Thank you for the response.
As to 1); The principal aspects of SRM, in that they are
both technologically simple and cheap, makes the assumption of "failure"
seem unrealistic. The brakes system in my car is simple and cheap and so I
maintain it so as to not kill myself and others. If a deployed SRM effort is
shielding a future generation from outright general destruction, maintaining
and even improving the system should be expected of future generations. The
core understanding, by most knowledgeable people in this area, is that
global SRM should not be deployed until climate change becomes a direct
threat to the balance of humanity. It is an emergency response. However,
waiting for the emergency to happen before developing the means to respond
is not rational. Also, there is a large difference between surface SRM
efforts and that of stratospheric injection. Lumping them together is a
novice's mistake.
The notion of un-known/hypothetical feedbacks denuding SRM efforts is
interesting. In that, it is injecting a double-false conditional into the
debate. This is more of a media tool than a scientific one.
As to 2); We are currently doing just that! The technology which is
currently "visiting great harm on certain vulnerable populations" is the use
of fossil fuels. The sudden stoppage of that technology would have a grave
"termination effect". SRM will be needed in providing an
important transitional phase to greener energy. FF are far worse than SRM!
As to 3) I believe reductionism is important if I am dealing with a concept
which has a philosophical underpinning requiring the totality of humanity
being divided into discrete segments of time.Reductionism can only be
rationalized through reductionism. The premise that generations are separate
entities is false. Humanity is a constantly evolving or devolving phenomena.
There is no fundamental time separations within the concept of humanity. One
"time group" having ethical responsibilities to another "time group" is a
double-false argument if applied to the concept of humanity as a whole.
With all due respects to your effort on this subject and I do want to make
it clear that this is not meant to be a personal insult. But, I can only
conclude that the field of intergenerational ethics is (at this time), by
definition, an ill-logical and purely subjective belief system of thought.
I do believe such belief systems are largely viewed as "religion"
or..."media hype".
Michael
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"geoengineering" group.
To post to this group, send email to [email protected].
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
[email protected].
For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering?hl=en.
