Václav NĚMEC, Lidmila
NĚMCOVÁ
Prague, Czech Republic
The expression infrastructure -
defined as an underlying foundation or basic framework - is nowadays more and
more used in connection with ethics as ethical infrastructure. In
practice it concerns some networks (both of single persons and organisations)
trying to improve ethical way of thinking and conduct (in other words: ethical
climate) of the society at various levels of their possible influence range.
These levels may be represented by small communities or other organisational
units (enterprises) up to larger territorial or organisational units finally
reaching complete segments of the whole society or the whole society itself.
Many of these networks started to be developed without any steps leading to
formal and officially registered organisations, in fact when reaching in their
development and promotion a certain level some formal institualisations seems
to be useful or even indispensable.
Fortunately good infrastructural attempts
can be observed since the origin of the newly established geoethics. Despite
the fact that for a large public (earth scientists included) geoethics seems to be still a completely unknown or poorly known discipline, already since early 90-ies geoethical infrastructures started to be
created at various levels. (Sometimes even misunderstandings occur when the expression geoethics
is considered to be only a printing error and therefore is replaced by geodetics,
geotechnics, genetics etc.)
Since 1991 the authors (inspired by the field of business ethics where Lidmila
Němcová had been engaged) started to develop problems of the applied ethics for
Earth sciences. Of course this does not mean that in the past there was not any
ethical feeling and consideration among Earth scientists. V. I. Vernadskij,
Teilhard de Chardin or the Polish professor Walery Goetel can
serve as examples of personalities with a high-level geoethical thinking. The original reason was to create an instrument to help in
decision making in case of ethical dilemmas occuring in problems connected with the use of mineral
resources. Geoethics as a new discipline has covered
ethical problems and dilemmas that are to be solved in the fields of geology,
mining activities and energy resources.
Příbram - birthplace of geoethics
Regular international meetings on Geoethics have been organized since 1992 as
part of the Mining Příbram Symposia in the Czech Republic. Příbram - a town with a glorious (but recently stopped) tradition of
mining activities going back to the 13-th century - served since early 1960s´
as a place where annual symposia have been organised dealing with various
problems of not only mining activities but also with specialised sections on
geology of mineral deposits and many other disciplines. Since 1968 until 1999
altogether 19 international meetings were organised - mostly under the umbrella
of the International Association for Mathematical Geology - with Václav Němec
as convenor.
In 1992 the first
international session in the world at Příbram was dedicated to special problems
of how to apply ethical principles and how to solve ethical dilemmas in
geology, mining engineering, and energy. Following meetings to this subject
took place in 1994, 1996, 1998,
1999 (that time in Prague), 2001 and 2003 with V. Němec and L. Němcová
as convenors. The relatively large international audience was just connected
with the fact that many top specialists from abroad knew Příbram symposia
originally as participants of the meetings dedicated to the mathematical
geology. Until the actual session in
2005 altogether 212 papers or abstracts on various
geoethical problems of authors from 20 countries of Europe, Asia and America
were published. The authors in majority were geologists and
mining engineers (both from academia and industry) but
other disciplines were represented as well (ecology, economics, mine surveying, history, philosophy,
moral theology). Theoretical aspects as well as practical aspects were discussed.
Geoethics at
the international geological congresses
Since 1992 geoethical problems started to be regularly presented also in the frame of the
International Geological Congresses. The development
of the discipline at this high forum is impressive. Whereas in 1992 (Kyoto)
only two oral presentations of W. S. Fyfe and of V. Němec in
different sessions were presented, in 1996 (Beijing) a special subsection on geoethics (with V. Němec as convenor) was introduced and
in 2000 (Rio de Janeiro) for the first time a special
symposium was organized only for Geoethics
(with V.Němec and P.P.Martins Jr. as convenors).
In
conjunction with problems of geoeducation - but with the growing independence -
the development culminated in Florence (2004) where already two sessions on geoethics were
incorporated into the program (with L. Němcová - W.S. Fyfe and V. Němec -
M.A.Komarov as convenors). Whereas at three
Congresses held since 1992 until 2000 altogether 18 abstracts were published,
24 abstracts were published in 2004. Both sessions at the IGC 2004 proved the growing importance of
geoethics as of a new interdisciplinary approach to solve various serious
dilemmas. They both were
well attended (each of them by 40 - 50 people), about twenty participants
expressed a deep interest and willingness to take part in the further
development of geoethics. Both sessions together with the efforts of the
session S-05 on peer review system and quality assessment in Earth sciences
(organised by Professor Gian Gaspare Zuffa) have shown the irreversible
progress and increasing role of ethics applied in Earth sciences. Humanity and
sustainability aspects and far-reaching visions have to pave the way of the
further development. In spite of the absence of several announced speakers the success of geoethics in Florence was more
intensive than originally expected.
Geoethics should find a corresponding space also at the next IGC in Oslo
(2008).
This latest
Congress has brought and emphasised many new aspects concerning the role of
Earth sciences and of the need to serve to all the mankind. In reality also the
increasing future role of geoethics should be mentioned in this framework.
Geoethics in
Moscow
Meetings with specific
geoethical problems have been already organised in various countries, mostly
"ad hoc", somewhere regularly.
Since 1997 regular meetings on geoethics have been organized every second
year in Moscow as special sections of regular international conferences on "New Ideas in the Earth Sciences" with L.P.Ryzhova and mostly also M.A.Komarov as convenors.
The high
quantity of 32 abstracts published in 2005 can be also taken as an expression
of the increasing interest for the new discipline: in four preceding sessions
in the period 1997 - 2003 only altogether 59 abstracts were published (with the
mean of about 15).
The
institutionalization
of geoethics
The
aforementioned data express the growing interest for the new discipline of
geoethics both in time and in the space. The existing experiences (e.g. with
the International Association for Mathematical Geology where V. Němec belonged
to the founding members and served for many decades as an officer) have proved
that it would be better to subordinate any specialised effort for geoethics to
some already existing and working structure than to lose time with needed complications when trying to found a new official
institution.
A need of institutionalization of geoethics was successfully culminated in the course of the International Geological
Congress in Florence at the General Assembly of the Association of
Geoscientists for International Development (AGID). Already at previous
congresses some efforts to this goal were effected by accentuating the
necessity to stop any doubt about the AGID future which seemed to oppress many
possible activities. The new serious and very urgent challenges have arisen as the
inter-related problems of international development for geoscientists - SUSTAINABILITY,
GLOBALIZATION and GEOETHICS. This conjunction has not yet been covered by
any other association in the large family of the International Union of
Geological Sciences (IUGS). Why not to take these fields from special points of
view of geoscientists as new priorities and goals of AGID for the next decades?
New members and perhaps also some new support can be got far more easily with
the use of existing networks than by difficult bureaucracy unavoidable in case
of founding a new association for new priorities and goals.
Fortunately AGID has taken the
new field of geoethics under its umbrella and a special AGID
working group for geoethics is just being established under the chairmanship of Dr. Václav
Němec who has been also co-opted as AGID vice-president. The opening meeting of
the working group is planned in conjunction with the existing
international platform for the new discipline at the Mining Příbram Symposia.
IUGS resolution
The International Union of Geological
Sciences (IUGS) is the well known umbrella body for many international
associations and other specialised organisations working in the domain of the
Earth sciences. Also the recent resolution of the International Union of
Geological Sciences (IUGS) proves possible ways of a geoethical development.
THE RESOLUTION OF THE INTERNATIONAL UNION OF GEOLOGICAL
SCIENCES
Whereas a magnitude 9 great earthquake that occurred on 26 December, 2004 of
the West coast of northern Sumatra, Indonesia, triggered tsunamis
that inundated the coastal zones of much of the Indian Ocean, causing tragic and historic
loss of life and property, and
Whereas this major natural disaster heightens awareness of the existence of
geological hazards worldwide,
The International Union of Geological Sciences (IUGS), recognizes:
1.
That tsunami
warning systems in the Pacific Ocean have proven to be effective over several
decades, that no such comprehensive system exists for the Indian or Atlantic
Oceans, that such systems employing traditional and new space-based
technologies in these oceans could prevent loss of life if predictions were
timely and warnings were heeded;
2.
That tsunamis are
triggered not only by earthquakes, but also by volcanic eruptions and
landslides; and that these hazards, especially landslides, extend to all oceans
and their margins;
3.
That on-land
landslides, earthquakes, floods, and volcanic eruptions constitute significant
potential for natural disasters, and that terrestrial landslides are perhaps
the most damaging of all;
4.
That a
substantial portion, if not most, of the global human population resides in
areas characterized by significant risk of the occurrence of natural disasters;
5.
That the tendency
of the International Community to concentrate on reaction to natural hazards,
rather than on preparation and their mitigation, operates to increase their
cost to amounts much greater than that of preparation and mitigation;
6.
That the lack of
education in and awareness of Geological Sciences worldwide tends to decrease
awareness of the possibility of natural disasters and thus exacerbate their
human and economic toll when they inevitably occur;
7.
That in the
aftermath of a natural disaster, widespread knowledge of the geological
sciences and of existing technology could assist rescue agencies and civil
defense managers to obtain faster understanding of the extent of the damage
from the event and how to cope with it;
8.
That the reduction
of the predictive uncertainity of a natural disaster is the most important
issue in natural hazards reduction, but that reduction requires a thorough
understanding of the nature of the geological processes giving rise to the
disaster.
THE IUGS RECOMMENDS:
1. That systems and procedures be established for early warning, developing
public awareness including Geological Science education, regional evacuation
routes, and shelters with locations based on appropriate geological
information, including maps of existing geological hazards;
2. That comprehensive education in the Geological Sciences, including knowledge
of local geological hazards and their risk, become an integral part of
education systems at all levels and in all countries;
3. That regional disaster management systems be organized where they do not now
exist, and that existing disaster management systems be made more effective,
and that these systems take steps effectively to monitor known indicators of
all natural disasters;
4. That multidisciplinary and multinational research programs and research
networks on Geological hazards and risks be developed to improve the
professional and public awareness of and understanding of the phenomena
associated with such hazards, and that efforts be increased to develop
forecasting capability of such hazards, and
THE IUGS RESOLVES:
1. To promote
the development and application of scientific expertise and experience in
understanding the geological forces at work in the development of all types of
natural hazards and the processes involved in their mitigation of natural
hazards;
2. To share this information as freely as possible with other members of the
scientific community, government officials, policy makers and planners, the
insurance industry, and the public as a whole.
Challenges
A high responsibility -
both personal and corporate - to
future generations for any possible consequence of any
decision is to be cultivated not only among earth
scientists and mining engineers, but also among managers, politicians and statesmen, especially
when long-term decisions for mineral economics and policy are to be made.
Nowadays many new
problems of social and moral
responsibility are arising as important challenges for the coming century.
An example of a possible immediate international co-operation of Earth
scientists is connected with the recent floods
(e.g. Central Europe in 2002, Bulgaria and Romania in 2005) and
especially with the tsunami from the morning of December 26, 2004 in Asia. They have
commemorated a great potential danger for both actual and future generations of
population. (The heritage of the past generations is involved into this problem
as well when considering exposure of numerous cultural monuments to the possible
danger of extreme floods.)
Many natural phenomena both in space and in time have a periodical and
hierarchical character. Many geological phenomena connected with floods in the
geological history can be further studied and evaluated in order to make more
precise prediction of possible and probable occurrences of such potential
dangers in the future.
Obviously much higher and to this time inconceivable
dangers should be taken into consideration in many territories for the future
and a strong respect of them has to get priority in various activities (including geoethics).
Conclusions
The real life and real dangers should involve and converge trajectories
of geoethics in various parts of the world to make the life on our planet better not only for us
but also for the future generations.
A broad irreversible development and institualization of geoethics
and of other fields of applied ethics for geoscientists in appropriate
infrastructures should be realised. The new network under the umbrella of the Association of Geoscientists
for International Development (AGID) should be promoted. Its effectiveness will
depend on efforts of everybody joining and promoting our activities - maybe in
conjunction with other people interested in ensuring a better life on our
planet as well as with various appropriate formal and informal bodies.
Let us hope that - also
thanks to our regular meetings at Příbram and elsewhere - this lasting and
permanent process will continue with the needed intensity.