Content uploaded by Martin Bohle
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Martin Bohle on Apr 13, 2020
Content may be subject to copyright.
Version 3.2 13th April 2020
1
Situating Geoethics in the Pandemocene, an Opinion
Martin Bohle1, 2, *
1 International Association for Promoting Geoethics (IAPG), Rome, Italy
2 Ronin Institute, Montclair, NJ, USA
*corresponding author: martin.bohle@ronininstitute.org
1 Introduction
Pandemics are more than outbreaks of diseases. To face it, our modern way of life is a bunch of pandemics. Hence,
time to face them, thoroughly and as such – geosciences included.
A little semantics first; the ancient Greek origin of the word pandemic means ‘all’ (pan) and ‘people’ (demos);
that is, something common to all humans. Pandemic applied as a medical term to an outbreak of widespread
diseases, like the current spreading “coronavirus”, may serve as one example of use. Broader meanings are given
too, for example, “…globalization, the most thoroughgoing socioeconomic upheaval since the Industrial
Revolution, which has set off a pandemic of retrogressive nationalism, regional separatism, and religious
extremism” (Martin Filler, New York Review of Books, 24 Sept. 2009, [*]). This quote illustrates nicely that a
pandemic mainly is a cultural thing, something deeply rooted in human behaviour. How the “coronavirus”
emerged (markets), how the illness COVID-19 did spread through societies (travel), or what works to confine the
outbreaks (social distancing) - any of these courses is mainly cultural. Human behaviour driven by sense-making
of natural and cultural processes is vital; identifying what ought the choice to be. Successes and failures of
communities, life and death of individuals depend on it.
Humans, now seven Billion and soon eleven Billion people, who are needing a decent life on Earth require a
globalised society for provision of food, goods and security. There is little alternative to it. It seems that we were
able to manage the growth rate of our population so that, at the end of the century, the total human population is
stabilised. Under such circumstances, globalisation is not a question of whether, although it is a profound question
of how. Simply, by our cheer number, we make our lives a pandemic. The manner how the production of food
and goods, the use of commodities and natural resources is done that is a concern for all people, that is, it is
pandemic. The exponential growth of the number of human people of the last two centuries has wiped any
alternative away. Unhappily that period left us with an unpleasant common heritage of humankind. The manner
how the production of food and goods, the use of commodities and natural resources was done in the recent past
led to anthropogenic global change. Climate change is only the single best-known example. Anthropogenic global
change, like climate change, concerns all people; hence, it is a pandemic.
Turning to the geoscientists, recognising that the Holocene has ended (Waters et al. 2016) is acknowledging that
the pandemics reached the geological record (Zalasiewicz et al. 2019). Hence, as debated since two decades
renaming the current times ‘Anthropocene’ seems valid (Bohle and Bilham 2019); ‘Pandemocene’ may be an
alternative.
For the record; the notion ‘Anthropocene’ did not first emerge within the geoscience community that is now
charged with assessing the proposal to amend the Geological Time Scale (Finney 2014). Instead, it emerged
among Earth system scientists (Crutzen and Stroemer 2000). The Earth system sciences go beyond geosciences
or Earth sciences, reaching out to social sciences (Castree 2017). The proposal to name contemporary times
‘Anthropocene’ triggered a range of sceptical reactions. Scholars in social sciences, philosophy and humanities
have criticised it as concealing the responsibility of particular actors and the historical contexts that led to it (Autin
2016; Clark and Yusoff 2017; Emmett and Lekan 2016; Haraway 2015; Lövbrand et al. 2015; Olsson et al. 2017;
Palsson et al. 2013; Rosol, Nelson, and Renn 2017; Sayre 2012; Veland 2017; Walton and Shaw 2015). Mutatis
mutandis, the notion 'Anthropocene' emerged from these debates as a shorthand for our times; however,
‘Pandemocene’ was an alternative unthought so far.
Version 3.2 13th April 2020
2
2 Can Geoscientists help to cure the Pandemics of the Anthropocene?
Are geoscientists needed, as the medical caretakers in times of a health pandemic, among other workers, to cure
the Anthropocene? If yes, are they ready to join forces to face the pandemics of the Anthropocene? Do the societal
contexts and the ethical framework of their disciplines enable them to render a contribution?
In general terms, science and research shall serve society (Bernal 1939), and responsible science and innovation
is a public good (Blok 2018; Murphy, C., Gardoni, P., Bashir, H., Harris, C. E., & Masad 2015). These insights
have taken root in contemporary societies (United Nations 2013) and, although still questioned to some degree,
they have become operationalised (Schneider et al. 2019). Like many other natural science communities, the
geosciences communities have strengthened their ethical frameworks in the last decade; using the label ‘geoethics’
[**].
The Cape Town Statement on Geoethics (Di Capua, Peppoloni, and Bobrowsky 2017) outlines an actor-centric
virtue-ethic for professional geoscientists. It promotes to act responsibly and knowledge-based. It emphasizes the
societal context of the geosciences. However, its scope is intra-professional as summarised in its concluding
paragraph “Raising the (geo)ethical awareness and competences of the members of the geoscience community is
essential, also to increase trust and credibility among the public. This can best be achieved in the near future by
two means: by promoting more effectively existing guidance such as codes of ethics/conduct and research integrity
statements; and by introducing geoethics into geoscience curricula, to make geoethics a basic feature of the
training and professional activity of geoscientists.”
2.1 The making of possible futures
Societies deploy technologies and infrastructures to interact with natural systems – for which geoscience expertise
is critical, including understanding changes due to unsustainable human practices. Despite its geoscience basis,
however, human interaction with natural systems primarily is an economical, social and cultural endeavour about
a desirable human niche. Depending on the ‘political spin’ of given actors – stewardship or engineering, for
example – a geo-societal narrative is created when shaping the global human niche. These narratives explain how
a given technology or infrastructure shall support production, consumption and societal well-being, as well as
societal change and environmental alteration. Relatedly, as highlighted by the geoethics approach [**], geoscience
research has ethical, social and cultural implications – for example, in terms of explanatory narratives. Led by
climate research, contemporary Earth System Science illustrates that anthropogenic global change is as much a
socio-cultural than a science theme (Kowarsch et al. 2017; O’Neill et al. 2017; Schill et al. 2019), which cannot
be neatly disconnected.
Because the science and the socio-cultural spheres are so inevitably intermingled, a holistic approach to
geoscience is required, e.g. when it comes to the future of humankind. Applying the ethical concept of
responsibility for future generations (intergenerational justice), the geoscience community should engage with
studying pathways to possible futures. That is, the geoscience community should embrace integrated assessments,
which are holistic, involving personal and societal concerns, economic and environmental choices as well as
philosophical conceptions of the world, human histories and human futures. While some geoscience domains,
such as climate sciences, embarked on integrated assessments, others focus on past and present dynamics. Studies
of hydrology, nutrient cycles, soils and natural hazards seem prone to engage with holistic, future-oriented
integrated assessments.
Swift geo-processes such as the rise of the global sea-level are a ‘geological present’. However, human perception
sees them shaping ‘a later future’ only – which sometimes blurs people’s sense-making of the present. Therefore,
intergenerational justice calls upon geoscientists to engage with studies of probable future configurations of the
Earth System. That is, geoscientist should study the networked geo-, bio-, techno- and societal-cultural systems
holistically. It would be negligent grounding political governance on a body of expertise that lacks the integration
of future-oriented geoscience knowledge with social science and humanities. More specifically, a highly
integrated exploration of alternative future policy pathways deems necessary (Edenhofer and Kowarsch, 2015).
This approach envisages a deliberative learning process about policy alternatives considering their practical
(geoscience and socio-cultural) implications, engaging the potential of geoscience research for humankind.
Version 3.2 13th April 2020
3
2.2 The soft side of geosciences, geoethics.
When thinking about probable futures, it deems necessary to go beyond a mainly intra-disciplinary setting of
geoethics (Peppoloni, Bilham, and Di Capua 2019). Intra-disciplinary frames, like the Cape Town Statement on
Geoethics, are advantageous framework, unquestionable.
However, geoethics may be strengthened for use by any citizen (Bohle and Marone 2019). Strengthening
geoethics may be a choice in the Holocene, although a must in the Pandemocene because citizens’ actions should
‘be judged… where they fall on a scale of care and neglect” because “[w]hen humans formed an independent
relation with the Earth, we were left to choose between a path of care and a path of neglect.’ (Hamilton 2017; p.
150, emphasise in the original). When facing the claim, tools are required. Geoethics for geoscientists is a specific
tool. A more generic tool is needed.
The foundations of geoethical thinking can be expanded through the works of Kohlberg and Jonas, namely about
moral adequacy of normative frameworks1 (Kohlberg 1981) and the imperative of responsibility for those who
deploy technologies (Jonas 1984). Combining these approaches with geoethics approach, a ‘geoethical rationale’
emerges. It promotes six normative preferences: ‘actor-centric, virtue-ethics focused, responsibility focused,
knowledge-based, all-actor-inclusive, and universal rights-based’ (Table 1).
Table 1. Concise meaning of the categories of the geoethical rationale
Category
Meaning of the Category
actor-centric
To apply a normative framework that invests (empowerment) an
individual /group to act to their best understanding in the face of
given circumstances, opportunities and purposes;
virtue-ethics focused
A corpus of personal traits (honesty, integrity, transparency,
reliability, or spirit of sharing, cooperation, reciprocity) of an
individual/group that furthers operational (handling of things) and
social (handling of people) capabilities of the individual/group;
responsibility focused
The outcome of a normative call (internal, external) upon an
individual /group that frames decisions/acts in terms of
accountability, as well for the intended effects as for unintended
consequences and implications for future generations;
Knowledge-based
In the first and foremost instance, (geosciences / Earth system)
knowledge acquired by scientific methods; experience-based
(‘indigenous/traditional) knowledge is a secondary instance;
reproducibility of knowledge by third parties supports any claim of
trustworthiness instead of allusion to faith or ‘authorities’;
1 The highest level of moral adequacy, Kohlberg’s ‘upper post-conventional level’, is described by a morality that is based on individual
human rights and justice, by acts that are based on universal ethical principles, and by principled self-conscience and mutual respect.
Kohlberg’s grading (relative to ‘societal conventions’) involves (i) acceptance of imposed rules (lower & upper pre-conventional levels); (ii)
relationships of convenience (lower conventional level); (iii) compliance with law & order (upper conventional level); (iv) agreed social
contracts (lower post-conventional level); (v) the agent acts in line with ethical principles (upper post-conventional level);
Version 3.2 13th April 2020
4
All-actor inclusive
Achieve a practice of a ‘shared social licence to operate’ between
various individuals/groups by mitigating differentials of power,
voice etc. using participatory processes and capacity building;
Universal-rights based
Guide affective and rational sense-making of individuals/groups by
universal human rights (life, liberty, justice) to strengthen secondary
normative constructs such as utilitarian, sustainability or
precautionary principles;
A framework like the ‘geoethical rationale’ may be suitable guidance of citizens in the Anthropocene (or
Pandemocene). At a more modest scale of action, the normative preferences of the geoethical rationale may help
citizens, who also are geoscientists, to reach out beyond their professional spheres. On the path towards this
endeavour, the question arises why geoscientists should be among the ‘health workers’, who are needed to mitigate
the risks of the Pandemocene. Hence, what makes the societal context of the geosciences (Bohle and Preiser
2019)?
3 Societal contexts of the geosciences
Geosciences or Earth sciences are an amalgam of fundamental and applied research fields mainly within but also
beyond natural sciences, as well as specific engineering disciplines and commercial undertakings on various
scales, ranging from individual chartered experts to state-owned or multinational private corporations.
Irrespective of how these research fields (or disciplines) are prescribed or distinguished, they aggregate natural-
science knowledge about the functioning of the Earth, albeit with an initial focus on the abiotic components of the
Earth systems, and they have limited interaction with social sciences or humanities, beyond economics. Together,
these geosciences disciplines nourish a corpus of stewardship knowledge about natural processes that can inform
how people could act within the Earth system (Lenton and Latour 2018; Ogden et al. 2013; Redman and Miller
2015; Steffen et al. 2011). Contemporary geoscience knowledge is, therefore, of very high operational value for
the functioning of modern societies.
That geoscience knowledge alone, however, does not guide how people ought to act. That issue is addressed by
ethics, in general, and in the specific form of professional ethics such as contemporary geoethics. However, even
in the absence of guidance as to how to act, the geoscientist’s expert knowledge comes with responsibility for the
individual scientist, as a professional and as a citizen, towards people and communities (P. Bobrowsky et al. 2017;
Bohle, Nauen, and Marone 2019; Di Capua, Peppoloni, and Bobrowsky 2017; Peppoloni and Di Capua 2018).
3.1 A pandemic of anthropogenic global change
During prehistoric and historical periods, humankind modified natural environments to appropriate resources for
living and wellbeing (Ellis 2015; Fuentes 2016; Ruddiman 2018). Contemporary societies apply geosciences
extensively for their economic, societal and cultural activities (Bohle 2017; Gill and Bullough 2017; Krausmann
et al. 2013, 2017; Rosol, Nelson, and Renn 2017). These activities bind, through global supply chains, the entire
globe into one social-ecological system (Reyers et al. 2018) that intersects deeply with the physical and biological
systems of the Earth.
Crafts-persons, technicians, architects and engineers apply geoscience knowledge, at least implicitly, when
altering natural environments or creating artefacts, e.g. extraction of minerals, the laying the foundations for
buildings, or managing floodplains. Artists, poets or philosophers of any time or culture refer to the Earth for co-
shaping human identity. Contemporary geoscience knowledge seeps into modern thinking and dealings (Moores
1997; Peppoloni and Di Capua 2012), often without being identified as such (Bohle 2015; Bohle, Sibilla, and
Casals I Graells 2017), and rarely put forward so openly as in the metaphorical title of the book by the geochemists
Langmuir and Broecker (Langmuir and Broecker 2012), ‘How to build a habitable planet’.
Version 3.2 13th April 2020
5
Large-scale infrastructures like shore defences, hydropower plants or urban dwellings visibly interact with the
geosphere and are a physical expression of how people situate themselves on Earth; views that alter through
history (Ellis 2011; Fressoz 2012; Purdy 2015). Whatever the philosophical concepts are that frame the
construction of these infrastructures, they could not have been built without a profound geoscience culture (Brown
et al. 2017; Häusler 2018; Ruddiman et al. 2015; Wysession et al. 2012) that includes scientific understanding,
technological know-how and societal justifications. Likewise, purposefully designed global production systems
or consumption patterns couple human activity with the geosphere at a planetary scale. The coupling happens
through cycles of matter, energy and information (Haff 2014b; Rosol et al. 2018; Zalasiewicz et al. 2016) that are
mostly invisible. Greenhouse gas emissions are well-known as the most prominent example, although a similar
case could be made for nitrogen or the global agriculture system (Campbell et al. 2017; Morseletto 2019; Zhang
et al. 2015).
During the last century, humankind's activities have intersected the geosphere in a much more extensive and
intricate manner than ever before, either directly or intermediated through the biosphere (Barnosky et al. 2012;
Steffen, Broadgate, et al. 2015). Over some decades, the increasing number of people living on Earth and more
notably the profligate consumption of resources in the affluent industrialised regions has culminated in a pandemic
of anthropogenic change (Kunnas 2017; Steffen et al. 2011; Zalasiewicz et al. 2014).
When considering the outcome of recent economic activity and its cultural justification (e.g. by hegemonic
systems of cultural values), then the resulting anthropogenic global change may be considered as being intentional;
at least tacitly, because it is happening through negligence (Bonneuil and Fressoz 2013; Fressoz 2012; Hamilton,
Bonneuil, and Gemenne 2015). Consequently, it is appropriate to qualify anthropogenic global change as driven
by an ‘Anthropos’ that is organised as a pandemic – mutually entangled as in the classic Western movie: for the
good, the bad and the ugly (Dalby 2015); or, likely, the inescapable (Dryzek and Pickering 2019). Notwithstanding
such systemic human agency, not all individual (or collective) human beings of past and present times have caused
the anthropogenic change in the same manner or to the same extent (Bonneuil and Fressoz 2013; Haraway 2015;
Heemskerk and Takes 2016; Lorimer 2017; Moore 2017). Therefore, the notion ‘Anthropocene’ should be used
while also acknowledging the responsibilities, political mechanisms and social processes that led to the current
state of the globe, that finally make the Pandemocene. Nevertheless, anthropogenic global change is about how
people, given hegemonic systems of cultural values, choices and lifestyles, govern the appropriation of biotic and
abiotic resources from natural environments at a planetary scale (Wright et al. 2018). This description of the
contemporary ‘human condition’ would be the essence of a geological epoch named the ‘Anthropocene’;
acknowledging that naming it suchlike is an overdue act (Bohle and Bilham 2019).
4 Conclusion: Planetary human agency and geosciences
How societies alter natural environments depends on their technological means, cultural views on how to deploy
them, the scientific insights that underpin these technological means and cultural views, and the economic
conditions, cultural constraints and available resources. Together they determine which ‘endeavours’ of
anthropogenic change are possible or desirable to undertake. The principal human endeavour in contemporary
times is to operate a ‘technosphere’ at the planetary scale (Castree 2017; Haff 2014a, 2014b; Herrmann-Pillath
2018; Leach et al. 2018; Redman and Miller 2015; Steffen et al. 2011), which is the essence of the Pandemocene.
The ongoing anthropogenic global change as driven by the cumulative effect of ordinary economic and social
activities; that is an insight that justifies the notion ‘Anthropocene’ (Ellis 2016; Galaz 2014; Rosol et al. 2018;
Rosol, Nelson, and Renn 2017) in the first place and Pandemocene in the second place.
Within society’s corpus of technological means, cultural views and scientific insights, geoscience knowledge has
the potential to fundamentally shape the direction, effectiveness and efficiency of anthropogenic change of Earth
system dynamics. To that end, when answering questions about the Earth system like ‘where to situate
humankind’, ‘how to change processes’ or ‘what features to safeguard’, the geosciences provide ‘instruments’.
Such instruments are Earth science literacy, insights into the origin of Earth including its development through
aeons and understanding how Earth system dynamics operate, and, finally, geoethical thinking to guide about the
‘ought to be’.
The applied geoscience professions use established knowledge, methodologies and technologies to change the
physical world (Srbulov 2014). Engineering geoscience disciplines pursue control of processes (that fundamental
geoscience disciplines identify), interface applied and fundamental fields, and link with other engineering
Version 3.2 13th April 2020
6
disciplines to harness human power to alter Earth system dynamics. This amalgam of fundamental, applied and
engineering sciences, as well as the commercial use of geoscience knowledge, makes geosciences an instrument
to further a pandemic of anthropogenic change. The working environments of applied and commercial
geosciences explicitly frame the activities of any ‘geo-professional’. They are subject to ethical requirements and
professional responsibilities that cascade through the links with applied and engineering disciplines, and also
engage, ultimately, the geoscientist doing fundamental research (Peppoloni, Bilham, and Di Capua 2019).
When considering the anthropogenic global change in its daily societal context, people need geoscience
knowledge because any given individual interacts with the Earth system, be it only as a consumer of resources.
Furthermore, citizens need insights into the functioning of the Earth system to engage in better-informed decision
making (Bohle, Nauen, and Marone 2019). The geological notion ‘Anthropocene’ would summarise such insights
in a powerful message that the natural world and the human world are tightly interconnected and that as a result,
human activities have already irrevocably altered the Earth system (Waters et al. 2016). Consequently, insights
stemming from Earth system sciences about such matters as planetary boundaries (Steffen, Richardson, et al.
2015) could inform citizens about ‘what to do’ and ‘what not to do’. A dedicated responsibility of geoscientists
results from the specific function that they have within contemporary societies because of the corpus of expertise
that they can offer. The geoethics approach, may it take the form of intra-disciplinary call of the Cape Town
Statement on Geoethics or the form of a broader ‘geoethical rationale’, strengthen this call on geoscientists.
To summarise, geosciences are instrumental in making anthropogenic global change happen, that making it a
Pandemic. Therefore, geoscientists are its co-architects who should assume the responsibility that comes with
their role as agents of technology-driven change. In this context, how geoscientists use their expertise is not an
impartial matter. They are called to duty to offer cures in the Pandemocene; that is the essence of geoethics.
5 Post scriptum recycled: Surrender!:
About two years ago, in 2017, I wrote a piece for the Salzburg Global Seminar # 593 [***], stating that “new
complexities, irritating disruptions of trusted practices, and accelerating change seem to characterize our times.
Uncertainty about the future is acknowledged by many. The rate of change is unmeasured; hence, it is felt”. Now,
the disruption of the habitual daily doings may come with accelerated pace because of the COVID-19 health
pandemic.
Back in 2017, the participants of the seminar were asked: What will our planet look like in 2050 or 2100? Who
or what will control our lives? What will it mean to be human?
The years 2050 or 2100 deemed far away, somehow. It will be times when my children and grandchildren will be
getting as old as I am now, respectively. I wondered, at time of writing in 2017: “Hence, what is 'The New' that
is up to us, in a world of somehow self-driving cars, subsistence fishermen and first climate refugees? Our views
focus' on the next corner, the next turn of a road. Where are the signposts? Who has a sketch of the roads ahead?
Does vision lack? What marks the debates? The technology-fascinated disagree. Nevertheless, their vision is just
'scale-up,' massively to reach a singularity. Does this change in quantity leads to new quality? Hence, is Mr Hegel
calling?”
At the time of writing in 2017, I offered ten statements. Each implied a considerable alteration of the present state
of people's dealings; some deemed clear-cut, some were underlying. Today I take out #10 (Our outpost on Moon
and Mars may be reopened soon after the burial of the bodies of the early colonists on Earth.) and modify #1,
namely replacing ‘emergencies’ with ‘pandemics’ and advancing their onset. I made both changes because time
seems to shorten before entering the difficult decades 2020-2040.
1. People overcame the multiple societal-environmental pandemics of the 2020/2030-ties; then life-
expectancy had stalled globally. During this crisis, luckily, the use of arms of mass destruction got
hindered; although some 'conventional warfare' occurred.
2. By 2050, collaborative Earth System Governance has emerged, and the life-expectancy (number of
healthy years) of people started to increase again.
3. In most regions, the species extinction rates got capped. The deterioration of vital global ecosystems has
halted.
Version 3.2 13th April 2020
7
4. In 2100, the global human population has stabilized at little less than 11 Billion people; slow decline
seems possible now. Open societies have led to about equal levels of development in all urbanized
regions.
5. Networks and circular supply-chains enforce participatory handling of societal-environmental problems,
including large-scale migration of people.
6. Joint efforts are ongoing to relocate people from the ocean shorelines (and some other now uninhabitable
zones); 'managed human retreat' because of sea-level rise and 'rebuilding of (coastal) urban areas' is a
global policy.
7. The rate of change of societal-environmental systems has been capped, and the diversity of the 'human
niche' is made a 'species goal.'
8. Most production systems use processes that are derived from synthetic biology with embedded quantum-
technologies.
9. Since 2050, emotions emerged spontaneously in complex information systems, and since then, they
consolidated into stable societal features. Since then, such ‘feeling systems' and the various (collective
and individual) 'people-tool systems' got a dedicated legal status in most countries.
The current turmoil of early 2020, which is caused by the COVID-19 pandemic, indeed “stretch our imagination
to the breaking point. Hence, Irritation!” Notwithstanding the current turmoil, I stay by the metaphorical
description about the exit-strategy made three years ago:
(1) For many of our fellow citizens, 'The Future,' with capital "F," is the march towards "About-the-Same." It may
be a bit more of the same. For most people, The Future is nothing that is 'made.' It is something to be endured.
Moreover, disasters or war deem ready to disrupt its regular gait. It is this aeon-old view, "Nihil sub sole novum"
(nothing new under the sun) that for many provide a sense of security. Astonishingly, 'The Future' is a reference
frame. It embeds our myopic starring at the next turn of events. However, what to do when this reference frame
seems to change, to wobble and, hence gets uncertain. Then, menacingly, ‘The Unknown' frames the stages of our
plays. Irritatingly, 'The Counter-Intuitive' seems to consolidate out of our plays. Threateningly, they block the
way back. The horsemen of the modern apocalypse, 'The New,' 'The Unknown,' and 'The Counter-Intuitive' threat
with insecurity, loss of competences, altered divisions of societies, and lost sense!
(2) Some people relish the 'The New,' 'The Unknown,' and 'The Counter-Intuitive’. Artists, Explorers, Scientists
feel a deep sensual pleasure when confronting them, as a person and as citizens. The artist's psyche, the explorer's
spirits, the innovator's minds, the researcher's souls are resources vibrating with imagination and passion. Hence,
nurtured by them, the citizenries may confront Quantum-Technology, Earth System Sciences, Artificial
Intelligences, and Synthetic Biology. Then the citizenries will draft the new 'guides to these galaxies.' They will
tell, whether '42' is still the right answer, why your towel might be sufficient, and who moved the restaurant(s) at
the end of the universe(s)? [##]
(3) Only as citizens, artists, cultural practitioners, inventors, and scientists can push the boundaries of the human
imagination. As citizens, jointly they may move beyond the familiar and transcend the borders towards the future.
Nevertheless, are they ready to assume this task? Do they invest collaboratively in path-changing discoveries,
different fates of our planet, and charting pathways to liveable futures? Only then, 'The New', 'The Unknown', and
'The Counter-Intuitive' will face the broad, vigorous smile of 'The Imaginator'- Surrender!
[#]Salzburg Global Seminar #593 "The Shock of the New: Arts, Technology and Making Sense of the Future"
(Salzburg, 20-25 February 2018). [##] See plots in "The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy" by Douglas Adams.
[*] https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/pandemic; consulted 11th April 2020
[**] http://www.geoethics.org/definition; consulted 11th April 2020
[***] http://ukkoelhob.blogspot.com/2018/02/the-smile-of-imaginator.html; consulted 11th April 2020
Acknowledgement: This text draws on two upcoming conferences contributions (“Taking responsibility: Geo-
societal studies of alternative futures,” EGU2020, Vienna, with Martin Kowarsch, MCC; “Geoethics for Operating
Version 3.2 13th April 2020
8
in the Human Niche” GGM’20, Porto, inspired by E. Marone), a paper published in 2019 (“The ‘Anthropocene
Proposal’: A Possible Quandary and A Work-Around” with N. Bilham, https://www.mdpi.com/2571-
550X/2/2/19) and a blog post prepared for the Salzburg Global Seminar #593.
Autin, Whitney J. 2016. “Multiple Dichotomies of the Anthropocene.” The Anthropocene Review 3(3): 218–30.
http://anr.sagepub.com/lookup/doi/10.1177/2053019616646133.
Barnosky, Anthony D. et al. 2012. “Approaching a State Shift in Earth’s Biosphere.” Nature 486(7401): 52–58.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22678279.
Bernal, J.D. 1939. The Social Function of Science. London: Georg Routledge & Sons Ltd.
Blok, Vincent. 2018. “From Participation to Interruption: Toward an Ethics of Stakeholder Engagement ,
Participation and Partnership in CSR and Responsible Innovation.” Handbook Responsible Innovation: A
Global Resource (January): 1–22.
Bobrowsky, Peter et al. 2017. “The Emerging Field of Geoethics.” In Scientific Integrity and Ethics: With
Applications to the Geosciences, ed. Linda C. Gundersen. Hoboken, NJ, USA: Wiley & Sons, 175–212.
Bohle, Martin. 2015. “Simple Geoethics: An Essay on Daily Earth Science.” Geological Society, London,
Special Publications 419(1): 5–12. http://sp.lyellcollection.org/lookup/doi/10.1144/SP419.3.
———. 2017. “Ideal-Type Narratives for Engineering a Human Niche.” Geosciences 7(1): 18.
http://www.mdpi.com/2076-3263/7/1/18.
———. 2019. Exploring Geoethics. ed. Martin Bohle. Cham: Springer International Publishing.
http://link.springer.com/10.1007/978-3-030-12010-8.
Bohle, Martin, and Nic Bilham. 2019. “The ‘Anthropocene Proposal’: A Possible Quandary and A Work-
Around.” Quaternary 2(2): 19. https://www.mdpi.com/2571-550X/2/2/19.
Bohle, Martin, and Eduardo Marone. 2019. “Humanistic Geosciences and the Planetary Human Niche.” In
Exploring Geoethics, ed. Martin Bohle. Cham: Springer International Publishing, 137–64.
http://link.springer.com/10.1007/978-3-030-12010-8_4.
Bohle, Martin, Cornelia Nauen, and Eduardo Marone. 2019. “Ethics to Intersect Civic Participation and Formal
Guidance.” Sustainability 11(3): 773. http://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/11/3/773.
Bohle, Martin, and Rika Preiser. 2019. “Exploring Societal Intersections of Geoethical Thinking.” In Exploring
Geoethics, ed. Martin Bohle. Cham: Springer International Publishing, 71–136.
http://link.springer.com/10.1007/978-3-030-12010-8_3.
Bohle, Martin, Anna Sibilla, and Robert Casals I Graells. 2017. “A Concept of Society-Earth-Centric
Narratives.” Annals of Geophysics 60(7).
http://www.annalsofgeophysics.eu/index.php/annals/article/view/7358.
Bonneuil, Christophe, and Jean-Baptiste Fressoz. 2013. L’événement Anthropocène - La Terre, l’histoire et
Nous. Le Seuil.
Brown, Antony G. et al. 2017. “The Geomorphology of the Anthropocene: Emergence, Status and
Implications.” Earth Surface Processes and Landforms 42(1): 71–90.
http://doi.wiley.com/10.1002/esp.3943.
Campbell, Bruce M. et al. 2017. “Agriculture Production as a Major Driver of the Earth System Exceeding
Planetary Boundaries.” Ecology and Society 22(4): art8.
https://www.ecologyandsociety.org/vol22/iss4/art8/.
Di Capua, Giuseppe, Silvia Peppoloni, and Peter Bobrowsky. 2017. “The Cape Town Statement on Geoethics.”
Annals of Geophysics 60(0): 1–6. http://www.annalsofgeophysics.eu/index.php/annals/article/view/7553
(September 19, 2018).
Castree, Noel. 2017. “Speaking for the ‘People Disciplines’: Global Change Science and Its Human
Dimensions.” The Anthropocene Review 4(3): 160–82.
http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/2053019617734249.
Clark, Nigel, and Kathryn Yusoff. 2017. “Geosocial Formations and the Anthropocene.” Theory, Culture &
Version 3.2 13th April 2020
9
Society 34(2–3): 3–23. http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/0263276416688946.
Crutzen, Paul J., and Eugen F. Stroemer. 2000. “The ‘Anthropocene.’” The Global Change Newsletter 41: 17–
18. http://www.igbp.net/download/18.316f18321323470177580001401/1376383088452/NL41.pdf.
Dalby, Simon. 2015. “Framing the Anthropocene: The Good, the Bad and the Ugly.” The Anthropocene Review
3(1): 1–19. http://anr.sagepub.com/lookup/doi/10.1177/2053019615618681.
Dryzek, John S., and Jonathan Pickering. 2019. The Politics of the Anthropocene. Oxford: Oxford University
Press.
Edenhofer, Ottmar, and Martin Kowarsch. 2015. “Cartography of Pathways: A New Model for Environmental
Policy Assessments.” Environmental Science & Policy 51: 56–64.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.envsci.2015.03.017.
Ellis, Erle C. 2011. “The Planet of No Return Human Resilience on an Artificial Earth.” The Breakthrough
Institute - 2(2): 11–16.
———. 2015. “Ecology in an Anthropogenic Biosphere.” Ecological Monographs 85(3): 287–331.
———. 2016. “Why Is Human Niche Construction Transforming Planet Earth ?” RCC Perspectives:
Transformations in Environment and Society: 63–70. https://www.jstor.org/stable/26241405.
Emmett, Robert, and Thomas Lekan, eds. 2016. RCC Perspectives Transformations in Environment and Society
Whose Anthropocene? Revisiting Dipesh Chakrabarty’s “Four Theses.” Rachel Carson Center for
Environment and Society. http://www.environmentandsociety.org/perspectives/2016/2/whose-
anthropocene-revisiting-dipesh-chakrabartys-four-theses.
Finney, Stanley C. 2014. “The ‘Anthropocene’ as a Ratified Unit in the ICS International Chronostratigraphic
Chart: Fundamental Issues That Must Be Addressed by the Task Group.” Geological Society, London,
Special Publications 395(1): 23–28. http://sp.lyellcollection.org/lookup/doi/10.1144/SP395.9.
Fressoz, Jean-Baptiste. 2012. L’Apocalypse Joyeuse - Une Histoire Du Risque Technologique. Paris: Le Seuil.
Fuentes, Agustin. 2016. “The Extended Evolutionary Synthesis, Ethnography, and the Human Niche: Toward an
Integrated Anthropology.” Current Anthropology 57(S13): S13–26. http://dx.doi.org/10.1086/685684.
Galaz, Victor. 2014. Edward Elgar Publishing Inc. Global Environmental Governance, Technology and Politics.
Edward Elgar Publishing. http://www.elgaronline.com/view/9781781955543.xml.
Gill, Joel, and Florence Bullough. 2017. “Geoscience Engagement in Global Development Frameworks.”
Annals of Geophysics 60(0). http://www.annalsofgeophysics.eu/index.php/annals/article/view/7460
(October 23, 2017).
Haff, Peter K. 2014a. “Humans and Technology in the Anthropocene: Six Rules.” The Anthropocene Review
1(2): 126–36. http://anr.sagepub.com/lookup/doi/10.1177/2053019614530575.
———. 2014b. “Technology as a Geological Phenomenon: Implications for Human Well-Being.” Geological
Society, London, Special Publications 395(1): 301–9.
http://sp.lyellcollection.org/cgi/doi/10.1144/SP395.4.
Hamilton, Clive. 2017. Defiant Earth - The Fate of Humans in the Anthropocene. Cambridge: Wiley, Polity
Press.
Hamilton, Clive, Christophe Bonneuil, and François Gemenne. 2015. The Anthropocene and the Global
Environmental Crisis: Rethinking Modernity in a New Epoch. Abingdon, Oxon: Routledge.
Haraway, Donna. 2015. “Anthropocene, Capitalocene, Plantationocene, Chthulucene: Making Kin.”
Environmental Humanities 6(1): 159–65.
http://environmentalhumanities.dukejournals.org/lookup/doi/10.1215/22011919-3615934.
Häusler, Hermann. 2018. “Did Anthropogeology Anticipate the Idea of the Anthropocene?” The Anthropocene
Review 5(1): 69–86. http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/2053019617742169.
Heemskerk, Eelke M., and Frank W. Takes. 2016. “The Corporate Elite Community Structure of Global
Capitalism.” New Political Economy 21(1): 90–118.
Version 3.2 13th April 2020
10
http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/13563467.2015.1041483.
Herrmann-Pillath, Carsten. 2018. “The Case for a New Discipline: Technosphere Science.” Ecological
Economics 149(March): 212–25.
Jonas, Hans. 1984. The Imperative of Responsibility. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Kohlberg, Lawrence. 1981. Essays in Moral Development and the Idea of Justice. San Francisco: Harber &
Row.
Kowarsch, Martin et al. 2017. “The Treatment of Divergent Viewpoints in Global Environmental Assessments.”
Environmental Science & Policy 77: 225–34.
https://linkinghub.elsevier.com/retrieve/pii/S1462901117303313.
Krausmann, Fridolin et al. 2013. “Global Human Appropriation of Net Primary Production Doubled in the 20th
Century.” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 110(25): 10324–29.
http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlerender.fcgi?artid=3690849&tool=pmcentrez&rendertype=abstra
ct.
———. 2017. “Global Socioeconomic Material Stocks Rise 23-Fold over the 20th Century and Require Half of
Annual Resource Use.” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 114(8): 1880–85.
http://www.pnas.org/cgi/content/short/114/8/1880 (February 22, 2017).
Kunnas, Jan. 2017. “Storytelling: From the Early Anthropocene to the Good or the Bad Anthropocene.” The
Anthropocene Review 4(2): 136–50. http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/2053019617725538.
Langmuir, Charles, and Wally Broecker. 2012. How to Build a Habitable Planet? Princton University Press.
Leach, Melissa et al. 2018. “Equity and Sustainability in the Anthropocene: A Social–Ecological Systems
Perspective on Their Intertwined Futures.” Global Sustainability 1: e13.
https://www.cambridge.org/core/product/identifier/S2059479818000121/type/journal_article.
Lenton, Timothy M., and Bruno Latour. 2018. “Gaia 2.0.” Science 361(6407): 1066–68.
http://www.sciencemag.org/lookup/doi/10.1126/science.aau0427.
Lorimer, Jamie. 2017. “The Anthropo-Scene: A Guide for the Perplexed.” Social Studies of Science 47(1): 117–
42. http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/0306312716671039.
Lövbrand, Eva et al. 2015. “Who Speaks for the Future of Earth? How Critical Social Science Can Extend the
Conversation on the Anthropocene.” Global Environmental Change 32: 211–18.
http://linkinghub.elsevier.com/retrieve/pii/S0959378015000497.
Moore, Jason W. 2017. “The Capitalocene, Part I: On the Nature and Origins of Our Ecological Crisis.” The
Journal of Peasant Studies 44(3): 594–630.
https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/03066150.2016.1235036.
Moores, Eldridge M. 1997. “Geology and Culture: A Call for Action.” GSA Today 7(1): 7–11.
Morseletto, Piero. 2019. “Confronting the Nitrogen Challenge: Options for Governance and Target Setting.”
Global Environmental Change 54(February 2018): 40–49.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2018.10.010.
Murphy, C., Gardoni, P., Bashir, H., Harris, C. E., & Masad, E. 2015. 22 Engineering Ethics for a Globalized
World. ed. E. Murphy, C., Gardoni, P., Bashir, H., Harris, C. E., & Masad. Cham: Springer International
Publishing. http://link.springer.com/10.1007/978-3-319-18260-5.
O’Neill, Brian C. et al. 2017. “The Roads Ahead: Narratives for Shared Socioeconomic Pathways Describing
World Futures in the 21st Century.” Global Environmental Change 42: 169–80.
https://linkinghub.elsevier.com/retrieve/pii/S0959378015000060.
Ogden, Laura et al. 2013. “Global Assemblages, Resilience, and Earth Stewardship in the Anthropocene.”
Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment 11(7): 341–47. http://doi.wiley.com/10.1890/120327.
Olsson, Per, Michele-Lee Moore, Frances R. Westley, and Daniel D. P. McCarthy. 2017. “The Concept of the
Anthropocene as a Game-Changer: A New Context for Social Innovation and Transformations to
Sustainability.” Ecology and Society 22(2): art31. https://www.ecologyandsociety.org/vol22/iss2/art31/.
Version 3.2 13th April 2020
11
Palsson, Gisli et al. 2013. “Reconceptualizing the ‘Anthropos’ in the Anthropocene: Integrating the Social
Sciences and Humanities in Global Environmental Change Research.” Environmental Science & Policy
28: 3–13. http://linkinghub.elsevier.com/retrieve/pii/S1462901112002079.
Peppoloni, Silvia, Nic Bilham, and Giuseppe Di Capua. 2019. “Contemporary Geoethics Within the
Geosciences.” In Exploring Geoethics, Cham: Springer International Publishing, 25–70.
http://link.springer.com/10.1007/978-3-030-12010-8_2.
Peppoloni, Silvia, and Giuseppe Di Capua. 2012. “Geoethics and Geological Culture: Awareness,
Responsibility and Challenges.” Annals of Geophysics 55(3): 335–41.
———. 2018. “Ethics” eds. Peter T Bobrowsky and B. Marker. Earth Sciences Series. Encyclopedia of
Engineering Geology: 1–5. http://link.springer.com/10.1007/978-3-319-12127-7_115-1.
Purdy, Jedediah. 2015. After Nature: A Politics for the Anthropocene. Princeton: Havard University Press.
https://www.jstor.org/stable/j.ctvjnrtn0.
Redman, Charles L., and Thaddeus R. Miller. 2015. “The Technosphere and Earth Stewardship.” In Earth
Stewardship, eds. Ricardo Rozzi et al. Cham: Springer International Publishing, 269–79.
http://link.springer.com/10.1007/978-3-319-12133-8_17.
Reyers, Belinda et al. 2018. “Social-Ecological Systems Insights for Navigating the Dynamics of the
Anthropocene.” Annual Review of Environment and Resources 43(1): 267–89.
https://www.annualreviews.org/doi/10.1146/annurev-environ-110615-085349.
Rosol, Christoph, Sara Nelson, and Jürgen Renn. 2017. “Introduction: In the Machine Room of the
Anthropocene.” The Anthropocene Review 4(1): 2–8.
http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/2053019617701165.
Rosol, Christoph, Benjamin Steininger, Jürgen Renn, and Robert Schlögl. 2018. “On the Age of Computation in
the Epoch of Humankind.” Nature Outlook 1–5. https://www.nature.com/articles/d42473-018-00286-8.
Ruddiman, William F., Erle C. Ellis, Jed O. Kaplan, and Dorian Q. Fuller. 2015. “Defining the Epoch We Live
In.” Science 348(6230): 38–39. http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/doi/10.1126/science.aaa7297.
Ruddiman, William F. 2018. “Three Flaws in Defining a Formal ‘Anthropocene.’” Progress in Physical
Geography: Earth and Environment 42(4): 451–61.
http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/0309133318783142.
Sayre, Nathan F. 2012. “The Politics of the Anthropogenic.” Annual Review of Anthropology 41(1): 57–70.
http://www.annualreviews.org/doi/abs/10.1146/annurev-anthro-092611-145846.
Schill, Caroline et al. 2019. “A More Dynamic Understanding of Human Behaviour for the Anthropocene.”
Nature Sustainability. http://www.nature.com/articles/s41893-019-0419-7.
Schneider, Flurina et al. 2019. “How Can Science Support the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development? Four
Tasks to Tackle the Normative Dimension of Sustainability.” Sustainability Science 14(0123456789).
http://link.springer.com/10.1007/s11625-019-00675-y.
Srbulov, Milutin. 2014. 29 Practical Guide to Geo-Engineering. Dordrecht: Springer Netherlands.
http://link.springer.com/10.1007/978-94-017-8638-6.
Steffen, Will et al. 2011. “The Anthropocene: From Global Change to Planetary Stewardship.” AMBIO 40(7):
739–61. http://link.springer.com/10.1007/s13280-011-0185-x.
Steffen, Will, Katherine Richardson, et al. 2015. “Planetary Boundaries: Guiding Human Development on a
Changing Planet.” Science 347(6223): 1259855–1259855.
http://science.sciencemag.org/content/early/2015/01/14/science.1259855.
Steffen, Will, Wendy Broadgate, et al. 2015. “The Trajectory of the Anthropocene: The Great Acceleration.”
The Anthropocene Review 2(1): 81–98. http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/2053019614564785.
United Nations. 2013. World Social Science Report 2013. ed. UNESCO. OECD Publishing.
http://unesdoc.unesco.org/images/0022/002246/224677e.pdf.
Veland, Siri. 2017. “Transcending Ontological Schisms in Relationships with Earth, Water, Air, and Ice.”
Version 3.2 13th April 2020
12
Weather, Climate, and Society 9(3): 607–19. http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/10.1175/WCAS-D-16-
0123.1.
Walton, Todd, and Wendy S. Shaw. 2015. “Living with the Anthropocene Blues.” Geoforum 60: 1–3.
http://linkinghub.elsevier.com/retrieve/pii/S0016718514002802.
Waters, Colin N. et al. 2016. “The Anthropocene Is Functionally and Stratigraphically Distinct from the
Holocene.” Science 351(6269): aad2622–aad2622.
http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/doi/10.1126/science.aad2622.
Wright, Christopher, Daniel Nyberg, Lauren Rickards, and James Freund. 2018. “Organizing in the
Anthropocene.” Organization 25(4): 455–71.
http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/1350508418779649.
Wysession, Michael E. et al. 2012. “Developing and Applying a Set of Earth Science Literacy Principles.”
Journal of Geoscience Education 60(2): 95–99. http://www.nagt-jge.org/doi/pdf/10.5408/11-248.1.
Zalasiewicz, Jan et al. 2014. “The Technofossil Record of Humans.” The Anthropocene Review 1(1): 34–43.
http://anr.sagepub.com/lookup/doi/10.1177/2053019613514953.
———. 2016. “Scale and Diversity of the Physical Technosphere: A Geological Perspective.” The
Anthropocene Review. http://anr.sagepub.com/lookup/doi/10.1177/2053019616677743.
Zalasiewicz, Jan, Colin N. Waters, Mark Williams, and Colin Summerhayes. 2019. The Anthropocene as a
Geological Time Unit. Cambridge University Press.
https://www.cambridge.org/core/product/identifier/9781108621359/type/book.
Zhang, Xin et al. 2015. “Managing Nitrogen for Sustainable Development.” Nature.
http://www.nature.com/doifinder/10.1038/nature15743.
