Next Article in Journal
Varve Distribution Reveals Spatiotemporal Hypolimnetic Hypoxia Oscillations During the Past 200 Years in Lake Lehmilampi, Eastern Finland
Previous Article in Journal
Ultra-High-Resolution Monitoring of the Catchment Response to Changing Weather Conditions Using Online Sediment Trapping
Previous Article in Special Issue
What If the ‘Anthropocene’ Is Not Formalized as a New Geological Series/Epoch?
Open AccessArticle

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

by 1,2,3,* and 2,4,5
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
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 Anthropocene; societal geosciences; geoethical promise; ethical dilemma; geological time scale
Show Figures

Figure 1

MDPI and ACS Style

Bohle, M.; Bilham, N. The ‘Anthropocene Proposal’: A Possible Quandary and A Work-Around. Quaternary 2019, 2, 19.

Show more citation formats Show less citations formats
Note that from the first issue of 2016, MDPI journals use article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Access Map

1
Back to TopTop