The ‘Anthropocene Proposal’: A Possible Quandary and A Work-Around
1
DG Research and Innovation, European Commission, 1149 Brussels, Belgium
2
International Association for Promoting Geoethics (IAPG), 00143 Rome, Italy
3
Ronin Institute for Independent Scholarship, Montclair, NJ 07043, USA
4
Business School, University of Exeter Penryn Campus, Penryn TR10 9FE, UK
5
Camborne School of Mines, University of Exeter Penryn Campus, Penryn TR10 9FE, UK
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Quaternary 2019, 2(2), 19; https://doi.org/10.3390/quat2020019
Received: 24 April 2019 / Revised: 13 May 2019 / Accepted: 14 May 2019 / Published: 16 May 2019
(This article belongs to the Special Issue What if the ‘Anthropocene’ is Not Formalized as a New Geological Epoch?)
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.
View Full-Text
Keywords:
Anthropocene; societal geosciences; geoethical promise; ethical dilemma; geological time scale
▼
Show Figures
This is an open access article distributed under the Creative Commons Attribution License which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited
MDPI and ACS Style
Bohle, M.; Bilham, N. The ‘Anthropocene Proposal’: A Possible Quandary and A Work-Around. Quaternary 2019, 2, 19. https://doi.org/10.3390/quat2020019
AMA Style
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; Bilham, Nic. 2019. "The ‘Anthropocene Proposal’: A Possible Quandary and A Work-Around" Quaternary 2, no. 2: 19. https://doi.org/10.3390/quat2020019
Find Other Styles
Note that from the first issue of 2016, MDPI journals use article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.