Hi Folks,
Holly, thank you for your response and I only hope my comments come up to
your level of articulation.
*"Yes, it's true that there is some social engineering involved... but I
think the Anthropocene challenges the Cartesian nature / society divide for
many people. We have changed our atmospheric composition due to patterns
that are very much social and cultural: it's not just burning of
hydrocarbons or cutting of biomass that created 394 ppm. It's love for the
open road, jet-set glamour, dietary patterns, corrupt regimes that allow
illegal logging, aspirations of the Chinese middle class, whatever. All of
these sociocultural factors have helped lead us to this juncture."*
This statement raises profound theoretical questions about the modern
nature of human existence. Are we smart enough to....not....shoot ourself in
the foot? If your statement were to be tightened up to exclude reference to
the aspirations of the Chinese middle class, your statement is a clear and
practical declaration of the cause leading to the effect.
*"More explicitly on-point to this thread: people who vociferously oppose
geoengineering believe geoengineering to be a social project with nefarious
social aims, and they don't see the natural / social divide in the way a
scientist might. They are problematizing global warming differently. And it
can be difficult to have a conversation between two parties who have a
different conceptualization of exactly what problem they're trying to
address. So any "PR" strategy would do well to speak to the
"problematization problem", I think."*
*
*
IMHO, those that will not take the time and effort to read the peer reviewed
studies, freely offered on this subject, should simply be ignored. The
issues concerning the scientific/technical understanding of Global Warming
and thus GE is not a "feel good" situation. It is real and requires
significant understanding of the physical processes ranging from the surface
of the sun to the depths of the ocean..... Along with the ins and outs of
the understanding of the workings of the UN and General State Policy Craft.
The champions of GE should not be hobbled by those who simply will not
inform themselves on the science. Do the champions need to better educate at
the street level? Yes....without a question. This short time frame, for such
a recent and profoundly important concept, is new and needs time to come up
to speed with the modern need for instant communication. And, you make a
good point as to the need to conceptualize "*exactly what problem they're
trying to address".* Emergency preparations first....please!
*
- Michael also writes that "the original core of the GE concept is not so
broad that "uneven development" even shows up on the radar."
*
*This is of course true; I mention uneven development because this is what
prevents us from making process with the UNFCCC process. To briefly frame
the situation: many developing countries see the developed world as having
developed with use of their resources, at their expense under colonialism,
and with the benefit of fossil fuels. They think they are entitled to a
"fair" allowance of catch-up emissions and that developed countries should
pay for what they've already emitted. Developed countries don't want to pay
up (especially since many developing countries have corrupt regimes) and
they are heavily invested in existing fossil fuel structures. This
development dilemma, because it is what keeps us from just going and cutting
emissions, is the dilemma that causes the need for geoengineering.*
This is a new form of the cold war "MAD" situation. Pay up or we will block
any advancement toward mutual survival. Pay up or *you* will not be able to
survive. Pay up because, we have nothing to loose. Pay up because you
brought McDonald's Big Macs into our culture. Pay up because our system is
far more corrupt than yours and we need the green backs to pay for
our kleptomaniac ruler's exit strategy. Sorry Holly, this is a new
world......paying for past issues should not be a limiting factor on the
global survival of the human race.
*
*
*
"This GE approach offers at least two non global warming mitigation related
benefits to society. First would be the overall water quality improvement in
the operational area due to the increase in saturated O2 levels provided by
the seeded diatom blooms. Second would be that fisheries may improve due to
the increase in the marine food production rates at the micro level." (My
statement)
" Fishery improvement has all kinds of social benefits. Your phrase "general
regional ecological enhancement" is really key: regional ecological
enhancements are often social enhancements, especially when applied with the
intention to be so." (Holly's statement)
*
Yes, I may have not given a clear technical path to that type of approach.
Yet, I can see the need to use the knowledge being gathered within the GE
community to do such enhancements. There is a documentary out there
which describes the major social problems which were caused by a major sea
floor methane release (which killed off all the local fish) on the south
west coast of Africa. Without the customary fish harvest, bush meat became
the main food. That lead to trans boarder incursions and thus an increase in
boarder arms. ETC....ETC.... Abundance and healthy fish is an important
humane need.
*"Clearly, a lot of potential social solutions aren't inherent in the
technologies, but in their implementation. But because the research process
is entangled with the implementation of the technologies, I do think
scientists can keep in mind how their research would be scaled-up or
deployed, and play a role in it. (For example, the Internet had many
influences and funders in its nascency-- DARPA, CERN, NSF, etc.-- but its
structure, and even its social role, might be different if Tim Berners-Lee
had patented hypertext. Not a perfect example, but the evolution of every
tech, from pharma to farming, has some social impact and story.) I know I
haven't fleshed out any of these ideas at much, but I am writing a longer
paper on this topic."*
*
*
Holly, no inventor can completely envision every potential use of their
invention. The use, and thus value, is eventually up to society (the
market). Patents on GE methods have become an issue and I have to come down
on the side of the inventor. Innovation should be rewarded. There would be
little innovation if there were no reward. GE is a many decades (if not
centuries) long issue. Patents last for 20 years. Give credit to where
credit is due.
*Final note on PR: Michael, you proposed a website some posts back about a
PR organization. My humble two cents, if you or others go through with this,
would be to abandon the term PR-- it's too ideologically loaded already--
and rather discuss "outreach." And use it for genuine outreach, networking
internationally with young & old scientists and civil society out there.
Great way to touch base with the intergenerational issue. I'm so glad you
mentioned graphics, too: images, design, and feel are so important. Best to
go beyond the sci-fi diagrams and the ubiquitous rendering of the ocean
spray ship; include images with people and plants and water in them, of
scientists actively discussing and working out ideas and talking to the
publics. May seem obvious, but in the hundreds of articles I analyzed on
geoengineering, none had images like this. Also, crowdsourcing from all the
inventors, climate geeks, environmentalists, and people who have too much
free time on the net is key to making it work. I would work with educators,
esp. on funding sources, as this could easily fit in with science education,
and everybody loves education.*
*
*
Thank you Holly. That is mainly what I had in mind. The use of "PR" does
smack of propaganda. "Outreach" is a much better term and that is what I see
as being needed. I am not a GE researcher, I am just someone who became
concerned with the state of affairs and took up the study of the many
related issues. I found it difficult to get beyond the media hype. So, I
started downloading the peer reviewed papers and accepted documents and set
down to educate myself on the science, technology and the many aspects of
the politics. I would like to see a website developed which could help any
person on this planet retrace my self educational journey into this field.
It is a wonderfully challenging journey. I am concerned that the many who do
not read English are being left out. Also, GE has become a rather fast
moving debate which spans from the floors of the UN to the halls of the
greatest educational institutions on the planet to meager offices of the
fringe (ETC). So, we all should have an say as long as we can be civil and
logical. Let us take ego and status out of the debate and focus upon
solutions...... Emergency Preparations first....Please. Social Engineering
there after....OK?
Thank you, Holly. * *
*
*
* *
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"geoengineering" group.
To view this discussion on the web visit
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/geoengineering/-/Y-gY7Kp53BMJ.
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.
