What I found particularly objectionable was that the God framing and inaccurate representation of our efforts (as Josh noted) was done by a magazine intended to be representing the technical community, just the type of communication that we would hope would be accurate in explaining a technical issue. I would not have been surprised if the headline had appeared in the National Enquirer and the like—but, to my mind, a supposedly technical magazine should be held to a higher standard. There are enough misconceptions out there to be explained without this.
Mike On 4/25/12 2:59 PM, "Robert H. Socolow" <soco...@princeton.edu> wrote: > Instead of being defensive, consider that to many people the whole activity is > playing God. The distinction between researchers and decisionmakers is second > order. > > From: Josh Horton [mailto:joshuahorton...@gmail.com] > Sent: Wednesday, April 25, 2012 02:52 PM > To: geoengineering@googlegroups.com <geoengineering@googlegroups.com> > Subject: [geo] Re: geoengineers as God(s)? > > Fair enough, but I don't know of any researchers in this field (as represented > by those on this list) who propose to play God or make deployment decisions > about geoengineering. Scientists and engineers propose to develop different > options for managing risk, and leave it to accountable decision-makers > (political leaders) to choose the path forward. So the title and premise of > the article are mistaken from the outset. > > Josh > > On Wednesday, April 25, 2012 10:41:05 AM UTC-4, Christopher Preston wrote: >> Like it or not, the ‘playing God’ frame is widely used to raise >> questions about a certain types of technology (e.g. biotechnology and >> synthetic biology). If you don’t take the ‘God’ part literally, the >> framing can be thought of in secular terms as raising questions about >> the proper role humans should adopt in relation to planetary >> processes. It seems to me that this remains an open question….. and >> some legitimate ethical discussions could take place. >> >> On Apr 24, 7:32 pm, Mike MacCracken <mmacc...@comcast.net> 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 ³playing² God? And ³play² 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. >>> > >>> > I¹ll 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 ³God²--their >>> > capital letter). Really poorly title choice, in my view. >>> > >>> > Mike MacCracken >>> > >>> > On 4/24/12 9:05 PM, "RAU greg" <gh...@sbcglobal.net> 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 >>>> > > Œtruth¹ 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 scientists¹ 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 Œgeoengineering¹. >>> > >>>> > > 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 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.
