原文網址http://www.nature.com/news/involve-social-scientists-in-defining-the-anthropocene-1.21090
界定人類世時要讓更多社會科學學者參與其中
地球時代的交替是由人類和社會引起，Erle Ellis及其同僚寫道，因此在正名(人類世)時必須讓更多這些領域的學者參與其中。
大約有30多名的學者正準備改寫地球的歷史。國際地層委員會(International Commission on Stratigraphy)之下的人類世工作小組(Anthropocene Working Group，作者之一Erle
Ellis為其中一名成員)於八月公開發表在接下來的三年期間，他們將會把地球歷史分成兩部分：其一是人類已成為最強地質作用力之一的時期，稱作人類世(Anthropocene)；另一部分則涵蓋了人類對地球運作造成重大影響之前的所有時間。
要將兩者分界定在何處則是一項爭議十足的議題。討論結果是用一個或多個「金色之釘」(golden spikes)來精準定出分界：目前是利用自20世紀中葉起發明的科技，其產物留存在全球岩石紀錄中的明顯訊號，從放射性核種至塑膠皆在此列。之後國際地質科學研討會審核人類世的正名與否時，這類標記會被提出來作為重要依據。
我們同意人類應該正式承認自身對地球的影響，但是人類世的正名不應太過倉促。而我們也質疑1950年代標記的優先地位，因其忽略了人類在過去數千年間，從人類開始用火以至於農業的興起所造成的影響。更重要的是，這些標記完全沒有呈現出人類對地球的改變是漸進式的本質。他們灌輸了一種歐洲本位、菁英主義及專家政治的敘述方式，呈現出來的是人與環境處於互相敵對的立場，這跟現今社會科學及人文科學的思潮是互相違背的。
數十年以來對人類長期重塑地球系統的整體歷史、背後原因和造成結果所進行的嚴謹科學研究卻在小組討論結果中隻字未提。在定義一段以人類為主軸的地質時期時，怎麼能完全沒有提到社會活動、都市化、殖民、貿易網絡、生態工程以及能源從生質轉變成化石燃料等現象的演變過程？
我們要求重新建立一個更加嚴謹、透明、公開且永續經營的組織來主導人類世的正名過程，在這之中人文科學必須佔有一席之地。
更加深遠的過程
人類世並非在一天之內造成，於各地的形成過程也不一致：記下人類如何改變地球的物質紀錄可謂相當深厚且包羅萬象。它們的內容強調出社會、文化和科技發展在不同時空疆域上的巨大差異。
過去10,000年以來，人類活動造成許多生物步入滅絕，也重新分配了全球野生及經馴化後的植物、動物甚至微生物的活動範圍。開墾改變了侵蝕作用的運作模式，也讓土壤蘊含的溫室氣體排放至大氣當中。人類創造出各式各樣的物質，例如陶瓷、磚塊和混凝土，同時還有汙染物。阡陌縱橫的廣大運河、水庫和灌溉系統―像是柬埔寨吳哥窟寺廟群中建立的―改變了當地地景以及生態系。
從10,000年前開始，許多地方於不同時間點各自發展出農業，並在地球陸地的大部分區域留下了許多無可抹滅的紀錄。雖然目前尚未有人知曉塑膠的命運會是如何，但農業的化石紀錄已經完整記載於古代花粉、種子、寄生蟲、骨骸以及木炭與土壤沉積物當中。而宏偉的灌溉網路也可以從空中或太空追溯其脈絡。
地球科學很久以前便已經放棄藉由精確界定地層分界來得到連續性變化的紀錄。他們改以同位素「代用指標」(proxies)來追溯全球溫度、冰層體積以及大氣氣體成分的起伏漲落。地球系統模型將大氣碳含量、海平面、海水同位素和海洋沉積物等面向中的緩慢改變連結在一起。類似地，農業、貿易、工業化等人類活動也是全球各地形成時間並不一致的漸變過程。
要瞭解「人類系統」(human system)必需奠基於各種形式的紀錄(包括考古、歷史和古生態)，並以各方觀點(比如：政治生態學、政治經濟學、歷史生態學、文化演變和環境倫理)來建立起一個龐大的學術體系。舉例而言，了解全球氣候變遷時，我們需要知道社會和文化過程如何促使人們開墾農業用地，並造成土壤與大氣之間的溫室氣體、水氣和能量產生交換。這些過程從農業土地管理的實施，到人口結構轉移、土地掠奪和社會衝突皆涵蓋在內。
雖然人類世工作小組曾經提出一些年代較久遠的人為訊號，像是人類首度開始冶金造成的汙染，但它們都很少被接受進一步的考慮，因為這些紀錄的顯著程度、形成時間和發現地點皆十分多變。取而代之的是，小組幾乎完全倚重於能指出全球同時發生某種事件的地質沉積物。就我們來看原因顯而易見。雖然小組成員的確包括了自然科學領域以外的人員(像是一名新聞工作者、一名律師及數名科學史學家)，但37位成員當中僅有三位是研究長期社會變化的社會科學家(兩位考古學家及一位歷史學家)。
囊括更多意見
人類世的正名過程必須更加透明，並納入更多方面的意見以及評估。評鑑新紀元科學意義的標準需要公開發表且接受同儕審查，而非只是在私人會議中頷首通過即可。這需要一個公開網路平台，可以容納來自各領域的提議和研究論文，同時能讓他人對這些意見提出回饋並討論。聯合國政府間氣候變化專門委員會、英國皇家學會和美國國家科學基金會出版的評估報告可以作為參考。
我們應當成立一個致力於統籌這件事務的科學機構，或許可以命名為「國際人類世委員會」(International
Anthropocene Commission)。它可以在國際地質委員會、未來地球計畫(Future Earth，一項氣候變遷的10年國際研究計劃)和聯合國的資助之下成立。成員中的半數必須從人類學、考古學、歷史學、社會學、地理學、古生態學、經濟學和哲學領域中遴選而出。且該機構所做的任何決議應當要有一套正式流程。
定義一個以人類為主軸的新時代絕非一蹴可幾。這需要由各個領域的專家學者以應有的嚴肅態度認真看待。
Involve social scientists in defining the
Anthropocene
The causes of Earth's transition are human
and social, write Erle Ellis and colleagues, so scholars from those disciplines
must be included in its formalization.
Three dozen academics are planning to
rewrite Earth's history. The Anthropocene Working Group of the International
Commission on Stratigraphy (of which one of us, E.E., is a member) announced in
August that over the next three years it will divide Earth's story into two
parts: one in which humans are a geological superpower — an epoch called the
Anthropocene — and the other encompassing all that came before our species had
a major influence on Earth's functioning1.
Where to put the transition is being
debated. Discussions have narrowed to defining one or more 'golden spikes':
sharp global signatures in the rock record derived from the introduction of
mid-twentieth century technologies, from radionuclides to plastics. Such
markers will be put forward as the basis for ratifying the epoch by the
International Geological Congress.
We agree that human influences on the
planet should be recognized — but the formalization of the Anthropocene should
not be rushed. And we question the privileging of 1950s-era markers. This
ignores millennia of previous human influences, from our use of fire to the
emergence of agriculture2–6. Moreover, these markers misrepresent the continuous nature of
human changes to our planet. They instil a Eurocentric, elite and technocratic
narrative of human engagement with our environment that is out of sync with
contemporary thought in the social sciences and the humanities3, 7–9.
Decades of rigorous scientific research
into the history, causes and consequences of the long-term reshaping of Earth
systems by humans is being ignored in the group's discussions. How can a
human-centred geological period be defined without characterizing the
development of societies, urbanization, colonization, trading networks,
ecosystem engineering and energy transitions from biomass to fossil fuels?
We call for the Anthropocene
formalization process to be rebuilt on a rigorous, transparent, open and
sustainable foundation in which the human sciences have a major role.
Deeper
and thicker
The Anthropocene was not made in a day,
nor was it created uniformly: the material records of human alterations of
Earth are thick, deep and heterogeneous. They highlight huge social, cultural
and technological differences across time and space7, 8.
Human activities over the past 10,000
years have caused extinctions and global changes in the distribution of wild
and domesticated plants, animals and microflora. Land clearance has altered
patterns of erosion and released greenhouse gases into the atmosphere. Humans
have created materials such as ceramics, brick and concrete as well as
pollutants. Vast networks of canals, reservoirs and irrigation — such as those
associated with the Angkor Wat temple complex in Cambodia — have shaped lands
and ecologies2–4, 6, 10.
Agriculture, which emerged in more than
a dozen places at different times starting more than 10,000 years ago, has left
a vast and indelible record across most of Earth's continents. Although no one
yet knows the fate of plastics, the fossil record of agriculture is well
documented in ancient pollen, seeds, parasites, bones, deposits of charcoal and
soils. Giant irrigation networks can be traced from the air or space.
Earth sciences long ago moved away from
defining precise stratigraphic boundaries to developing records of continuous
change4. Isotope 'proxies' trace the rise and fall of global
temperatures, ice volumes and atmospheric gases. Earth-systems models link
together slow shifts in atmospheric carbon, sea levels and isotopes in seawater
and marine deposits. Likewise, agriculture, trade and industrialization are
gradual processes that emerged at different times across Earth (see 'The deep roots of the
Anthropocene').
Understanding 'human systems' requires
engaging a vast body of scholarship based on a diverse array of records
(including archaeological, historical and palaeoecological) and perspectives
(from political ecology, political economy, historical ecology, cultural
evolution and environmental ethics, for instance). Understanding changes in
global climate, for example, requires knowing how social and cultural processes
drive the clearance of agricultural land and exchanges of atmospheric
greenhouse gases, moisture and energy. These processes range from the practices
of agricultural land management to demographic shifts, land grabbing and
societal conflict.
The Anthropocene Working Group has
thrown in a few deeper anthropogenic signals, such as pollution caused by the
first production of metals. But these have hardly been considered because the
records vary in extent, timing and geographical availability. Instead, the group
has focused almost exclusively on geological deposits that pinpoint one event
simultaneously around the world. The reason seems clear to us. Although the
group does include members outside the natural sciences (such as a journalist,
a lawyer and historians of science) only 3 of the 37 members are social
scientists who study long-term social change (two archaeologists and one
historian).
More
inclusive
The formalization of the Anthropocene
must be more transparent and have wider input and assessment. The criteria for
assessing the sciences of the new epoch need to be published and peer reviewed,
rather than agreed in private meetings. An open online platform could host the
full range of proposals and research papers as well as feedback and discussion.
The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change and the UK Royal Society and US
National Science Foundation Assessment Reports serve as models.
A dedicated scientific institution,
perhaps called the International Anthropocene Commission, should coordinate
this. It could be set up and funded under the auspices of the International
Geological Congress, Future Earth (a ten-year international research initiative
on global change) and the United Nations. Half of its members should be drawn
from anthropology, archaeology, history, sociology, geography, palaeoecology,
economics and philosophy. It should have a formal procedure for inclusion.
Defining a human-centred epoch will
take time. It should be treated by scholars from all disciplines with the
seriousness it deserves.
原始文章：Nature 540, 192–193 (08 December
2016) doi:10.1038/540192a
沒有留言:
張貼留言