This framing of "should engineers play God" assumes that those who have the ability and motivation to do research also have the ability and motivation to deploy, making it little more than a fantastical science fiction story dressed up in quasi-religious garb.
______________ Ken Caldeira Carnegie Institution Dept of Global Ecology 260 Panama Street, Stanford, CA 94305 USA +1 650 704 7212 [email protected] 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 Wed, Apr 25, 2012 at 3:32 AM, Mike MacCracken <[email protected]>wrote: > What a truly terrible title (or maybe tag line) for an article in a > science magazine. > > Both greenhouse gas induced climate change, and the proposed response to > it, are, or would be, a result of humans relying on the laws of physics and > chemistry—not some sort of super power. Whom does the article say is > causing the change—human activities or God? Is not causing the change with > GHGs and choosing not to act to control emissions “playing” God? And “play” > makes this all sound like a little game when the discussion is much more > serious. And no way are engineers saying they are in charge, so they miss > all the discussion on governance, etc. > > I’ll agree I am a literalist because scientists try to be precise in their > use of words (it might be interesting to ask them to define “God”--their > capital letter). Really poorly title choice, in my view. > > Mike MacCracken > ------------------------------ > > > On 4/24/12 9:05 PM, "RAU greg" <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > "E&T asks whether engineers should play God, making fundamental changes to > the environment and attempting to control climate change. " > > *Should engineers control the eco-system? > *23 April 2012By Anne Harris > With the visible effects of climate change growing, is it time for > engineers to step in and make fundamental changes to the eco-system? > Anyone who has delved into the morass of conflicting reports and opinions > that surround the thorny issue of climate change will readily admit that > plain ‘truth’ is not easy to come by. There are many fields in science > where controversies still remain. This is healthy for science. It keeps us > on our toes and forces us to question our assumptions and models. So it is > revealing that, when it comes to climate change, the overwhelming majority > of scientists acknowledge that it is taking place, that it is potentially > catastrophic and is, in all likelihood, caused by humans. > > Having given this acceptance, the next question on scientists’ lips is > whether anything can be done. The drive is on, albeit grudgingly and at an > agonisingly torpid pace, to limit the volume of greenhouse gases that are > pumped into the atmosphere, but that alone is unlikely to be sufficient. > What is really required is a solution that will reverse the climate-change > effects, and this has been dubbed ‘geoengineering’. > > much more here: http://eandt.theiet.org/magazine/2012/04/index.cfm > > > -- > 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. > -- 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.
