对达米亚诺斯-人类世焦虑的回应:真实的地质学和地层学诚意

IF 2.9 2区 社会学 Q1 HISTORY & PHILOSOPHY OF SCIENCE
Colin N Waters, Jan Zalasiewicz, Martin J Head, Georg N Schäfer, Francine MG McCarthy, Simon D Turner
{"title":"对达米亚诺斯-人类世焦虑的回应:真实的地质学和地层学诚意","authors":"Colin N Waters, Jan Zalasiewicz, Martin J Head, Georg N Schäfer, Francine MG McCarthy, Simon D Turner","doi":"10.1177/03063127251343046","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Damianos provides his views on the significance of the March 2024 decision by the International Commission on Stratigraphy (ICS) to reject the proposal of the Anthropocene Working Group (AWG), the body we represent, to formalize the Anthropocene as a series/epoch of the Geological Time Scale. He draws upon ‘four years of ethnographic observation’ of the AWG, over which time this body provided him with access to its meetings and discussions. Given this access, the numerous misrepresentations within his article warrant redress. Ultimately, his conclusions mimic claims of influential figures within the governing bodies of the stratigraphic process: that the AWG were attempting to formalize the Anthropocene for political reasons and subvert the process through use of the media, and that the proposed definition was based upon claims about the future and not the past geological record. We refute those accusations, and emphasize that the proposed Anthropocene epoch, based on scrupulous and detailed analysis of the stratigraphic record, demonstrates striking and transformative Earth System change driven by the mid-20th century ‘Great Acceleration’ of human activities.","PeriodicalId":51152,"journal":{"name":"Social Studies of Science","volume":"40 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":2.9000,"publicationDate":"2025-06-09","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Response to Damianos—Anthropocene angst: Authentic geology and stratigraphic sincerity\",\"authors\":\"Colin N Waters, Jan Zalasiewicz, Martin J Head, Georg N Schäfer, Francine MG McCarthy, Simon D Turner\",\"doi\":\"10.1177/03063127251343046\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Damianos provides his views on the significance of the March 2024 decision by the International Commission on Stratigraphy (ICS) to reject the proposal of the Anthropocene Working Group (AWG), the body we represent, to formalize the Anthropocene as a series/epoch of the Geological Time Scale. He draws upon ‘four years of ethnographic observation’ of the AWG, over which time this body provided him with access to its meetings and discussions. Given this access, the numerous misrepresentations within his article warrant redress. Ultimately, his conclusions mimic claims of influential figures within the governing bodies of the stratigraphic process: that the AWG were attempting to formalize the Anthropocene for political reasons and subvert the process through use of the media, and that the proposed definition was based upon claims about the future and not the past geological record. We refute those accusations, and emphasize that the proposed Anthropocene epoch, based on scrupulous and detailed analysis of the stratigraphic record, demonstrates striking and transformative Earth System change driven by the mid-20th century ‘Great Acceleration’ of human activities.\",\"PeriodicalId\":51152,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Social Studies of Science\",\"volume\":\"40 1\",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.9000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-06-09\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Social Studies of Science\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"90\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1177/03063127251343046\",\"RegionNum\":2,\"RegionCategory\":\"社会学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"HISTORY & PHILOSOPHY OF SCIENCE\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Social Studies of Science","FirstCategoryId":"90","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/03063127251343046","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"HISTORY & PHILOSOPHY OF SCIENCE","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

Damianos提供了他对国际地层学委员会(ICS)在2024年3月决定的重要性的看法,该决定拒绝了人类世工作组(AWG)的建议,即我们所代表的机构,将人类世正式确定为地质时间尺度的一系列/时代。他利用了对AWG“四年的人种学观察”,在此期间,这个机构为他提供了参加会议和讨论的机会。鉴于这一途径,他文章中的许多错误陈述值得纠正。最后,他的结论模仿了地层学过程管理机构中有影响力的人物的说法:AWG试图出于政治原因将人类世正式化,并利用媒体颠覆这一过程,而且提议的定义是基于对未来的主张,而不是基于过去的地质记录。我们驳斥了这些指控,并强调提出的人类世时代是基于对地层记录的细致分析,证明了20世纪中期人类活动的“大加速”推动了地球系统的显著变化。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Response to Damianos—Anthropocene angst: Authentic geology and stratigraphic sincerity
Damianos provides his views on the significance of the March 2024 decision by the International Commission on Stratigraphy (ICS) to reject the proposal of the Anthropocene Working Group (AWG), the body we represent, to formalize the Anthropocene as a series/epoch of the Geological Time Scale. He draws upon ‘four years of ethnographic observation’ of the AWG, over which time this body provided him with access to its meetings and discussions. Given this access, the numerous misrepresentations within his article warrant redress. Ultimately, his conclusions mimic claims of influential figures within the governing bodies of the stratigraphic process: that the AWG were attempting to formalize the Anthropocene for political reasons and subvert the process through use of the media, and that the proposed definition was based upon claims about the future and not the past geological record. We refute those accusations, and emphasize that the proposed Anthropocene epoch, based on scrupulous and detailed analysis of the stratigraphic record, demonstrates striking and transformative Earth System change driven by the mid-20th century ‘Great Acceleration’ of human activities.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Social Studies of Science
Social Studies of Science 管理科学-科学史与科学哲学
CiteScore
5.70
自引率
6.70%
发文量
45
审稿时长
>12 weeks
期刊介绍: Social Studies of Science is an international peer reviewed journal that encourages submissions of original research on science, technology and medicine. The journal is multidisciplinary, publishing work from a range of fields including: political science, sociology, economics, history, philosophy, psychology social anthropology, legal and educational disciplines. This journal is a member of the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE)
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信