The Humanities are invited to the Anthropocene Event but not to the Anthropocene Series/Epoch: a response to Chvostek (2023)

Finney, Stanley C.; Gibbard, Philip L.

doi:10.1002/jqs.3520

Cited by 6 publications

(2 citation statements)

References 9 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…For these researchers, the AVC would appeal to the disciplines of Quaternary research (Head and Gibbard, 2015;Gibbard and Head, 2020;Koster, 2020), which are represented by the International Union for Quaternary Research (INQUA), 23 a peer of the IUGS, both being members of the International Science Council. 24 Subsequently, a possibility of a Renaissance-like evolution of the sciences of PSAC is evoked (Finney and Gibbard, 2023;Koster et al, 2023).…”

Section: Geoscientific Borderline Problemsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Crafting Attributes of a Geological Now

Bohle

2023

Earth Sci. Syst. Soc.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Taking an Earth Science framework as its point of departure, this paper delves into the sociocultural ramifications of two distinct geological interpretations—epoch and event—of the contested but widely acknowledged term “Anthropocene.” While the term has gained considerable traction for encapsulating planetary-scale anthropogenic changes (PSAC), its meanings are varied, spanning scientific, philosophical, and cultural discourses. Earth scientists often examine PSAC through the lens of their discipline, yet the complex sociocultural implications attached to such geoscientific concepts call for an interdisciplinary perspective. Introduced by Crutzen and Stoermer in 2000, the term “Anthropocene” is designed to account for the transformative impact of modern societies on Earth System dynamics. Presently, two opposing viewpoints exist within geological discourse to describe PSAC: the “Anthropocene-as-an-event” concept, which underscores the accretion of human-induced changes, and the “Anthropocene-as-an-epoch” concept, focusing on a substantial alteration in Earth System dynamics. Utilising Renn’s theory of “The Evolution of Knowledge,” the paper posits these concepts as scientific borderline problems, catalysts for epistemic inquiries, linked to specific “economies of knowledge.” The ensuing analysis accentuates the multidimensionality of articulating PSAC from an Earth Science viewpoint, asserting that it not only mandates understanding the geological dimensions but also calls for integrating sociocultural and philosophical contexts. The paper concludes that geological terminology should consider associated cultural contexts of Earth Science to establish leadership for vital epistemic concepts.

show abstract

Section: Geoscientific Borderline Problemsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Crafting Attributes of a Geological Now

Bohle

2023

Earth Sci. Syst. Soc.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…This can be fully agreed (Head, et al, 2022). Any new addition to the geological time scale must conform with the aim of the ICS to 'establish a single hierarchical set of global chronostratigraphic units with precisely defined boundaries that can be correlated as widely as possible' (Finney and Gibbard, 2023). To conform with this aim, the AWG has proposed an Anthropocene GSSP substantiated by evidence of distinctive, global and near-synchronous strata with a lower boundary in the mid-20th century.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

The Anthropocene's stratigraphic reality and the humanities: a response to Finney and Gibbard (2023) and to Chvostek (2023)

Thomas

2023

J Quaternary Science

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The Anthropocene Epoch is a crucial conceptual breakthrough not only for stratigraphy but also for the humanities. The question, raised by Chvosek (2023), is how best to create engagement between the sciences of the Anthropocene and the study of values, hopes and power in the world's many cultures past and present. In response, this piece makes three points. First, it discusses some of the collaborations that have already taken place between humanists of various kinds and the scientists providing the stratigraphic evidence for the Anthropocene Epoch. Second, it notes that the ‘Anthropocene’ remains, at core, a stratigraphic concept and that the new epoch is now well supported by physical evidence. Third, it shows that the recent idea of an Anthropocene ‘event’ (Gibbard, 2022) does not invite engagement with the humanities. The overall argument is that the integrity of expertise must be maintained even while we encourage the cross‐disciplinary understanding crucial to addressing our global environmental challenge.

show abstract

The problems of the Anthropocene in the Geologic Time Scale, and beyond

Soriano

2024

Earth-Science Reviews

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The Humanities are invited to the Anthropocene Event but not to the Anthropocene Series/Epoch: a response to Chvostek (2023)

Cited by 6 publications

References 9 publications

Crafting Attributes of a Geological Now

Crafting Attributes of a Geological Now

The Anthropocene's stratigraphic reality and the humanities: a response to Finney and Gibbard (2023) and to Chvostek (2023)

The problems of the Anthropocene in the Geologic Time Scale, and beyond

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About