Hi Folks, I have often found my thoughts on the ethics issue streaming back to the issue of the definition of GE.
In short, the difference between '*intentional' *modification of the climate and *'unintentionaly',* yet knowingly, causing such at the second order (global) effect level seems to be a distinction without a difference. Clearly, the use of FFs is causing climate change and we know that to a high degree of certainty. Is not the further use of FFs an act of GE in of itself? The legal concepts of "Indifference to Risk"(1) and "Deliberate Indifference Law"(2) seems to adversely addresses, show a flaw in, the use of the word "intentional" as it is used to define GE. Simply put: With the current understanding of the role FF use has on our climate, should not the continued use of FFs be accepted as a true form of GE? 1: Indifference to Risk Law: http://definitions.uslegal.com/i/indifference-to-risk/ 2: Deliberate Indifference Law: http://definitions.uslegal.com/d/deliberate-indifference/ This overall ethics issue must first be looked at from the perspective of Metaethics. In simplistic terms, Metaethics is, first and foremost, the * 'art'* of reaching agreed upon definition(s). Only after the definition(s) are agreed upon can the relationship between the subject and society be illuminated. That is the only way a Venn Diagram, concerning GE or apples and oranges, can be built. Only after this stage is thoroughly debated (yes..both pro and con....and so far there has been little ethical defence of GE) can the fields of normative and applied ethics be properly applied. For those just exploring the finer details of the ethical issue, Stanford's Encyclopedia has a good primer on the foundational nature of Metaethics: http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/metaethics/ I have yet noticed any work, by those who have taken up the challenge of GE ethics, which addresses the fundamental issue of *validating* the current/basic definition of GE. It appears to me that the word * 'Intentional'*, used within the standard definition of GE, has blinded the ethics debate to the cogent and apparent 900lb (FF) gorilla sitting upon our collective chest. Is not the large scale use of FFs changing our environment? Intentionally or unintentionally? Is this Intentional/unintentional distinction a false distinction that make little real world difference? Being indifferent to the reality that *FF based anthropogenic GE* is a current and substantial real world fact must be rejected. Due to the highly dangerous nature of the continued FF use to our environment, our only collective hope of survival is to immediately reject FF use or design ways to substantially mediate the damage caused by continued global FF usage. The first option will not be even remotely realistic for many decades. The second option is thus our only *'ethical'* option if we wish to avoid collective suicide. At this time in our global social development, collective suicide is widely considered *'unethical'*. And thus, the reasonable means to avoid such a suicidal situation (GE) *must* be considered *'ethical'*. I personally find the ethical issue somewhat straight forward. We either collectively accept large scale mitigation of the environmental damage of continued FF usage (until a non-FF economy becomes real) or we parish while debating the obvious mitigation alternative(s), i.e. GE. Freedom which comes with having many options is widely viewed as the 'sweetest' and most desirable form of freedom. Unfortunately, until a renewable energy economy is widely developed and used upon this planet, we collectively have very few viable options for surviving the FF economy. Ignoring the real world aspects of our FF addiction (knowingly changing the environment and being indifferent to the* obvious GE aspects of continued FF usage*....etc.) and then declaring as '*unethical'* the few 'intentional' GE options for mitigating the damage of that addiction is not rational.....Thus, nor is such a view ethical. When ethics become irrational, we truly have no hope. Michael On Sat, Apr 7, 2012 at 11:30 AM, Nathan Currier <natcurr...@gmail.com>wrote: > Sorry, I meant to post the below to this thread, in response to Ken's > query, but hit the wrong button. > On the other hand, the post of Andrea and Christopher makes me wonder > how it will get interpreted.... > the very approach to "ethics" here suggests a conventional framework > in which what I raise might > not seem to make much sense....But why did Lewis Thomas say that it > (the "four letter" concept referenced below), > might eventually be seen as "one of the major discontinuities in human > thought"? It is such a big idea because it > ultimately calls into question far-reaching things like the very > subject for any ethics. What is the "entity" of the ethics, > the individual? What is that? There are ten times more cells without > my nucleic DNA than with it, inside my own body, > so what become of "my" interests? Like arguing about the "unit of > selection" in evolutionary theory, arguments about > what define "superorganisms" are immensely impactful to the very > foundations of considering values for > human behavior, ethics. > > > > > > Hi, Ken - > That there's "nothing new under the sun" is equally true for > philosophy and > solar radiation management, I suppose, yet this doesn't prevent > philosophy > from continuing on, changing, and, yes, sometimes circling its wagons > over millennia. > I think that, philosophically speaking, there's something important > and > different in our time, if not entirely new, that entirely surrounds > geoengineering but > isn't just the geoengineering itself. But sorry, to get into it one > needs to take up that > uber-dangerous "four letter word," as it's been called. Don't worry, I > won't name it. > Fred Pearce said that "if ---- dare not speak her name in Nature, then > shame on science." > Moral philosopher Mary Midley made a strong case that this represents > a > a major change in philosophy for our time. Her book Science and Poetry > is > all about tracing lines of thought from Lucretius through Dawkins (I'm > not sure > I am convinced by how she posits De Rerum Natura in relation to modern > thought, but it > makes a most interesting read), finally focusing on the "four-letter" > approach as a new > way of getting beyond certain old "atomist" arguments. Lynn Margulis > sometimes > said that Americans seem particularly prone to feel that it isn't > important to have any > philosophy, but if one wants to get into a discussion of > geoengineering and philosophy, > it would seem to me almost impossible to stay shy from the new "four- > letter" world and > all the disputes about it and what it really means - indeed, one could > even say the > dirty word IS the philosophy of geoengineering: as Midgley points out, > the word geophysiology > was introduced specifically to frame the "four letter" concept, > launching with it a 'medical model' > in which the planet is conceived something like a patient to be > doctored......wouldn't that be > geoengineering? So, the new ethical issue, Ken, is ------! > > Cheers, > Nathan > > On Apr 7, 1:12 pm, Andrea Gammon <a.r.gam...@gmail.com> wrote: > > Hi Ken, John, and all, > > > > You are definitely right in part. Many of the issues raised by > > geoengineering are familiar issues in ethics involving questions of harm, > > risk, uncertainty, potential moral corruption, and participation. > > > > Other issues are familiar but perhaps scaled up. These would be issues > like > > the (alleged) moral hazard, the whole politics of geoengineering, a > > particularly challenging type of responsibility to future generations, > and > > the question of whether this is a problem best suited to a technical fix. > > > > And then there are probably a couple of issues that are new(-ish) in this > > context. These might include the morality of intentional manipulation of > > earth systems at this level, what this does to the idea of 'natural', and > > questions about fairness in regards to climate manipulation. Broad > > discussions about hubris and the proper role of humans in the biosphere > > have also been cropping up in discussions of geoengineering by > > environmental ethicists. > > > > To John's suggestion that this should be treated as merely an engineering > > problem, one might note (with David Keith and others) that engineers > design > > solutions for for particular clients/publics. What counts as a solution > > depends on the values people hold. This means that engineers are > compelled > > to incorporate moral values in their work. And of course there is a whole > > literature is science studies (somewhat controversial) about the presence > > of values in much of science. > > > > On our end and in our work, we encourage those involved in the more > > technical aspects of geoengineering to entertain ethical questions in the > > discussion. Ethicists are going to be hovering around the periphery > anyway, > > for instance, there is a panel on the ethics of geoengineering at the > > International Society for Environmental Ethics meeting in June. Numerous > > parties, from Crutzen to the Royal Society to the NSF, see ethics as a > > legitimate and essential part of the discussion. > > > > Best, > > Andrea and Christopher > > > > On Fri, Apr 6, 2012 at 5:27 PM, Ken Caldeira < > > > > > > > > kcalde...@carnegie.stanford.edu> wrote: > > > Having but an undergraduate degree in Philosophy, you can forgive me > for > > > asking stupid questions, but ... > > > > > Does geoengineering raise any ethical issues not already considered by > > > historical figures such as Aristotle, Hume, Kant, and so on? > > > > > Isn't the ethics of making decisions that affect others not involved in > > > making the decisions a problem as old as humanity? > > > > > I just don't understand how there is anything new here for philosophy. > > > > > Surely there are difficult decisions to be made with moral dimensions, > but > > > I just can't imagine how geoengineering could pose fundamentally new > > > philosophic problems. > > > > > Perhaps someone can compensate for my failure of imagination and tell > me > > > in what way geoengineering poses fundamentally new philosophic > problems not > > > previously addressed. > > > > > _______________ > > > Ken Caldeira > > > > > Carnegie Institution Dept of Global Ecology > > > 260 Panama Street, Stanford, CA 94305 USA > > > +1 650 704 7212 kcalde...@carnegie.stanford.edu > > >http://dge.stanford.edu/labs/caldeiralab @kencaldeira > > > > > *Currently visiting * Institute for Advanced Sustainability Studies > (IASS)<http://www.iass-potsdam.de/> > > > > > *and *Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Resarch (PIK)< > http://www.pik-potsdam.de/> > > > *in Potsdam, Germany.* > > > > > On Fri, Apr 6, 2012 at 10:58 PM, Andrea Gammon <a.r.gam...@gmail.com > >wrote: > > > > >> The Mansfield Center for Ethics and Public Affairs at the University > of > > >> Montana (with support from the National Science Foundation) is > pleased to > > >> announce the launch of the Ethics of Geoengineering Online Resource > Center. > > > > >> We have attempted to make this an exhaustive resource for materials, > > >> organizations, and events related to geoengineering and ethics. We > will > > >> continue to work to make the site increasingly comprehensive, > accessible, > > >> and engaging. We welcome feedback and suggestions about significant > > >> resources that are not yet included. Please bring to our attention any > > >> papers, events, and other media you think may be missing. > > > > >> Visit the site at: < > https://ch1prd0102.outlook.com/owa/redir.aspx?C=OWAMf8GxrUmH3DmLPhvEm...> > > >>http://www.umt.edu/ethics/resourcecenter/default.php > > > > >> Please email feedback or suggestions to < > geoengineeringeth...@gmail.com> > > >> geoengineeringeth...@gmail.com > > > > >> Thanks! > > > > >> Andrea Gammon > > >> Graduate Research Assistant, Department of Philosophy > > >> University of Montana, '13 > > > > >> Christopher Preston > > >> Associate Professor of Philosophy and Fellow at the Program on Ethics > and > > >> Public Affairs > > >> University of Montana > > >> * > > >> * > > > > >> -- > > >> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google > Groups > > >> "geoengineering" group. > > >> To post to this group, send email to geoengineering@googlegroups.com. > > >> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to > > >> geoengineering+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. > > >> For more options, visit this group at > > >>http://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering?hl=en. > > -- > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups > "geoengineering" group. > To post to this group, send email to geoengineering@googlegroups.com. > To unsubscribe from this group, send email to > geoengineering+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. > For more options, visit this group at > http://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering?hl=en. > > -- *Michael Hayes* *360-708-4976* http://www.voglerlake.com -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "geoengineering" group. To post to this group, send email to geoengineering@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to geoengineering+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering?hl=en.
