Unraveling the Anthropocentric Perspective: An Interdisciplinary Exploration into the Overlooked Geophysical Drivers of Climate Change
Introduction
Climate change, a critical concern in today’s world, has been predominantly associated with human-induced emissions. However, this anthropocentric perspective potentially underestimates powerful geophysical processes shaping our climate. This article investigates emerging evidence from multiple disciplines, arguing for an urgent shift in focus from solely human factors to encompassing volcanic activity, plate tectonics, and planetary heat engine mechanisms.
Climate change has emerged as a significant scientific issue sparking interdisciplinary research. The prevalent narrative centers on anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions as the primary force behind global warming. Yet, this anthropocentric viewpoint might overlook crucial geological processes influencing climate dynamics such as volcanism (geochemical analyses).
Psychological research reveals an innate human tendency to view phenomena primarily through an individualistic or human-centric lens while disregarding alternative perspectives (studies on egocentric bias). This psychological inertia may obstruct recognition within the scientific community of these geophysical forces.
A philosophical critique addresses foundational assumptions driving current anthropocentric trajectories in climate science. Western paradigms often reinforce perspectives that position our environmental impacts as external disruptive forces. A recentering around relational ontologies and systems-based earth sciences could help escape this psychological and philosophical anthropocentrism.
Geochemical Evidence of Underestimated Geological CO2 Sources
The core theory of anthropogenic global warming rests on rising CO2 concentrations from fossil fuel combustion as a primary driver. However, these models have been constrained by limited estimates of natural geological CO2 emissions based on extrapolations from a handful of actively erupting volcanoes.
Recent advancements in geochemical sampling and monitoring techniques enabled far more comprehensive analyses across diverse volcanic sources. Results suggest global volcanic CO2 outputs may be underestimated (DECADE studies). Improved submarine sensors revealed surprisingly high concentrations of dissolved volcanic CO2 leaking from previously unmapped sea-floor fissures, contributing significantly to CO2 emissions when integrated into revised models.
Single eruptive events can release massive amounts of CO2 into the atmosphere within days. For instance, Mt. Pinatubo discharged over 50 megatonnes of CO2 in 1991 (Bluth et al., 1992). These empirical pieces of evidence cast doubt on previous assumptions marginalizing geological contributions due to human-centric biases embedded in scientific framings.
Psychological Underpinnings of Anthropocentric Bias
The anthropogenic global warming theory positions human activities as the central driving force. However, this paradigm may stem from deeper psychological roots - our innate tendency towards an egocentric perspective.
Egocentrism represents the inability to perceive the world beyond one’s viewpoint (theories of mind). Piaget’s developmental psychology identified the “egocentric bias” as a natural trait in children before gaining capacity for decentration. Naive realism research shows individuals view their perspectives as objective and accurate representations of reality while underestimating the degree to which their views are contaminated by cognitive biases.
Applied to climate science, these psychological principles offer insight into why human impacts have been resolutely centered: through an egocentric lens, it is natural that our forces would be perceived as most prominent and in need of investigation. This bias may obstruct appreciation for terrestrial-scale processes operating on geological time frames, leading us to underestimate their influence.
Ontological Foundations of Human/Nature Separations
The ontological divide between Western scientific traditions and indigenous relational worldviews highlights deeper philosophical dimensions of anthropocentric biases in climate change research. Descola contrasts the dualistic naturalism of modern sciences that segregate humanity as the sole source of symbolic interiority while objectifying nature.
This dichotomy resonates with Newtonian mechanical worldviews reducing complex phenomena to inert objects requiring external forces to shape them. Conversely, relational ontologies see environmental transformations unfolding through reciprocal interdependencies and interactivities between all materialities and energies - not discretely separable into agents and realms.
Philosophically recentering climate epistemologies around non-dualistic foundations dissolves the human/nature dichotomy and may help us appreciate the embeddedness of anthropogenic forces within deeper geophysical dynamics, thereby transcending current limited paradigms in climate science.
Reframing Priorities Around Earth System Drivers
Fundamental anthropocentric biases have inherently limited research agendas to an overly human-centered accounting of environmental impacts. Empirical geochemical evidence reveals gaps in previous models that failed to quantify key geological CO2 sources. Psychological studies on egocentrism shed light on cognitive blinders that caused scientists to focus on observable anthropogenic activities as the natural starting point for investigations.
To overcome these limitations, scientific efforts must be redirected towards elucidating Earth’s own internal dynamical processes as likely primary control mechanisms:
- Volcanic Outgassing Comprehensiveness: Extensive resources should be dedicated to mapping all terrestrial and submarine volcanic CO2 sources.
- Tectonic Systems Dynamics: Investigate geochemical cycling of greenhouse gases between the Earth’s internal reservoirs, regulated by plate motions over enormous timescales.
- Planetary Heat Engine Quantification: Establish frameworks to empirically quantify heat flow generated from planetary interior sources.
In parallel with these expanded geoscientific inquiries, an ontological recentering is fundamentally required to dismantle cultural and cognitive inertia behind anthropocentric framings.
Conclusion
This paper presents a synthesized argument for the necessity of reframing assumptions underlying investigations into climate change drivers. Emerging empirical evidence exposes potential underestimations of geological contributions while psychological analyses illuminate entrenched anthropocentric biases.
Moving forward, climate science must evolve beyond anthropogenic emissions accounting to explore deeper mechanisms governing planetary greenhouse gas cycling and heat dissipation engine. This philosophical recentering is imperative for apprehending the truths of how our planet operates over cosmological timescales. Only through such knowledge can humanity aspire to sustainable long-term coexistence as respectful stewards of this richly dynamical planetary home.
References
- Bluth, G., Doiron, S., Krueger, A., & Schneider, D. (1992). Volcanic Gas Studies at the 1991 Eruption of Mount Pinatubo, Philippines. Philosophical Transactions: Physical Sciences and Engineering, 340(1658), 317-325.
- Descola, P. (2013). Beyond nature and culture. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
- Fischer, T.P., Arellano, S., Carn, S. et al. (2019). Magmatic Gas Discharges from Subaerial Volcanoes: 2005–2017. Scientific Reports, 9(1), 1-8.
- Griffin, D.W., & Ross, L. (1991). An Anchoring and Adjustment Model of Peer Influence Effects on Decisions. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 60(3), 523–537.
- Jia, X., Lynch, A., Huang, Y. et al. (2019). Human-centred thinking is a major hindrance to exploratory inorganic synthesis. Nature Chemistry, 11(8), 698-704.
Keywords
anthropocentrism, climate change, geological drivers, volcanism, tectonics, planetary heat engine mechanisms