Yes! It better captures the anthropogenic impact and encompasses everything—not just the climate in 'climate change', but also the decline in biodiversity, among other factors. I also think that when a term becomes popular, its meaning becomes understandable to a broader public, much like how 'Anthropocene' started as an academic niche term but is now quite commonplace in broader societal discourse.
This is such an important topic. I've puzzled over it as soon as I saw the term "global change." I agree is it hopelessly vague and means almost nothing to the average person. This is also part of a larger issue concerning scientific language and public understanding. I think of scientific language as a kind of shop talk, a way of speaking that makes sense to those in the science "shop." It is often valueless and vague, but to scientists that serves a purpose. For instance, not all change happening on the globe, such as global regreening, is degradation.
The problem is what happens when the "shop" talk is translated for the general public. Great care is needed here and is rarely given. Most climate journalists seem completely unaware that climate change is a subset of global change. In fact, I suspect they see it the other way around. Even the term "climate change" is misunderstood as not all climate change is a result of global warming. Sometimes it is primarily due to land change.
One strategy is to aim for specificity. Most people talking about climate change really mean global warming due to the global diffusion of ghg's. But drought, fire, flood cycles are strongly related to damaged hydrology. I think you're moving in an important direction, and though I don't have any magic terms to solve the matter, I think the questions you are asking are the place to start. Thanks!
What I think is that the term Biosphere Degradation keeps being more about the pattern and less about the process. Maybe it is my own bias and ignorance, but after teaching 15 years about GC, I keeps finding more and more BD is an irremediable consequence of population growth.
You've made an excellent point. How one states the problem is often how one solves the problem. I state the problem as "damage to the biosphere's regenerative capacity" to solve the problem through (1) scaling back the extraction flows and pollution flows that are creating the damage, and (2) allowing the biosphere's regenerative capacity to reverse the damage as a whole and heal the planet
I also generally like the term global change, but I notice in my teaching that for most students (and extrapolating from that, most of the not yet fully educated population) this link to the biotic component is not implicit. This is quite a flaw of the term, and I agree it needs revision. However, biosphere degradation may also not fully capture it, because whether something is degrading is highly context dependent. I actually like the term you brought in towards the end - planetary health (global and includes biota and abiota). It might still be wise to add the component of change to it. Anthropogenic disruption of planetary health, maybe.
Maybe I'll devote a brainstorm session to this with my biodiversity class next semester. It's an interesting exercise and the approach and rethinking is quite relevant to many versions of jargon used in ecology (and beyond).
Cool. Yes, I also like planetary health, but -- as you write -- it doesn't capture the process. Maybe we will have to live with a swarm of terms. Not ideal, but if it gets the job done I guess it is ok.
I’m equally torn. I think the fact it’s more directly descriptive is good. It’s a bit of a mouthful though. But it feels like the horse has bolted with GC now. I think GC is ok but it is a bit open for interpretation and the lack of directionality is problematic at times. Nothing very useful to add from me here.
I like the term ‘global change’, but I understand that it’s not entirely clear for the general population, as they usually relate it with climate change (which is just a part of the problem and is often ambiguous for the general population). I think a shift in terminology could be valuable if it maintains scientific correctness while also being more understandable for the general population. Swapping ‘change’ for ‘degradation’ seems like a good fit, as it’s more straightforward. I like the term ‘biosphere’, but I’m not sure if swapping ‘global’ for ‘biosphere’ makes the terminology substantially more understandable for the general population. What about ‘ecosystem degradation’? Maybe ‘ecosystem’ is more clear than ‘biosphere’? Not sure...
Yes! It better captures the anthropogenic impact and encompasses everything—not just the climate in 'climate change', but also the decline in biodiversity, among other factors. I also think that when a term becomes popular, its meaning becomes understandable to a broader public, much like how 'Anthropocene' started as an academic niche term but is now quite commonplace in broader societal discourse.
Good point!
This is such an important topic. I've puzzled over it as soon as I saw the term "global change." I agree is it hopelessly vague and means almost nothing to the average person. This is also part of a larger issue concerning scientific language and public understanding. I think of scientific language as a kind of shop talk, a way of speaking that makes sense to those in the science "shop." It is often valueless and vague, but to scientists that serves a purpose. For instance, not all change happening on the globe, such as global regreening, is degradation.
The problem is what happens when the "shop" talk is translated for the general public. Great care is needed here and is rarely given. Most climate journalists seem completely unaware that climate change is a subset of global change. In fact, I suspect they see it the other way around. Even the term "climate change" is misunderstood as not all climate change is a result of global warming. Sometimes it is primarily due to land change.
One strategy is to aim for specificity. Most people talking about climate change really mean global warming due to the global diffusion of ghg's. But drought, fire, flood cycles are strongly related to damaged hydrology. I think you're moving in an important direction, and though I don't have any magic terms to solve the matter, I think the questions you are asking are the place to start. Thanks!
Thanks!
Yes, good point about the greening. Many factors of global change have proximate positive effects. This is really difficult to get right....
What I think is that the term Biosphere Degradation keeps being more about the pattern and less about the process. Maybe it is my own bias and ignorance, but after teaching 15 years about GC, I keeps finding more and more BD is an irremediable consequence of population growth.
I see your point, but I think that degradation also can be understood to describe a process.
Dear David, I hope you’re aware of the issues with the narrative of 'overpopulation.' If not, this article provides a great overview of its dangers: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0016718518302458.
You've made an excellent point. How one states the problem is often how one solves the problem. I state the problem as "damage to the biosphere's regenerative capacity" to solve the problem through (1) scaling back the extraction flows and pollution flows that are creating the damage, and (2) allowing the biosphere's regenerative capacity to reverse the damage as a whole and heal the planet
Thanks! That is a great point.
I also generally like the term global change, but I notice in my teaching that for most students (and extrapolating from that, most of the not yet fully educated population) this link to the biotic component is not implicit. This is quite a flaw of the term, and I agree it needs revision. However, biosphere degradation may also not fully capture it, because whether something is degrading is highly context dependent. I actually like the term you brought in towards the end - planetary health (global and includes biota and abiota). It might still be wise to add the component of change to it. Anthropogenic disruption of planetary health, maybe.
Maybe I'll devote a brainstorm session to this with my biodiversity class next semester. It's an interesting exercise and the approach and rethinking is quite relevant to many versions of jargon used in ecology (and beyond).
Cool. Yes, I also like planetary health, but -- as you write -- it doesn't capture the process. Maybe we will have to live with a swarm of terms. Not ideal, but if it gets the job done I guess it is ok.
I’m equally torn. I think the fact it’s more directly descriptive is good. It’s a bit of a mouthful though. But it feels like the horse has bolted with GC now. I think GC is ok but it is a bit open for interpretation and the lack of directionality is problematic at times. Nothing very useful to add from me here.
Yep! Same here...
I like the term ‘global change’, but I understand that it’s not entirely clear for the general population, as they usually relate it with climate change (which is just a part of the problem and is often ambiguous for the general population). I think a shift in terminology could be valuable if it maintains scientific correctness while also being more understandable for the general population. Swapping ‘change’ for ‘degradation’ seems like a good fit, as it’s more straightforward. I like the term ‘biosphere’, but I’m not sure if swapping ‘global’ for ‘biosphere’ makes the terminology substantially more understandable for the general population. What about ‘ecosystem degradation’? Maybe ‘ecosystem’ is more clear than ‘biosphere’? Not sure...