Advertisement

Geomorphology and Philosophy: A STEAM Survey of the Anthropocene

  • Valeria Dattilo
  • Francesco De Pascale
Chapter

Abstract

Many researchers propose that the Anthropocene represents a new division of geological time, positing that our activity by our use of fossil fuels has warmed the planet, raised sea levels, eroded the ozone layer and acidified the oceans. We contend the Anthropocene can only be understood in an interdisciplinary way, integrating ideas from the natural and social sciences with philosophy. That is, by means of STEAM.

Keywords

Geoethics Anthropocene Kojève Post-historical epoch STEAM 

References

  1. AGeI (2017) Programme and abstracts 32nd Italian geographic congress: “the contribution of geography among revolutions and reforms”. Association of Italian Geographers (AGeI), Bologna. ISBN: 978-88-942641-0-4Google Scholar
  2. Arendt A (1958, 1998) The human condition. 2nd edn. University of Chicago Press, ChicagoGoogle Scholar
  3. Augustine of Hippo, Confessiones (it. transl. 2006 with Latin text Le Confessioni, Rizzoli, Milano, 29th edn). Book 11Google Scholar
  4. Baranzoni S, Lucci A, Vignola P (2016) L’Antropocene. Fine, medium o sintomo dell’uomo? Lo Sguardo, Rivista di Filosofia 22(3):5–9Google Scholar
  5. Bobrowsky P, Cronin VS, Di Capua G, Kieffer SW, Peppoloni S (2017) The emerging field of geoethics. In: Gundersen LC (ed) Scientific integrity and ethics with applications to the geosciences, Special Publication American Geophysical Union, John Wiley and Sons, Inc.Google Scholar
  6. Bohle M (2015) Geoethics: from “blind spot” to common good. In: International Association for Promoting Geoethics blog. iapgeoethicsblogspotit. Available online June 13, 2015
  7. Bohle M (2016) Handling of human-geosphere intersections. Geosciences 6(3):1–11Google Scholar
  8. Bonneuil C, Fressoz J (2013) L’événement anthropocène. La Terre, l’histoire et nous. Éditions du Seuil, ParisGoogle Scholar
  9. Bonneuil C, Fressoz J (2016) The shock of the Anthropocene: the earth, history and us. Verso, LondonGoogle Scholar
  10. Carrington D (2016) The Anthropocene epoch: scientists declare dawn of human-influenced age. The Guardian. Available from: https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2016/aug/29/declare-anthropocene-epoch-experts-urge-geological-congress-human-impact-earth. [29 August 2016]
  11. Castree N (2014a) The Anthropocene and geography I: the back story. Geograph Compass 8(7):436–449CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Castree N (2014b) The Anthropocene and geography II: current contributions. Geograph Compass 8(7):450–463CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Castree N (2014c) The Anthropocene and geography III: future directions. Geograph Compass 8(7):464–476CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Chakrabarty D (2012) Postcolonial studies and the challenge of climate change. New Lit Hist 43(1):1–18CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Cimatti F (2013) Filosofia dell’animalità. Laterza, Roma-BariGoogle Scholar
  16. Cook BR, Richards LA, Rutherfurd I (2015) Geographies of the Anthropocene. Geogr Res 53(3):231–243CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Crutzen PJ (2002) Geology of mankind. Nature 415:23CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Crutzen PJ (2005) Welcome to the anthropocene! Andrea Parlangeli Ed, MilanoGoogle Scholar
  19. Crutzen PJ, Stoermer EF (2000) The Anthropocene. IGBP Newsl 41:17–18Google Scholar
  20. De Pascale F, Bernardo M, Muto F, D’Amico S, Zumbo R, Galea P, Agius M (2015) Neogeography and seismic risk perception. A comparison between two case-studies: Calabria (southern Italy), Malta. Eur J Geogr 6(1):64–83Google Scholar
  21. De Pascale F, Bernardo M, Muto F, Ruffolo A, Dattilo V (2016) Geoethics, neogeography and risk perception: myth, natural and human factors in archaic and postmodern society. In: D’Amico S (ed) Earthquakes and their impact on society. Springer Natural Hazards, International Publishing, Cham, pp 665–692CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. De Pascale F, Bernardo M, Muto F, Di Matteo D, Dattilo V (2017) Resilience and seismic risk perception at school: a geoethical experiment in Aiello Calabro, southern Italy. Nat Hazards J Int Soc Prev Mitigation Nat Hazards 86(Suppl. 2):569–586.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s11069-016-2696-z CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Ellis E (2011) Anthropogenic transformation of the terrestrial biosphere. Phil Trans R Soc A 369:1010–1035.  https://doi.org/10.1098/rsta.2010.0331 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Ellis E (2016) Evolving toward a better Anthropocene. Future Earth Blog. Research for Global Sustainability. Available from: http://www.futureearth.org/blog/2016-mar-29/evolving-toward-better-anthropocene. [16 March 2016]
  25. Giorda C (2016) Lo studio dell’Antropocene: una svolta anche per la geografia? Ambiente Società Territorio Geografia nelle scuole 61(3):3–8Google Scholar
  26. Hamilton C (2010) Requiem for a species: why we resist the truth about climate change. Earthscan, LondonGoogle Scholar
  27. Hamilton C (2016) Define the anthropocene in terms of the whole Earth. Nature 536:251. Available from: http://www.nature.com/news/define-the-anthropocene-in-terms-of-the-whole-earth-1.20427. [17 August 2016].  https://doi.org/10.1038/536251a CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Hamilton C, Grinevald J (2015) Was the Anthropocene anticipated? The Anthropocene Review, pp 1–14CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Haraway DJ (2016) Staying with the trouble: anthropocene, capitalocene, chthulucene. In: Moore JW (ed) Anthropocene or capitalocene? nature, history, and the crisis of capitalism. PM Press, OaklandGoogle Scholar
  30. Heidegger M (1927) Sein und Zeit, Halle-Saale (it. transl. 1976, Essere e tempo, Longanesi, Milano)Google Scholar
  31. Hyppolite J et al (1980) In: Salvadori R (ed) Interpretazioni hegeliane. La Nuova Italia, FirenzeGoogle Scholar
  32. International Association for Promoting Geoethics (IAPG) (2015) International association for promoting geoethics. Available from: http://www.geoethics.org
  33. Kojève A (1947) Introduction à la lecture de Hegel. Gallimard, Paris (it. transl. 1996, Introduzione alla lettura di Hegel, Lezioni sulla fenomenologia dello spirito, Adelphi, Milano)Google Scholar
  34. Latour B (2012) Enquêtes sur les modes d’existence: une anthropologie des modernes. La Découverte, ParisGoogle Scholar
  35. Latour B (2013) Facing Gaia. Six lectures on the political theology of nature. Gifford Lectures, EdinburghGoogle Scholar
  36. Latour B (2015) Face à Gaïa. Huit conférences sur le nouveau régime climatique, Les Empêcheurs de penser en rond. La Découverte, ParisGoogle Scholar
  37. Limaye SD (2015) A geoethical approach to industrial development of georesources and groundwater use: the Indian experience. In: Peppoloni S, Di Capua G (eds) Geoethics: the role and responsibility of geoscientists. Geological Society, London, Lyell Collection (Special Publications), vol 419, pp 13–18CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Lorimer J (2012) Multinatural geographies of the Antropocene. Prog Hum Geogr 36(5):593–612CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Matteucci R, Gosso G, Peppoloni S, Piacente S, Wasowski J (2012) A Hippocratic Oath for geologists? Ann Geophys 55(3):365–369Google Scholar
  40. Monastersky R (2015a) First atomic blast proposed as start of Anthropocene. Nature. Available from: http://www.nature.com/news/first-atomic-blast-proposed-as-start-of-anthropocene-1.16739. [16 January 2015).  https://doi.org/10.1038/nature.2015.16739
  41. Monastersky R (2015b) Anthropocene: the human age. Nature 519(7542):144–147CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Moore JW (2016) Introduction. Anthropocene or capitalocene? nature, history, and the crisis of capitalism. In: Moore JV (ed) Anthropocene or cpitalocene? nature, history, and the crisis of capitalism. PM Press, Oakland, pp 1–11Google Scholar
  43. Nietzsche F (1883–85) Also sprach Zarathustra Ein Buch für Alle und Keinen (it. transl. 1965, Così parlò Zarathustra, Mursia, Milano, XIV ed.)Google Scholar
  44. Oppermann S, Iovino S (2017) The environmental humanities and the challenges of the anthropocene. In: Oppermann S, Iovino S (eds) Environmental humanities: voices from the anthropocene. Rowman & Littlefield International – Intersections, London/New YorkGoogle Scholar
  45. Paál G (2015) Geoethics, the Anthropocene and the pope. In: International association for promoting geoethics blog. Available from: iapgeoethics.blogspot.it. [11 July 2015]
  46. Peppoloni S, Di Capua G (2012) Geoethics and geological culture: awareness, responsibility and challenges. Ann Geophys 55:3.  https://doi.org/10.4401/ag-6099 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Peppoloni S, Di Capua G (2015a) Introduction. In: Peppoloni S, Di Capua G (eds) Geoethics: the role and responsibility of geoscientists. Geological Society, London, Lyell Collection (Special Publications), 419, pp 1–4CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Peppoloni S, Di Capua G (2015b) The meaning of geoethics. In: Wyss M, Peppoloni S (eds) Geoethics: ethical challenges and case studies in earth sciences. Elsevier, Amsterdam, pp 3–14.  https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-12-799935-7.000 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Peppoloni, S, Bobrowsky, P, & Di Capua, G 2015, ‘Geoethics: a challenge for research integrity in geosciences’, in N Steneck, M Anderson, S Kleinert & T. Mayer (eds), Integrity in the global research arena, World Scientific Publishing Co, Singapore, pp. 287–294CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Pievani T (2009) The world after Charles R. Darwin: continuity, Unity in diversity, contingency. Rend Fis Acc Lincei, Springer 20:355–361CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Pievani T (2012) Geoethics and philosophy of earth sciences: the role of geophysical factors in human evolution. In: Peppoloni S, Di Caupua G (eds) Geoethics and geological culture. Reflections from the Geoitalia conference 2011, annals of geophysics (special issue), 55, 3, pp 349–353Google Scholar
  52. Rilke RM (1923) Duineser Elegien, Insel Verlag, Frankfurt (it. transl. 1978, Elegie Duinesi, Giulio Einaudi Editore, Torino)Google Scholar
  53. Steffen W, Grinevald J, Crutzen PJ, McNeill JR (2011) The Anthropocene: conceptual and historical perspectives. Phil Trans R Soc A 369(1938):842–867CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Trachtenberg Z (2016) Bringing conversation to the Anthropocene. FutureEarth blog, Research for global sustainability. Available from: http://www.futureearth.org/blog/2016-aug-24/bringing-conversation-anthropocene. [24 August 2016]
  55. Travis C, Holm P (2017) Lessons for the Anthropocene from the recent past: tobacco use, HIV/AIDS, and social transformation. Global and Planetary Change. Available online 20 April 2017.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gloplacha.2017.04.006 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Vernadsky WI (1924) La Géochimie. Librairie Félix Alcan, ParisGoogle Scholar
  57. Whitehead M (2014) Environmental transformations. A geography of the anthropocene. Routledge, London/New YorkCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Zalasiewicz J, Williams M, Smith A, Barry TL, Bown PR, Rawson P, Brenchley P, Cantrill D, Coe AE, Gale A, Gibbard PL, Gregory FJ, Hounslow M, Kerr A, Pearson P, Knox R, Powell P, Waters C, Marshall J, Oates M, Rawson P, Stone P (2008) Are we now living in the Anthropocene. GSA Today 18(2):4–8CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Zalasiewicz J et al (2014) When did the Anthropocene begin? A mid-twentieth century boundary level is stratigraphically optimal. Quaternary Int. Available online 12 January 2015Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG, part of Springer Nature 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  • Valeria Dattilo
    • 1
  • Francesco De Pascale
    • 2
  1. 1.Department of HumanitiesUniversity of CalabriaCosenzaItaly
  2. 2.Italian National Research Council, Research Institute for Geo-Hydrological ProtectionCosenzaItaly

Personalised recommendations