The semiosis of the Anthropocene: for a reinterpretation of the relationship between man and nature through geoethics

Author/s Francesco De Pascale, Valeria Dattilo
Publishing Year 2019 Issue 2019/2 Language French
Pages 18 P. 23-40 File size 144 KB
DOI 10.3280/RGI2019-002002
DOI is like a bar code for intellectual property: to have more infomation click here

Below, you can see the article first page

If you want to buy this article in PDF format, you can do it, following the instructions to buy download credits

Article preview

FrancoAngeli is member of Publishers International Linking Association, Inc (PILA), a not-for-profit association which run the CrossRef service enabling links to and from online scholarly content.

The Anthropocene concept, the new geological era proposed by P. Crutzen and E. Stoermer (2000), seems to be meant to play an increasingly prominent role in the international scientific debate. In this context, the first part of the article illustrates the foundations and objectives of geoethics, and the conceivable connections with the Anthropocene geological era. In fact, geoethics, that is the analysis of how humans think and act in order to suggest appropriate behaviors where human activities interact with the geosphere, is dialectically related to the concept of Anthropocene. In the second part of the article the new processes of the Anthropocene era are illustrated through geoethics and semiotics, using as a "translator mechanism" one of the key notions of Peircean semiotics: the semiotic triangle, for the purpose of reinterpreting and reconsidering the relationship between man and nature.

Il concetto di Antropocene, la nuova era geologica proposta da P. Crutzen ed E. Stoermer (2000), sembra destinato a giocare un ruolo sempre più prominente nel dibattito scientifico internazionale. In tale contesto, nella prima parte dell’articolo, vengono illustrati i fondamenti e gli obiettivi della geoetica, e le connessioni concepibili con l’era geologica dell’Antropocene. Infatti, la geoetica, vale a dire l’analisi delle modalità attraverso cui gli esseri umani pensano ed agiscono ai fini di suggerire comportamenti appropriati laddove le attività umane interagiscano con la geosfera, è dialetticamente correlata al concetto di Antropocene. Nella seconda parte dell’articolo vengono illustrati i nuovi processi dell’era dell’Antropocene attraverso la geoetica e la semiotica, impiegando come "meccanismo traduttore" una delle nozioni chiave della semiotica peirceana: il triangolo semiotico, ai fini di una reinterpretazione e riconsiderazione del rapporto tra uomo e natura.

Keywords: Anthropocene, geoethics, noosphere, Peirce, semiotics

  1. Dowty R.A., Allen B.L., a cura di (2011). Dynamics of Disaster: Lessons on Risk, Response, and Recovery. Londres: Earthscan.
  2. Eco U. (1987). Trattato di Semiotica Generale. Milano: Bompiani.
  3. Ellis E.C. (2016). Evolving toward a better Anthropocene. Future Earth Blog. Research for Global Sustainability, testo disponibile al sito: [dernier acces: 29 Mars 2016].
  4. Id., Goldewijk K.K., Siebert S., Lightman D., Ramankutty N. (2010). Anthropogenic Transformation of the Biomes, 1700 to 2000. Global Ecology and Biogeography, 19, 5: 589-606.
  5. Farinelli F. (2004). Geografia. Un’ introduzione ai modelli del mondo. Torino: Einaudi.
  6. Forino G., Carnelli F. (2017). Di cosa si parla quando si parla di rischio in Italia? Il Lavoro Culturale, testo disponibile al sito: [dernier acces: 20 Mai 2018].
  7. Garcia-Acosta V. (2018). Catastrophes non naturelles et Anthropocene. Lecons apprises a partir des perspectives anthropologiques et historiques. In: Beau R., Larreres C., a cura di, Penser l’Anthropocène. Paris: Presses de Sciences Po, 325-338.
  8. Guariento T. (2016). La disarmonia del mondo. L’Antropocene e l’immagine premoderna della natura. Lo Sguardo – Rivista di Filosofia, 22, 3: 13-32.
  9. Gundersen L.C., a cura di (2017). Scientific Integrity and Ethics in the Geosciences. Wiley: American Geophysical Union.
  10. International Association for Promoting Geoethics (IAPG) (2015). International Association for Promoting Geoethics, testo consultabile al sito:[dernier acces: 29 Janvier 2017].
  11. Jakobson R. (1966). Saggi di linguistica generale. Milano: Feltrinelli.
  12. Kelman I., Gaillard J.C., Mercer J. (2015). Climate Change’s Role in Disaster Risk Reduction’s Future: Beyond Vulnerability and Resilience. International Journal of Disaster Risk Science, 6: 21-27.
  13. Latour B. (2015). Face à Gaïa. Huit conférences sur le nouveau régime climatique. Paris: Les Empecheurs de penser en rond. La Decouverte.
  14. Leclerc de Buffon G.L. (1780). Les Époques de la Nature. Paris: Imprimerie royale, 2.
  15. Leopold A. (1949). A Sand County Almanac. New York-Oxford: Oxford University Press.
  16. Lollino G., Arattano M., Giardino M., Oliveira R., Peppoloni S., a cura di (2014). Engineering Geology for Society and Territory - Volume 7 Education, Professional Ethics and Public Recognition of Engineering GeologySet: Engineering Geology for Society and Territory, Springer, 17.
  17. Matteucci R., Gosso G., Peppoloni S., Piacente S., Wasowski J. (2012). A Hippocratic Oath for geologists? Annals of Geophysics, 55, 3: 365-369.
  18. Mela A., Mugnano S., Olori D. (2017). Verso una nuova sociologia dei disastri italiana.
  19. In: Mela A., Mugnano S., Olori D., a cura di, Territori vulnerabili. Verso una nuova sociologia dei disastri italiana. Sociologia Urbana e Rurale, Milano: FrancoAngeli, 7-21.
  20. Monastersky R. (2015). First atomic blast proposed as start of Anthropocene. Nature, testo disponibile al sito: [dernier acces: 16 Janvier 2015).
  21. Němec V. (2005). Developing geoethics as a new discipline, -- testo disponibile al sito: Geoethics.pdf [dernier acces: 19 Juin 2017).
  22. Nikitina N.K. (2016). Geoethics: theory, principles, problems. 2nd edition, Moscow: Geoinformmark, Ltd.
  23. Oliver-Smith A., Alcantara-Ayala I., Burton I., Lavell A. (2017). The social construction of disaster risk: Seeking root causes, International Journal of Disaster Risk Reduction, 22: 469-474.
  24. Id. (1980). Semiotica. Torino: Einaudi.
  25. Peppoloni S. (2011). Che cosa significa “Geoetica”? Dentro le parole, il senso dell’attivita del geologo. Geoitalia, 34: 12-13.
  26. Ead., Bobrowsky P., Di Capua G. (2015). Geoethics: A Challenge for Research Integrity in Geosciences. In: Steneck N., Anderson M., Kleinert S., Mayer T., a cura di, Integrity in the Global Research Arena, World Scientific Publishing Co, 287-294.
  27. Ead., Di Capua G. (2012). Geoethics and geological culture: awareness, responsibility and challenges. Annals of Geophysics, 55, 3: 335-341.
  28. Ead., Id., Bobrowsky P., Cronin V., a cura di (2017). Geoethics at the heart of all geoscience. Annals of Geophysics, 60, Fast Track 7.
  29. Reclus E. (1905-1908). L’Homme et la Terre. Paris: Librairie Universelle, 6 vol.
  30. Serres M. (1990). Le Contrat naturel. Paris: Francois Bourin.
  31. Paal G. (2015). Geoethics, the Anthropocene and the Pope. International Association for Promoting Geoethics blog, testo disponibile al sito: [dernier acces: 11 July 2015].
  32. Peirce C.S. (1903). The Ethics of Terminology. In: Peirce C.S., a cura di, A Syllabus of Certain Topics of Logic. Boston: Alfred Mudge & Son, 10-14.
  33. Id. (1931-35). Collected Papers of Charles Sanders Peirce. Cambridge: The Belknap Press of Harvard University Press, vols. 1-6.
  34. Id. (1958). Collected Papers of Charles Sanders Peirce. Cambridge: The Belknap Press of Harvard University Press, vols. 7-8.
  35. Id. (2009). Temps des crises. Paris: Le Pommier.
  36. Smith D. (2000). Moral Geographies. Ethics in a World of Difference. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.
  37. Stoppani A. (1873). Corso di Geologia. Milano: G. Bernardoni et G. Brigola Editori, vol. 2.
  38. Udmale P., Ichikawa Y., Manandhar S., Ishidaira H., Kiem A.S. (2014). Farmers’perception of drought impacts, local adaptation and administrative mitigation measures in Maharashtra State, India. International Journal of Disaster Risk Reduction, 10: 250-269.
  39. Vallega A. (2003). Geografia culturale. Luoghi, spazi, simboli. Torino: Utet.
  40. Id. (2009). Fondamenti di Geosemiotica. Roma: Memorie della Societa Geografica Italiana.
  41. Vernadsky V. (1929) La Biosphére. Paris: Librairie Felix Alcan.
  42. Id. (1991). Nauchnaya mysl kak planetnoe yavlenie [Scientific thought as a planetary phenomenon]. Moscow, testo disponibile al sito [dernier acces: 11 Juin 2017].
  43. Vignola R., Kuzdas C., Bolanos I., Poveda K. (2018). Hybrid governance for drought risk management: The case of the 2014/2015 El Nino in Costa Rica. International Journal of Disaster Risk Reduction, 28: 363-374.
  44. Weber L., Peek L., a cura di (2012). Displaced: Life in the Katrina Diaspora. Austin, TX: University of Texas Press.
  45. Weichselgartner J., Kelman I. (2015). Geographies of resilience: Challenges and opportunities of a descriptive concept. Progress in Human Geography, 39, 3: 249-267. DOI: 10.1177/0309132513518834
  46. Wyss M., Peppoloni S., a cura di (2014), Geoethics, Ethical Challenges and Case Studies in Earth Sciences. Elsevier.
  47. Zalasiewicz J., Williams M., Smith A., Barry T.L., Coe A.L., Bown P.R., Brenchley P.,
  48. Cantrill D., Gale A., Gibbard P., Gregory F.J., Hounslow M.W., Kerr A.C., Pearson P.N., Knox R., Powell J., Waters C., Marshall J., Oates M., Rawson P., Stone P.
  49. (2008) Are we now living in the Anthropocene? GSA Today, 18, 2: 4-8. DOI: 10.1130/GSAT01802A.
  50. Id., Waters C.N., Williams M., Barnosky A.D., Cearreta A., Crutzen P., Ellis E., Ellis M.A., Fairchild I.J., Grinevald J., Haff P.K., Hajdas I., Leinfelder R., McNeill J., Odada E.O., Poirier C., Richter D., Steffen W., Summerhayes C., Syvitski, J.P.M., Vidas D., Wagreich M., Wing S.L., Wolfe A.P., Zhisheng A., Oreskes N. (2015). When did the Anthropocene begin? A mid-twentieth century boundary level is stratigraphically optimal. Quaternary International, 383: 196-203.
  51. Bobrowsky P., Cronin V.S., Di Capua G., Kieffer S.W., Peppoloni S. (2017). The Emerging Field of Geoethics. In: Gundersen L.C., a cura di, Scientific Integrity and Ethics in the Geosciences. Wiley: American Geophysical Union.
  52. Bohle M. (2016). Handling of Human-Geosphere Intersections. Geosciences, 6, 3: 1-11.
  53. Bonneuil C., Fressoz J. (2013). L’ événement Anthropocène. La Terre, l’histoire et nous. Paris: Editions du Seuil.
  54. Cook B.R., Richards L.A., Rutherfurd I. (2015). Geographies of the Anthropocene. Geographical Research, 53, 3: 231-243. DOI: 10.1111/1745-5871.1212
  55. Crutzen P.J. (2002). Geology of mankind. Nature, 415, 23. DOI: 10.1038/415023
  56. Id. (2005). Welcome to the Anthropocene! Milano: Andrea Parlangeli.
  57. Id., Stoermer E.F. (2000). The Anthropocene. IGBP Newsletter, 41: 17-18.
  58. Dattilo V., De Pascale F. (2016). The semiosis of the Anthropocene: the triangle “geology/geography - planet illness - society”. Rend. Online Soc. Geol. It., Suppl. n. 1, Vol. 40. Roma: Societa Geologica Italiana, 921.
  59. De Pascale F., Bernardo M., Muto F., Tripodi V. (2015). Geoethics and seismic risk perception: the case of Pollino area, Calabria, Southern Italy and comparison with communities of the past. In: Peppoloni S., Di Capua G., a cura di, Geoethics: the role and responsibility of geoscientists. London: Geological Society of London, Lyell Collection (Special Publications), 419: 87-102.
  60. Id., Id., Id., Dattilo V., Ruffolo A. (2016a). Geoethics, Neogeography and risk perception: myth, natural and human factors in archaic and postmodern society. In: D’Amico S., a cura di, Earthquakes and their impact on Society. Cham: Springer Natural Hazards, 665-692.
  61. Id., Id., Id., Di Matteo D., Dattilo V. (2017). Resilience and seismic risk perception at school: a geoethical experiment in Aiello Calabro, southern Italy. Natural Hazards, Journal of the International Society for the Prevention and Mitigation of Natural Hazards, 86, 2: 569-586,
  62. Id., Dattilo V. (2015). La semiosi dell’Antropocene. Riflessioni tra geoetica e semiotica a partire dal triangolo di Peirce. Filosofi(e)Semiotiche, 2, 1: 90-98.
  63. Id., Ead., Nebbia F., Agus A. (2016b). Geoetica e bene comune nell’era dell’Antropocene.
  64. In: Commons/Comune. Firenze: Societa di Studi Geografici, Memorie geografiche, 14: 277-286.

  • Del rischio e della ripetizione. La comunicazione come azione Valeria Dattilo, in PRISMA Economia - Società - Lavoro 3/2019 pp.30
    DOI: 10.3280/PRI2018-003003
  • Geoethics for Nudging Human Practices in Times of Pandemics Eduardo Marone, Martin Bohle, in Sustainability /2020 pp.7271
    DOI: 10.3390/su12187271
  • Geo-societal Narratives Martin Bohle, Eduardo Marone, pp.1 (ISBN:978-3-030-79027-1)
  • The Geoethical Semiosis of the Anthropocene: The Peircean Triad for a Reconceptualization of the Relationship between Human Beings and Environment Francesco De Pascale, Valeria Dattilo, in Annals of the American Association of Geographers /2021 pp.647
    DOI: 10.1080/24694452.2020.1843994

Francesco De Pascale, Valeria Dattilo, La sémiosis de l’Anthropocène: pour une réinterprétation de la relation entre l’ homme et la nature par le biais de la géoéthique in "RIVISTA GEOGRAFICA ITALIANA" 2/2019, pp 23-40, DOI: 10.3280/RGI2019-002002