The idea of mankind as a geological force was coined over ten years ago by the Dutch Nobel Prize winner Paul Crutzen. Until 2016 geologists from the International Commission on Stratigraphy will be gathering indications for the turning point in geological history. Only then it can be determined if we left the era of the Holocene and have entered the “era of mankind”. But whatever the outcome: The traces left by human kind are presenting an ever growing global challenge to our planet.
„In view of the upcoming changes, the role of knowledge and science has to be reconsidered and newly adjusted. The challenges which we are facing as a civil society but also in science, politics and economy are considerable” said water scientist Thomas Kluge in his keynote speech. There was hardly another natural system better suited as an example than the globally increasing need for groundwater. “We are conducting a risky large experiment with a complex earth system which we are not really able to fully comprehend” warned Kluge. The old motto of the early environmental movement “think globally, act locally” was still making sense in the Anthropocene but would have to be newly defined as global problems were concerning all of mankind which however was not a subject of action. In order to generate knowledge necessary for society he furthermore called for a new knowledge system.
Transdisciplinarity as a suitable future research mode
Thomas Jahn co-founder of the ISOE – Institute for Social-Ecological Research and spokesperson of the executive board took up the idea of a changing science. “The idea of an Anthropocene will change the discussion on sustainability as well as science itself”, said Jahn. He assumed that the necessity of transformation was going to become more obvious still. A suitable science mode in this respect was transdisciplinarity, a problem orientated approach that not only cuts across scientific disciplines but aside scientific knowledge also includes practical knowledge from societal stakeholders into the research process. This approach would in future serve as a “referential framework for a science that is dealing with issues of sustainable developments”.
The question of future of science had been taken up by Helga Nowotny, former president of the European Research Council (ERC) on the previous evening. She held the ceremonial speech at the “Museum Angewandte Kunst” on the occasion of the 25th anniversary of ISOE with the title “The World of Tomorrow”. In her lecture she expressed her conviction that disciplinary boundaries were neither contemporary nor helpful when facing challenges that were not disciplinary by nature. Nowotny emphasized the necessity of a scientific view able to seize complexities in order to better understand the unintentional effects of human behavior: “All future history will either be based on an understanding of societal relationship to nature and on an adequate transformation into action or it will not exist at all.”
Anthropocene 2.0 – controlled interventions into global ecological processes
In her speech, Heike Egner from the Alpen-Adria-University of Klagenfurth pointed out that within the geo-sciences there was no consensus concerning the diagnosis of an Anthropocene. But for the human geographer it was not important if the Anthropocene was going to be officially confirmed but that the idea had been aired. The automatic call for technical solutions was not helpful, said Egner. In the face of systemic risks and non-linear and thus hardly predictable processes Heike Egner advised to move away from the idea of controllability and suggested “more humbleness instead of technocratic actionism”. The way society deals with the natural environment had move closer into the scientific focus.
The atmospheric scientist Mark Lawrence also pointed in the direction of controllability. “Anthropocene 1.0” meant for him the result of unintentional consequences of human behavior. “But aren’t we already on our way to an Anthropocene 2.0?” asked Lawrence. There are definitely ways to influence the system earth in an intentional and coordinated manner – for instance by withdrawing CO2 from the atmosphere. Taking the example of geo-engineering, the scientific director of the Institute for Advanced Sustainability Studies (IASS) raised the question of how one should deal with the considerable uncertainties concerning the effects of these interventions. “There is no package leaflet telling you to ask your doctor or pharmacist”, said Lawrence. He referred to strong ethical objections when it comes to the idea to create a globally suitable climate and asked: “How far does our hubris go?”
The term ‚Anthropocene’: future orientated, instrumentalized, or useless
Jochem Marotzke, basic researcher at the Max-Planck-Institute for Meteorology in Hamburg described the term ‘Anthropocene’ as more or less unimportant. In the IPCC-report it was only mentioned twice and played no role within the natural scientific climate research. “But that does not mean to say that the human influence on climate is unimportant”, he pointed out. Marotzke strongly criticized the origin of the term. The climate researcher expressed the opinion that this term was mainly created by a group of scientists who described our planet’s limits of resistance as planetary limits. He asked “aren’t in this case a small number of scientists claiming the term referring to the precautionary principle and making value judgements for all of society based on unreliable facts – at least as far as climate change is concerned?.”
Harald Welzer, co-founder and director of the non-profit foundation FUTURZWEI neither showed much sympathy for the term ‘Anthropocene’ and suggested” to wrap it up and dump it”. He diverted from the sociopolitical fact, that the effects of destruction can be traced back to modern production and reproduction. Not so much the human being but capitalism had destroyed the basic foundation for further existence with the civilizing standard. ”The motion of the destructive mechanism is not anthropologic but economic” said Welzer. At the same time the social psychologist pointed to the leeway for another practically orientated science. “The current scientific operating system is not a solution but part of the problem because it only delivers data and content.”