Skip to main content

A geo-ethical logic for citizens and geoscientists

Abstract

The impacts of anthropogenic change do call for strengthening the socio-political and socio-economic anchorage of geoethical thinking. Geosciences are more than mere techno-scientific disciplines as, for example, geohydrology shows. Geoscience expertise ties geosciences and people's social lives. Geosciences are relevant for the societies' functioning, namely, to operate a technosphere at local, regional and planetary scales. Therefore, geoscience expertise includes a school of philosophical thinking called geoethics. Although initially designed for professional use, geoethics should support any citizen’s individual, professional and civic dealings. Nowadays, the technosphere is a vital feature of the contemporary Earth System (or ‘human niche’). In these contexts, conceptual benchmarks for geoethical thinking are described to address: (i) the operational limits of aspirational stipulations and (ii) a stronger socio-political anchorage of geoethical thinking. Methodologically, the present study relates geoethical thinking with the political philosophies of Bunge, Jonas and Kohlberg about people's social lives. Their works offer foundations for a broad application of geoethical thinking by providing benchmarks: Kohlberg's ‘hierarchy of societal coordination (moral adequacy)’, Bunge’s ‘balance of individual happiness (well-being) and duty’ and Jonas' ‘imperative of responsibility for agents of change’. These political philosophies can be combined with geoethical thinking (or geoethics). A ‘geo-ethical logic’ can be formulated, calling to act with: agent-centricity, virtue-focus, responsible-focus, reproducible/scientific knowledge, all-agent-inclusiveness and universal-rights-base. Whilst preserving the design of geoethics, the proposed geo-ethical logic strengthens the socio-political anchorage of geoethical thinking, and aspirational stipulations are benchmarked. Further study should aim to complement the given frame of socio-political benchmarks by socio-economic benchmarking.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution.

Availability of data and material

Not applicable.

Code availability

Not applicable.

Notes

  1. 1.

    For the benefit of the reader, the word ‘geoethics’ is used for a specific configuration of geoethical thinking to distinguish variants of thought.

  2. 2.

    Considering socio-economic dynamics is subject of ongoing studies of the author.

  3. 3.

    …system behaviour >> sense-making >> action >> system behaviour >> sense-making >> action >> …

  4. 4.

    The term ‘relativism’ was replaced by ‘pluralism’ to sharpen the meaning.

  5. 5.

    https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/aristotle-ethics/.

References

  1. Abrunhosa M, Chambel A, Peppoloni S, Chaminé HI (2021) Advances in geoethics and groundwater management : theory and practice for a sustainable development. In: Abrunhosa M, Chambel A, Peppoloni S, Chaminé HI (eds) Proceedings of the 1st congress on geoethics and groundwater management (GEOETH&GWM’20), Porto, Portugal 2020. Springer International Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-59320-9

  2. Andersson C, Törnberg P (2018) Wickedness and the anatomy of complexity. Futures 95(November 2017):118–138. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.futures.2017.11.001

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Aragão A (2021) Cultural ecosystem services of hydrogeological goods. In: Abrunhosa M, Chambel A, Peppoloni S, Chaminé HI (eds) Advances in geoethics and groundwater management: theory and practice for a sustainable development. Springer International Publishing, New York, pp 3-7. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-59320-9

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  4. Arendt H (1958) The human condition. The University of Chicago Press, Chicago

    Google Scholar 

  5. Arroyo KK (2017) Creative policymaking: taking the lessons of creative placemaking to scale. Artivate J Arts Innov Entrep 6(2):58–72

    Google Scholar 

  6. Biermann F (2014) The anthropocene: a governance perspective. Anthropocene Rev 1(1):57–61. https://doi.org/10.1177/2053019613516289

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Bohle M (2020) Geo-societal sense-making. In: Di Capua G, Bobrowsky PT, Kieffe S, Palinkas C (eds) Geological society, london, special publications. Springer, New York. https://doi.org/10.1144/SP508-2019-213

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  8. Bohle M (2021a) Citizen, geoscientist and associated terra-former. In: Mercantanti L, Montes S, Geographie S (eds) Global threats in the anthropocene: from COVID-19 to the future. Il Sileno Edizioni, New York, pp 169–186

    Google Scholar 

  9. Bohle M (2021b) Geoethics for Operating in the Human Niche. In: Abrunhosa M, Chamine HI, Chambel A (eds) Advances in geoethics and groundwater management: theory and practice for sustainable development. Springer International Publishing, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-59320-9_5

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  10. Bohle M, Bilham N (2019) The “anthropocene proposal”: a possible quandary and a work-around. Quaternary 2(2):19. https://doi.org/10.3390/quat2020019

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Bohle M, Di Capua G (2019) Setting the scene. In: Bohle M (ed) Exploring geoethics. Springer International Publishing, Cham, pp 1–24. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-12010-8_1

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  12. Bohle M, Marone E (2019) Humanistic geosciences and the planetary human niche. In: Bohle M (ed) Exploring geoethics. Springer International Publishing, Cham, pp 137–164. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-12010-8_4

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  13. Bohle M, Marone E (2021) Geoethics, a branding for sustainable practices. Sustainability 13(2):895. https://doi.org/10.3390/su13020895

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Bohle M, Di Capua G, Bilham N (2019a) Reframing Geoethics? In: Bohle M (ed) Exploring geoethics. Springer International Publishing, Cham, pp 165–174. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-12010-8_5

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  15. Bohle M, Nauen CE, Marone E (2019b) Ethics to intersect civic participation and formal guidance. Sustainability 11(3):773. https://doi.org/10.3390/su11030773

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Bonneuil C, Fressoz J-B (2013) L’événement Anthropocène - La Terre, l’histoire et Nous. Le Seuil, Paris

    Google Scholar 

  17. Boonstra W (2016) Conceptualizing power to study social-ecological interactions. Ecol Soc. https://doi.org/10.5751/ES-07966-210121

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Bunge MA (1989) Treaties on basic philosophy-ethics: the good and the right. D. Reidel Publishing Company, Dordrecht

    Book  Google Scholar 

  19. Chaffin BC, Garmestani AS, Gunderson LH, Benson MH, Angeler DG, Arnold CA, Cosens B, Craig RK, Ruhl JB, Allen CR (2016) Transformative environmental governance. Ann Rev Environ Resour 41(1):399–423. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-environ-110615-085817

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Colding J, Barthel S (2019) Exploring the social-ecological systems discourse 20 years later. Ecol Soc 24(1):art2. https://doi.org/10.5751/ES-10598-240102

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Di Baldassarre G, Sivapalan M, Rusca M, Cudennec C, Garcia M, Kreibich H, Konar M et al (2019) Socio-hydrology: scientific challenges in addressing a societal grand challenge. Water Resour Res. https://doi.org/10.1029/WR023901

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. Di Capua G, Peppoloni S (2019) ‘Defining geoethics (http://www.geoethics.org/definition)’. Of the IAPG—International Association for Promoting Geoethics. 2019. https://www.geoethics.org/definition. Accessed 27 July 2021

  23. Di Capua G, Peppoloni S, Bobrowsky P (2017) The cape town statement on geoethics. Ann Geophys 60:1–6. https://doi.org/10.4401/ag-7553

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. Di Capua G, Bobrowsky PT, Kieffer SW, Palinkas C (2021) Introduction: geoethics goes beyond the geoscience profession. Geol Soc Lond Special Publ. https://doi.org/10.1144/SP508-2020-191

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. Donges JF, Lucht W, Müller-Hansen F, Steffen W (2017) The technosphere in earth system analysis: a coevolutionary perspective. Anthropocene Rev 4(1):23–33. https://doi.org/10.1177/2053019616676608

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. Dryzek JS (2016) Earth system governance: world politics in the anthropocene. By Frank Biermann. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 2014. 260p. Perspect Polit 14(1):176–178. https://doi.org/10.1017/S153759271500345X

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. Dryzek JS, Pickering J (2019) The politics of the anthropocene. Oxford University Press, Oxford

    Google Scholar 

  28. Dyer-Witheford N (2018) Struggles in the planet factory: class composition and global warming. Interrogating the anthropocene. Springer International Publishing, Cham, pp 75–103. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-78747-3_2

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  29. Edenhofer O, Kowarsch M (2015) Cartography of pathways: a new model for environmental policy assessments. Environ Sci Policy 51(August):56–64. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envsci.2015.03.017

    Article  Google Scholar 

  30. Ellis EC, Richerson PJ, Mesoudi A, Svenning J-C, Odling-Smee J, Burnside WR (2016) Evolving the human niche. Proc Natl Acad Sci 113(31):E4436–E4436. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1609425113

    Article  Google Scholar 

  31. Fressoz J-B (2012) L’Apocalypse Joyeuse - Une Histoire Du Risque Technologique. Le Seuil, Paris

    Google Scholar 

  32. Fuentes A (2017) Human niche, human behaviour, human nature. Interface Focus 7(5):20160136. https://doi.org/10.1098/rsfs.2016.0136

    Article  Google Scholar 

  33. Fuerth LS, Faber EMH (2012) Anticipatory governance practical upgrades: equipping the executive branch to cope with increasing speed and complexity of major challenges. National Defense University, Washington, DC

    Google Scholar 

  34. Galaz V, Moberg F, Olsson E-K, Paglia E, Parker C (2011) Institutional and political leadership dimensions of cascading ecological crises. Public Adm 89(2):361–380. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9299.2010.01883.x

    Article  Google Scholar 

  35. Gundersen LC (ed) (2018) Scientific integrity and ethics: with applications to the geosciences. Wiley, New York

    Google Scholar 

  36. Haff PK (2016) Purpose in the anthropocene: dynamical role and physical basis. Anthropocene 16(December):54–60. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.ANCENE.2016.07.002

    Article  Google Scholar 

  37. Haff PK (2017) Being human in the anthropocene. Anthropocene Rev 4(2):103–109. https://doi.org/10.1177/2053019617700875

    Article  Google Scholar 

  38. Hake J-F, Fischer W, Venghaus S, Weckenbrock C (2015) The German Energiewende—history and status quo. Energy 92(December):532–546. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.energy.2015.04.027

    Article  Google Scholar 

  39. Hartley J, Herrmann-Pillath C (2018) Towards a semiotics of the technosphere. SSRN Electron J. https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3308002

    Article  Google Scholar 

  40. Head BW, Xiang W-N (2016) Working with wicked problems in socio-ecological systems: more awareness, greater acceptance, and better adaptation. Landsc Urban Plan 154(October):1–3. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landurbplan.2016.07.011

    Article  Google Scholar 

  41. Homer-Dixon T, Walker B, Biggs R, Crépin A-S, Folke C, Lambin EF, Peterson GD et al (2015) Synchronous failure: the emerging causal architecture of global crisis. Ecol Soc 20(3):art6. https://doi.org/10.5751/ES-07681-200306

    Article  Google Scholar 

  42. Hourdequin M (2015) Environmental ethics—from theory to practice. Bloomsbury Publishing Ülc, London

    Book  Google Scholar 

  43. Jonas H (1976) Responsibility today: the ethics of an endangered future. Soc Res Baltimore. https://doi.org/10.2307/40970214

    Article  Google Scholar 

  44. Jonas H (1981) The concept of responsibility: an inquiry into the foundations of an ethics for our age. In: Callahan D, Engelhardt H (eds) The roots of ethics. Springer, New York, pp 45–74. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4613-3303-6_4

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  45. Knight J (2015) Anthropocene futures: people, resources and sustainability. Anthropocene Rev 2(2):152–158. https://doi.org/10.1177/2053019615569318

    Article  Google Scholar 

  46. Kohlberg L (1981) The philosophy of moral development: moral stages and the idea of justice. Harber & Row, San Francisco

    Google Scholar 

  47. Kowarsch M, Garard J, Riousset P, Lenzi D, Dorsch MJ, Knopf B, Harrs J-A, Edenhofer O (2016) Scientific assessments to facilitate deliberative policy learning. Palgrave Commun 2(1):16092. https://doi.org/10.1057/palcomms.2016.92

    Article  Google Scholar 

  48. Lade SJ, Steffen W, de Vries W, Carpenter SR, Donges JF, Gerten D, Hoff H, Newbold T, Richardson K, Rockström J (2020) Human impacts on planetary boundaries amplified by earth system interactions. Nat Sustain 3(2):119–128. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41893-019-0454-4

    Article  Google Scholar 

  49. Leach M, Reyers B, Bai X, Brondizio ES, Cook C, Díaz S, Espindola G, Scobie M, Stafford-Smith M, Subramanian SM (2018) Equity and sustainability in the anthropocene: a social-ecological systems perspective on their intertwined futures. Global Sustain 1(November):e13. https://doi.org/10.1017/sus.2018.12

    Article  Google Scholar 

  50. Leinfelder R (2017) Das Zeitalter Des Anthropozäns Und Die Notwendigkeit Einer Großen Transformation. Zeitschrift Für Umweltrecht 5:259–266

    Google Scholar 

  51. Marone E, Bohle M (2020) Geoethics for nudging human practices in times of pandemics. Sustainability 12(18):7271. https://doi.org/10.3390/su12187271

    Article  Google Scholar 

  52. Marone E, Marone L (2014) A road map for a deontological code for geoscientists dealing with natural hazards. Engineering geology for society and territory, vol 7. Springer International Publishing, Cham, pp 45–48. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-09303-1_8

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  53. Matteucci R, Gosso G, Peppoloni S, Piacente S, Wasowski J, Matteucci R, Gosso G et al (2014) The “geoethical promise”: a proposal. Ital Fed Earth Sci 37(3):190–191

    Google Scholar 

  54. Meller C, Schill E, Bremer J, Kolditz O, Bleicher A, Benighaus C, Chavot P et al (2018) Acceptability of geothermal installations: a geoethical concept for GeoLaB. Geothermics 73(April):133–145. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.geothermics.2017.07.008

    Article  Google Scholar 

  55. Mogk DW (2020) The intersection of geoethics and diversity in the geosciences. Geol Soc Lond Spec Publ. https://doi.org/10.1144/SP508-2020-66

    Article  Google Scholar 

  56. Mogk DW, Bruckner MZ (2020) Geoethics training in the earth and environmental sciences. Nat Rev Earth Environ 1(2):81–83. https://doi.org/10.1038/s43017-020-0024-3

    Article  Google Scholar 

  57. Moores EM (1996) Geology and Culture: A Call for Action. GSA Today 7(1):7–11

    Google Scholar 

  58. Nature Editorial (2018) ‘Power to the People’. Nature

  59. Nurmi PA (2017) Green mining—a holistic concept for sustainable and acceptable mineral production. Ann Geophys. https://doi.org/10.4401/ag-7420

    Article  Google Scholar 

  60. Otto IM, Donges JF, Cremades R, Bhowmik A, Hewitt RJ, Lucht W, Rockström J et al (2020) Social tipping dynamics for stabilizing earth’s climate by 2050. Proc Natl Acad Sci. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1900577117

    Article  Google Scholar 

  61. Paul H (2018) The scientific self: reclaiming its place in the history of research ethics. Sci Eng Ethics 24(5):1379–1392. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11948-017-9945-8

    Article  Google Scholar 

  62. Peppoloni S (2018) Spreading geoethics through the languages of the world. Translations of the Cape Town statement on geoethics. International Association for Promoting Geoethics. https://www.earth-prints.org/handle/2122/11907. Accessed 27 July 2021

  63. Peppoloni S, Di Capua G (2012) Geoethics and geological culture: awareness, responsibility and challenges. Ann Geophys 55(3):335–341. https://doi.org/10.4401/ag-6099

    Article  Google Scholar 

  64. Peppoloni S, Di Capua G (2015) The meaning of geoethics. In: Wyss M, Peppoloni S (eds) Geoethics, vol 419. Elsevier, Amsterdam, pp 3–14

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  65. Peppoloni S, Di Capua G (2017) Geoethics: ethical, social and cultural implications in geosciences. Ann Geophys 60:1–8. https://doi.org/10.4401/ag-7473

    Article  Google Scholar 

  66. Peppoloni S, Di Capua G (2020) Geoethics as global ethics to face grand challenges for humanity. Geol Soc Lond Spec Publ. https://doi.org/10.1144/SP508-2020-146

    Article  Google Scholar 

  67. Peppoloni S, Bilham N, Di Capua G (2019) Contemporary geoethics within the geosciences. Exploring geoethics. Springer International Publishing, Cham, pp 25–70. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-12010-8_2

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  68. Preiser R, Woermann M (2018) Conceptual and practical implications for understanding and engaging with complex adaptive systems. In: Galaz V (ed) Handbook on global challenges, governance, and complexity (submitted). Edward Elgar Publishing, Cheltenham

    Google Scholar 

  69. Preiser R, Biggs R, De Vos A, Folke C (2018) Social-ecological systems as complex adaptive systems: organizing principles for advancing research methods and approaches. Ecol Soc 23(4):art46. https://doi.org/10.5751/ES-10558-230446

    Article  Google Scholar 

  70. Purdy J (2015) After nature: a politics for the anthropocene. Harvard University Press, Princeton

    Book  Google Scholar 

  71. Raab T, Frodeman R (2002) What is it like to be a geologist? A phenomenology of geology and its epistemological implications. Philos Geogr. https://doi.org/10.1088/0022-3719/14/26/011

    Article  Google Scholar 

  72. Redman CL, Miller TR (2015) The technosphere and earth stewardship. In: Rozzi R, Chapin FS, Callicott JB, Pickett STA, Power ME, Armesto JJ, May RH et al (eds) Earth stewardship. Springer International Publishing, Cham, pp 269–279. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-12133-8_17

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  73. Rosol C, Nelson S, Renn J (2017) Introduction: in the machine room of the anthropocene. Anthropocene Rev 4(1):2–8. https://doi.org/10.1177/2053019617701165

    Article  Google Scholar 

  74. Salvatore S, Mannarini T, Avdi E, Battaglia F, Cremaschi M, Fini V, Davanzati GF et al (2018) Globalization, demand of sense and enemization of the other: a psychocultural analysis of European societies’ sociopolitical crisis. Cult Psychol. https://doi.org/10.1177/1354067X18779056

    Article  Google Scholar 

  75. Salvatore S, Rochira A, Kharlamov N (2019a) The embodiment of cultural meanings. Symbolic universes as forms of life. In: Salvatore S, Fini V, Mannarini T, Valsiner J, Veltri GA (eds) Symbolic universes in time of (post)crisis. Springer, Cham, pp 235–253. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-19497-0_8

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  76. Salvatore S, Valsiner J, Veltri GA (2019b) The theoretical and methodological framework. Semiotic cultural psychology, symbolic universes and lines of semiotic forces. In: Salvatore S, Valsiner J, Veltri GA (eds) Symbolic universes in time of (post)crisis. Springer, New York, pp 25–49. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-19497-0_2

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  77. Schlüter M, Haider LJ, Lade SJ, Lindkvist E, Martin R, Orach K, Wijermans N, Folke C (2019) Capturing emergent phenomena in social-ecological systems: an analytical framework. Ecol Soc 24(3):art11. https://doi.org/10.5751/ES-11012-240311

    Article  Google Scholar 

  78. Serres M (1995) The natural contract. The University of Michigan Press, Ann Arbor

    Book  Google Scholar 

  79. Shearman R (1990) The meaning and ethics of sustainability. Environ Manage 14(1):1–8. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02394014

    Article  Google Scholar 

  80. Sivapalan M (2015) Debates-perspectives on socio-hydrology: changing water systems and the “tyranny of small problems”-socio-hydrology. Water Resour Res 51(6):4795–4805. https://doi.org/10.1002/2015WR017080

    Article  Google Scholar 

  81. Stewart IS, Lewis D (2017) Communicating contested geoscience to the public: moving from “matters of fact” to “matters of concern.” Earth Sci Rev 174(February):122–133. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.earscirev.2017.09.003

    Article  Google Scholar 

  82. Stewart IS, Ickert J, Lacassin R (2017) Communication seismic risk: the geoethical challenges of a people-centred, participatory approach. Ann Geophys 60:1–17

    Google Scholar 

  83. Syvitski J, Waters CN, Day J, Milliman JD, Summerhayes C, Steffen W, Zalasiewicz J et al (2020) Extraordinary human energy consumption and resultant geological impacts beginning around 1950 CE initiated the proposed anthropocene epoch. Commun Earth Environ 1(1):32. https://doi.org/10.1038/s43247-020-00029-y

    Article  Google Scholar 

  84. Termeer CJAM, Dewulf A, Biesbroek R (2019) A critical assessment of the wicked problem concept: relevance and usefulness for policy science and practice. Policy Soc 38(2):167–179. https://doi.org/10.1080/14494035.2019.1617971

    Article  Google Scholar 

  85. Turnhout E, Metze T, Wyborn C, Klenk N, Louder E (2020) The politics of co-production: participation, power, and transformation. Curr Opin Environ Sustain 42(February):15–21. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cosust.2019.11.009

    Article  Google Scholar 

  86. United Nations (2013) World Social Science Report 2013 Edited by UNESCO. OECD Publishing, Berlin. https://doi.org/10.1787/9789264203419-en.

  87. Walker B, Carpenter SR, Folke C, Gunderson L, Peterson GD, Scheffer M, Schoon M, Westley FR (2020) Navigating the Chaos of an unfolding global cycle. Ecol Soc 25(4):art23. https://doi.org/10.5751/ES-12072-250423

    Article  Google Scholar 

  88. Weber M (1919) Politik Als Beruf. Verlag von Dunker & Humblot, Geistige A. München

    Google Scholar 

  89. Weber M (2015) Weber’s rationalism and modern society. In: Tony CA (ed) Waters and dagmar waters. Palgrave Macmillan US, New York. https://doi.org/10.1057/9781137365866

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  90. Williams G (2018) ‘Kant’s Account of Reason’. The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. 2018. https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/kant-reason/. Accessed 27 July 2021

  91. Zalasiewicz J, Waters CN, Williams M, Summerhayes C (2019) The anthropocene as a geological time unit. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge. https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108621359

    Book  Google Scholar 

Download references

Funding

No external funding.

Author information

Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Martin Bohle.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

The author declares no competing interest.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Bohle, M. A geo-ethical logic for citizens and geoscientists. Sustain. Water Resour. Manag. 7, 85 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1007/s40899-021-00557-1

Download citation

Keywords

  • Geoethics
  • Moral adequacy
  • Imperative of responsibility
  • Sense-making
  • Complex-adaptive
  • Social–ecological systems