Geoethical Equity (by Ilan Kelman, UK)

iapgeoethics
5 hours ago
3 min read

By Ilan Kelman

UCL Institute for Global Health / UCL Institute for Risk and Disaster Reduction; UiT The Arctic University of Norway https://www.ilankelman.org/

For geoethics in practice, equity is often highlighted for people and communities. It typically refers to everyone having equivalent opportunities in order to overcome varying starting points. For geoethics covering more-than-human entities on planet Earth, rather than off-Earth geoethics, the meaning(s) of this ethical principle of equity (or equities) are not straightforward. Conundrums are immediately evident.

Considering taxonomic ranks, perhaps each domain, kingdom, phylum, class, order, family, genus, and species, and subspecies should be treated equivalently. Or perhaps equity indicates shifting away from this outdated classification structure.

Collectives of biotic and abiotic entities, such as biomes and ecosystems, could potentially be given equivalent opportunities. This delineation becomes tricky. Habitats, meadows, rivers, forests, and so many more would need to be considered. Many overlap, are inextricably intertwined, or lack clear boundaries.

How deep into the Earth or how high into the sky should each entity reach? Microecosystems and microhabitats in a tree’s or a forest’s canopy diverge from those in the litter at each tree’s base and in the root system below. The human body is described as having microbiomes. The size of a stand of forest and of a (micro)biome/ecosystem/habitat would need to be determined—and determined equitably.

These questions embrace an entity’s spatial scale. Temporal scale is a factor too. When defining a biome or a microhabitat, or a pond or an ocean, as the entity collective to be treated equivalently, how long would each one last to be treated equivalently? Geological features include mountains lasting millennia and sinkholes appearing and disappearing in minutes. Environmental processes interlace with temporal scales. Tidal maxima and minima can be once or twice a day. Climate displays regional, decadal variabilities which might need to be treated equivalently; for instance, the Indian Ocean Dipole, the Pacific Decadal Oscillation, and the North Atlantic Oscillation.

More sudden changes ought to be considered. Storms, wildfires, floods, landslides, droughts, volcanic eruptions, and many more common phrases are catch-all terms masking widely different phenomena. If each one requires equivalent opportunities in order to overcome varying starting points, then it might be through the category of “mass movements”, by differentiating rockfalls from Sturzstroms, or both.

Another geoethical question emerges in terms of balancing impacts judged as adverse or positive. Vegetation fires are essential ecosystem processes, yet kill. Earthquakes flatten cities not prepared for them, yet can bring water to the surface in aridlands.

Should every possible entity on Earth, physical and processual, that is identified and labelled by humans be incorporated into geoethical equity? Plus, entities from beyond the Earth which affect our planet, including geomagnetic storms, supernovae explosions, cosmic rays, and space objects drifting toward our planet. In addition to the four fundamental forces of the universe: gravity, electromagnetism, the strong nuclear force, and the weak nuclear force.

Still, throughout all this discussion, the meanings of “having equivalent opportunities” and “be treated equivalently” have not been addressed. The real geoethical questions might be “equivalent(ly)” defined by whom, how, and why?

Picture credit: Photo by Svetlozar Hristov (from Pixabay)