: Thinking Geoethically and Guiding Small-Scale Fisheries? Eur. J. Dev. Res. 2019, 31, 253–270. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Gundersen, L.C.; Townsend, R. Formulating the American Geophysical Union’s Scientific Integrity and Professional Ethics Policy. In Geoethics; Wyss, M., Peppoloni, S., Eds.; Elsevier: Amsterdam, The Netherlands, 2015; pp. 83–93. [Google Scholar]
- Peppoloni, S. Spreading Geoethics through the Languages of the World. Translations of the Cape Town Statement on Geoethics; International Association for Promoting Geoethics: Rome, Italy, 2018; Available online: http://hdl.handle.net/2122/11907 (accessed on 13 March 2019).
- Bohle, M.; Ellis, E. Furthering Ethical Requirements for Applied Earth Science. Ann. Geophys. 2017, 60. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Jamieson, D. Ethics and intentional climate change. Clim. Chang. 1996, 33, 323–336. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Jax, K.; Barton, D.N.; Chan, K.M.A.; de Groot, R.; Doyle, U.; Eser, U.; Wichmann, S. Ecosystem services and ethics. Ecol. Econ. 2013, 93, 260–268. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Zylinska, J. Minimal Ethics for the Anthropocene; Open Humanities Press: London, UK, 2014. [Google Scholar]
- Nikitina, N. Geoethics: Theory, Principles, Problems; Geoinformmark Ltd.: Moscow, Russia, 2016. [Google Scholar]
- Williams, M.; Zalasiewicz, J.; Waters, C.N.; Edgeworth, M.; Bennett, C.; Barnosky, A.D.; Zhisheng, A. The Anthropocene: A conspicuous stratigraphical signal of anthropogenic changes in production and consumption across the biosphere. Earth’s Future 2016, 4, 34–53. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Zalasiewicz, J.; Waters, C.N.; Summerhayes, C.P.; Wolfe, A.P.; Barnosky, A.D.; Cearreta, A.; Williams, M. The Working Group on the Anthropocene: Summary of evidence and interim recommendations. Anthropocene 2017, 19, 55–60. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Engels, F.; Marx, K. Ludwig Feuerbach und der Ausgang der Klassischen Deutschen Philosophie. In Marx-Engels Werke; Dietz Verlag Berlin: Berlin, Germany, 1969; Volume 3, Available online: http://www.mlwerke.de/me/me03/me03_533.htm (accessed on 4 January 2019).
- Walker, M.; Johnsen, S.; Rasmussen, S.O.; Popp, T.; Steffensen, J.-P.; Gibbard, P.; Schwander, J. Formal definition and dating of the GSSP (Global Stratotype Section and Point) for the base of the Holocene using the Greenland NGRIP ice core, and selected auxiliary records. J. Quat. Sci. 2009, 24, 3–17. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Bjornerud, M. Timefulness—How Thinking like a Geologist Can Help to Save the World; Princeton University Press: Princeton, NJ, USA, 2018. [Google Scholar]
- Rull, V. The “Anthropocene”: Neglects, misconceptions, and possible futures. EMBO Rep. 2017, 18, 1056–1060. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Smith, B.D.; Zeder, M.A. The onset of the Anthropocene. Anthropocene 2013, 4, 8–13. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Bohle, M. Recording the Onset of the Anthropocene. In Engineering Geology for Society and Territory; Springer International Publishing: Cham, Switzerland, 2014; Volume 7, pp. 161–163. [Google Scholar]
- Richter, D.; de Bacon, A.R.; Brecheisen, Z.; Mobley, M.L. Soil in the Anthropocene. In Proceedings of the IOP Conference Series: Earth and Environmental Science, Elche, Spain, 29 June–1 July 2015; Volume 25, p. 012010. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Zalasiewicz, J.; Waters, C.N.; Ivar do Sul, J.A.; Corcoran, P.L.; Barnosky, A.D.; Cearreta, A.; Yonan, Y. The geological cycle of plastics and their use as a stratigraphic indicator of the Anthropocene. Anthropocene 2016, 13, 4–17. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Waters, C.N.; Zalasiewicz, J.; Summerhayes, C.; Fairchild, I.J.; Rose, N.L.; Loader, N.J.; Edgeworth, M. Global Boundary Stratotype Section and Point (GSSP) for the Anthropocene Series: Where and how to look for potential candidates. Earth-Sci. Rev. 2018, 178, 379–429. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Barry, A.; Maslin, M. The politics of the anthropocene: A dialogue. Geo Geogr. Environ. 2016, 3, e00022. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Foley, S.F.; Gronenborn, D.; Andreae, M.O.; Kadereit, J.W.; Esper, J.; Scholz, D.; Crutzen, P.J. The Palaeoanthropocene—The beginnings of anthropogenic environmental change. Anthropocene 2013, 3, 83–88. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Tarolli, P.; Sofia, G.; CAO, W. The Geomorphology of the Human Age. In Encyclopedia of the Anthropocene; Elsevier: Amsterdam, The Netherlands, 2018; pp. 35–43. [Google Scholar]
- Tarolli, P.; Cao, W.; Sofia, G.; Evans, D.; Ellis, E.C. From features to fingerprints: A general diagnostic framework for anthropogenic geomorphology. Prog. Phys. Geogr. Earth Environ. 2019, 43, 95–128. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Corlett, R.T. The Anthropocene concept in ecology and conservation. Trends Ecol. Evol. 2015, 30, 36–41. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Braje, T.J. The Anthropocene as Process: Why We Should View the State of the World through a Deep Historical Lens. Rev. De Estud. E Pesqui. Avançadas Do Terc. Set. 2018, 1, 04. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Raworth, K. A Doughnut for the Anthropocene: Humanity’s compass in the 21st century. Lancet Planet. Health 2017, 1, e48–e49. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Statements Made in the ’Geoethical Promise’ | …When Applied to the ’GTS Amendment’ Proposal. |
---|---|
(I) … I will practice geosciences being fully aware of the societal implications, and I will do my best for the protection of the Earth system for the benefit of humankind. | …then these statements could be interpreted as calling for geoscientists (and others) to be aware of ongoing anthropogenic global change, giving this awareness the highest priority. Scientifically naming the contemporary times the ‘Anthropocene’ would raise awareness to promote sustainable development. |
(II) … I understand my responsibilities towards society, future generations and the Earth for sustainable development. | |
(III) … I will put the interest of society foremost in my work. | |
(IV) … I will never misuse my geoscience knowledge, resisting constraint or coercion. | …then these statements call on geoscientists to be uncompromising vis-à-vis third-party requests regarding the application of geoscience knowledge and methodology. |
(V) … I will always be ready to provide my professional assistance when needed, and I will be impartial in making my expertise available to decision makers. | |
(VI) … I will continue the lifelong development of my geoscientific knowledge. | |
(VII) … I will always maintain intellectual honesty in my work, being aware of the limits of my competencies and skills. | …then this statement calls for truthfulness in applying geoscience knowledge and methodology. |
(VIII) … I will act to foster progress in the geosciences, the sharing of geoscientific knowledge, and the dissemination of the geoethical approach. | |
(IX) … I will always be fully respectful of Earth processes in my work as a geoscientist. |
© 2019 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
Share and Cite
Bohle, M.; Bilham, N. The ‘Anthropocene Proposal’: A Possible Quandary and A Work-Around. Quaternary 2019, 2, 19. https://doi.org/10.3390/quat2020019
Bohle M, Bilham N. The ‘Anthropocene Proposal’: A Possible Quandary and A Work-Around. Quaternary. 2019; 2(2):19. https://doi.org/10.3390/quat2020019
Chicago/Turabian StyleBohle, Martin, and Nic Bilham. 2019. "The ‘Anthropocene Proposal’: A Possible Quandary and A Work-Around" Quaternary 2, no. 2: 19. https://doi.org/10.3390/quat2020019