Designing Geoethics for Cultural Milieus: The Inverse Problem

Studies in geoethics offer normative frameworks for the responsible conduct of geoscientists and citizens in their interactions with Earth's telluric aspects [1]. While the expression telluric aspects refers to the material attributes of the planetary habitat, e.g., the lithosphere, hydrosphere, atmosphere, and cryosphere, the related expression tellurian aspects refers to Earth & World, including agents, institutions, and norms. Witnessing planetary-scale anthropogenic change, geoethics configure tellurian practices, that is, how people construct human niches within the planetary habitat. Hence, geoethics mediates between Earth-system knowledge and moral–political judgment, i.e., geoethics are epistemic–moral hybrids [2].  

Applying systemism and scientific realism as philosophical guidance, the design principle of geoethics is derived: consistent philosophical insights and geoscientific insights combine to geoethical tenets ({T_j}). Tellurian practices ({A_{j,k,i}}) emerge when a social group (V_k) applies geoethical tenets ({T_j}) to a given telluric attribute of the planetary habitat, i.e., a geoscientific issue (G_i). The regular problem of geoethics is posed: given ({T_j}) and (V_k) tellurian practices ({A_{j,k,i}}) are deduced for handling (G_i). These practices are means–end complexes specified by an axiology underpinning the philosophical insights, for example, human flourishing (knowledge, welfare, liberty, solidarity, justice). However, conflicts arise in plural societies because groups (W_m) may not accept the geoethical framing ({T_j}) and therefore enact practices ({B_{j,m,i}}) for (G_i). Subsequently, the inverse problem of geoethics is posed: given a desired practice ({A_{j,k,i}}) for a specific geoscientific issue (G_i), which geoethical framing would different cultural milieus be willing to embrace?

To operationalise insights into the inverse problem of geoethics, a typology of symbolic cultural universes, i.e. milieus, is used. These milieus differ in how they interpret "what the world is" and "what ought to be done". Subsequently, these milieus also vary in the uptake of geoethics (high, moderate, partial, or low) and the ways they deal with it (rules, trusted brokers, inclusion mechanisms, or defensive closure). How to tackle 'managed retreat' in response to the predicted rise of global mean sea level illustrates how the inverse problem of geoethics becomes practically urgent [3]. Its systemic relevance arises from understanding the planetary habitat as a single, integrated Earth System [4], which establishes that worldviews, cultures, philosophies, and ethics themselves must be treated as endogenous system attributes. Hence, variants of geoethics designed for cultural milieus are urgently needed to drive just and effective tellurian practices.

• Peppoloni S, Di Capua G (2021) Current Definition and Vision of Geoethics. In: Geo-societal Narratives. Springer International Publishing, Cham, pp 17–28
• Potthast T (2024) Epistemic-Moral Hybrids as a Heuristic for Normative Epistemology in Practice. In: Flemmer R, Gill B, Kosgei J (eds) Proximity as Method. Routledge India, London, pp 68–77
• Bohle M, Marone E (2022) Phronesis at the Human-Earth Nexus: Managed Retreat. Front Polit Sci 4:1–13. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpos.2022.819930
• Nightingale AJ, Eriksen S, Taylor M, et al (2020). Beyond Technical Fixes: climate solutions and the great derangement. Clim Dev 12:343–352. https://doi.org/10.1080/17565529.2019.1624495