Culture, International Transactions and the Anthropocene

Schlosser, Lourdes Arizpe

doi:10.1007/978-3-642-41602-6

Cited by 5 publications

(2 citation statements)

References 0 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…However, to name the unfolding times of anthropogenic global change the 'Anthropocene' is also a systemic statement about the 'human condition'. When understood in that sense, the proposed re-naming of contemporary geological times is a paradigmatic shift in the perception of how to situate humans within nature (for examples, see [3][4][5][6][7]). That paradigmatic shift makes the proposal to amend the geological time scale an 'extra-geoscience' undertaking too, from which the chronostratigraphy of the Quaternary, and indeed "stratigraphy's epistemic authority over the Anthropocene" [8] (p. 1), cannot escape.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Consequently, chronostratigraphic methodologies are taken in this essay 'as given'. Thus, drawing on the first postulate of this essay, it is anticipated that the chronostratigraphers will do their scientific work thoroughly, notwithstanding that it is laden with societal constraints [7,8,[27][28][29][30]. Likewise, it is taken as a background assumption for the purposes of this essay that discussing anthropogenic global change requires engagement with issues like how to account for its history, environmental justice, social justice and system change [31][32][33][34].…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

The ‘Anthropocene Proposal’: A Possible Quandary and A Work-Around

Böhle

Bilham

2019

Quaternary

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The debates about naming the unfolding times of anthropogenic global change the ‘Anthropocene’ are ultimately debates about the ‘human condition’. The proposal to amend the geological time scale by adding an ‘Anthropocene’ epoch (that is, the ‘Anthropocene proposal’ in its strict sense) is both an intra-geoscience debate about scientific sense-making and a debate about the societal context of the geosciences. This essay juxtaposes these debates, starting from three postulates: first, that the scientific methods of geological chronostratigraphy are applied rigorously; second, that anthropogenic global change is happening; and third, that the ‘Anthropocene proposal’ may be rejected if it does not meet the conditions required for its approval based on the rigorous application of the scientific methods of geological chronostratigraphy. These postulates are analysed through the lenses of the Cape Town Statement on Geoethics and the normative statements of the ‘geoethical promise’. It is found that an ethical quandary would arise if the ‘Anthropocene proposal’ were to be rejected. Consequently, and given the societal contexts of the geosciences, it is explored whether distinguishing between the geological past (as demarcated according to current chronostratigraphic methodology) and contemporary geological–historical times (characterised somewhat differently) could offer a work-around to tackle the quandary.

show abstract