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

Abstract

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.

Geodiversity and Tourism Sustainability in the Anthropocene

“…However, the latest 'consensus' date is the middle of the last century, when the impact of the human species on the geo-biosphere became planetary and near-synchronous [6,64]. It should be stated that the Anthropocene concept is still very young, and the debate on its onset is by no means settled for good, as are the debates surrounding whether it qualifies as a formal geological time unit or whether the impact of the human species as a collective is identifiable [65,66]. However, due to the frequent usage of the term in natural and social sciences, it is perhaps safe to assume that the concept has been accepted as a valuable benchmark on the anthropogenic alteration of the geo-biosphere.…”

Geoethics, a Branding for Sustainable Practices

“…Studying the concepts that underpin ethical practices in geosciences led to insights into how Geoethics may support any citizen when intervening in the Earth system [23]. Explicitly studying further ethical practices for times of global anthropogenic change [34] led the authors of this essay to consider Geoethics as a reflection on sound governance practices to navigate the human niche [36]. Hence, studying ethical practices in geosciences indicates that Geoethics may be of more diverse use than initially thought, thus scaling up a simple deontological level to broader-applied ethics inquiries going beyond geoscientific professional practices.…”

“…Whether geoethical practice has the potential to be branded beyond the professional geosciences is the research question of this essay. Assessing it requires going beyond concerns for the environment, economic growth, and social solidarity to consider the challenge of anthropogenic global change [34]; hence, the defiant Earth [35].…”

Die Antroposeen en historiese bewussyn

“…Daar moet aan die omvattende formele vereistes van die Internasionale Kommissie vir Stratigrafi e (IKS) voldoen word. Die redenasie is dat die oorhoofse Internasionale Unie van Geowetenskappe (IUGW) dan die nuwe epog formeel sal erken (Bohle & Bilham 2019;Zalasiewicz et al 2017a:289). Een knelpunt is dat geowetenskaplikes wat die Antroposeen steun, sommige bestaande konvensies, soos die vereiste van "onbetwisbare" voorstellings van stratigrafi ese neerslae, bevraagteken.…”