I agree, no need to get apoplectic over the phrasing. Besides, there is an ever shifting and historically contingent line between the human and the divine. In ancient times, at least in some parts of the world, mining asteroids for resources or the wilful modification of Earth's climate would have been considered to be outside the realm of human possibilities. The human relationship with technology in the modern world and its attendant effects are encapsulated by Heidegger's discussion of machination and the "flight of the gods".
Ninad Bondre On Apr 25, 4:41 pm, Christopher Preston <[email protected]> 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 <[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 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" <[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 > > > 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 [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.
