I don't often feel compelled to defend Hamilton or Heidegger, but Hamilton's stridency seems to be provoking some responses here that strike me as misguided. The responses are misguided, I think, because they let annoying and/or discipline-specific aspects of Hamilton's approach get in the way of understanding what value, if any, there is to be found in what he has to say in this paper. I haven't read the paper. Maybe it doesn't contain anything of value, and I'm certainly not trying to defend any specific points that Hamilton makes. The gist of the following comments is simply that the discussion here embodies an unjustifiably dismissive attitude. I worry that such an attitude, especially in a venue like this, will lead to a dangerous sort of groupthink.
That said, a few comments: 1. We ought to distinguish between "taking a stand against certain options in a policy debate" and pointing out downsides to a proposed option. (Hamilton should do a better job of this, too! In his book, at least, he seems to jump from geoengineering's having major downsides to its being unacceptable.) It's also worth distinguishing Hamilton's overall stand on geoengineering from the conclusion that he draws in this particular paper. In the abstract, at least, Hamilton seems to be pointing out certain downsides to geoengineering. Pointing out policy X has downside D *is* a constructive contribution to a debate about whether to pursue X, even if one doesn't suggest alternatives. Suppose that some climate scientists produced new, stronger evidence that SRM would likely weaken the Asian monsoon, but offered no particular alternative to SRM. If you wouldn't dismiss such a paper as "unconstructive," then you ought not to dismiss Hamilton's paper *simply* on the grounds that it doesn't offer an alternative. 2. Andrew: I don't recall whether this has been discussed here before, but not everyone who objects to geoengineering is ignorant of the "least bad option" argument. Consider, for instance, Stephen Gardiner's and Gregor Betz's discussions of the "lesser evil argument," as well as Gardiner's discussion of "moral schizophrenia." If those haven't been discussed here before, I'll provide some links or PDFs. 3. Connected to (1) and (2), just because someone rejects policy X without offering feasible alternatives doesn't mean that one is justified in dismissing their criticisms of X. After all, the claim that "X is the least bad option" rests on increasingly shaky ground if one continually dismisses criticisms of X. 4. Ken: Besides Pak-Hang's point about the ad hominem attack on Heidegger, I'd also note that Hamilton's goal is not really to figure out "what the great man would do." At least, it shouldn't be, and there's a disciplinary reason not to interpret him that way. When historians of philosophy ask, e.g., "What would Kant say about X?" they often are trying to figure out what Kant would say. When applied ethicists ask that question, though, it's usually just a shorthand for, "What do Kant's insights about ethics entail about X?" In that vein, we can interpret Hamilton as asking, "What can Heidegger's insights about technology teach us about geoengineering?" On Monday, January 20, 2014 5:24:23 AM UTC-6, Pak-Hang Wong wrote: > > Heidegger’s affiliation to Nazi (and Nazism) was unfortunate and > repulsing. I do, however, think that we should not be satisfy with an ad > hominem. > > I think the Heideggerian insight is to make explicit that technology could > be seen as a revealing background - technology exemplifies the way human > beings conceptualise the human-world relationship. One problem with > Heidegger (and Hamilton), I see, rather, is the failure to see the > multiplicity and complexity in enframing, thus asserting technology (or, > better, Technology-with-a-capital-T; or, in Hamilton’s case, > Geoengineering-with-a-capital-G) reveals the attitude of control. I suspect > here SRM is the ‘best’ example because it can easily be interpreted as an > instance of exerting control over the nature, etc. > > Another problem here is the failure to include human agency into the > discussion. I do agree with the Heideggerian insight that technology indeed > embodies a specific way of conceptualise the world. It does not however > entail that human beings are intrinsically blackboxed into this way of > thinking. At least, one important advancement in philosophy of technology > is to point out that this blackbox can be opened and technologies can be > redesigned (or, re-engineered) as to fit better what we believe is morally > and/or politically right. > > Anyway, perhaps, the lesson from Heidegger should not be: Hamilton(’s > Heidegger) disapproves geoengineering/SRM, but Hamilton’s (Heidegger) > disapproves some ways of deploying geoengineering/SRM. > > On Sunday, 19 January 2014 22:28:33 UTC, kcaldeira wrote: >> >> Before we concern ourselves too much with channeling Heidegger's ghost, >> and echo-ing born-again Christians in asking what the great man would do, >> we might want to keep in mind that Heidegger was a member of the Nazi party >> and never publicly apologized for having become one. >> >> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Martin_Heidegger_and_Nazism >> >> Are we supposed to be concerned that a Nazi might have disapproved of >> SRM? Are we supposed to be persuaded of the infallibility of his judgment? >> Is this relevant to any important current discussion? >> >> >> >> >> _______________ >> Ken Caldeira >> >> Carnegie Institution for Science >> Dept of Global Ecology >> 260 Panama Street, Stanford, CA 94305 USA >> +1 650 704 7212 [email protected] >> http://dge.stanford.edu/labs/caldeiralab >> https://twitter.com/KenCaldeira >> >> >> >> On Sun, Jan 19, 2014 at 2:08 PM, Ronal W. Larson >> <[email protected]>wrote: >> >>> List: cc Ken, Charles, Andrew >>> >>> 1. I finally found the full Sept. 2013 paper at >>> http://clivehamilton.com/what-would-heidegger-say-about-geoengineering/ - >>> But you have to find the small “pdf” symbol there. 33 pages with >>> language that is difficult for me as a non-philosopher (e.g. “Being”, >>> enframing, dasein, etc..) >>> >>> To help - there is an interesting long set of Heidegger definitions >>> at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heideggerian_terminology >>> >>> 2. I conclude after several hours of reading that the answer to the >>> paper’s title question would be “I (Heidegger) disapprove”. But I missed >>> such a sentence if it was there. >>> >>> 3. Prof Hamilton has essentially zero mention of the CDR concept - and >>> I think also of biochar, although I am pretty sure Prof. Hamilton has used >>> a word like “benign” in the past for biochar. The iron fertilization >>> concept is mentioned, but I think the words geoengineering and sulfur >>> release are virtually synonymous in this paper. >>> >>> 4. So this note is to ask list members who understand Heidegger the >>> question: "What Would Heidegger Say About CDR (and/or Biochar)?" >>> I looked carefully and am totally unsure - there was considerable >>> reference to “nature”, differences between “world” and “earth”, entropy, >>> etc. I am not asking about Hamilton’s view, but rather Heidegger’s. >>> >>> 5. Here are some quotes I thought pertinent to my above follow-on >>> question >>> >>> (p 19) "* Plans to engineer the climate—through the creation of a >>> planetary command centre—are bound to come to grief on the rock of earth >>> **because, >>> through all attempts by humans to understand and control the earth, >>> disorder irrupts.**”* *(RWL: Hamilton not Heidegger speaking - and >>> often same below.)* >>> (p 20) *"It is worth noting that Heidegger’s conception implies a >>> rejection of all ethical naturalism, such as that captured in Aldo >>> Leopold’s maxim: ‘A thing is right when it tends to preserve the integrity, >>> stability and beauty of the biotic community. It is wrong when it tends >>> otherwise. **[RWL: Shucks - I liked the Leopold version]* >>> >>> (p22 ) * Geoengineering schemes aim to confine Being to the shadows.* >>> >>> >>> (p22) *Geoengineering itself is proof that the future is not in our >>> hands, for if it were we would not have the crisis that geoengineering >>> wants to solve.* *[RWL: Hmm. Here I disagree. I think the future >>> is in our hands. Professor Hamilton is missing the full range of >>> Geoengineering.]* >>> >>> .(p26) *So we may say that it is not geoengineering itself that is >>> most dangerous, but the ever-tightening grip of Enframing that makes >>> geoengineering thinkable. * >>> >>> (p 27-28) *Heidegger was not opposed to technology. Yes, it >>> represents the danger, but there can be **no going back to the >>> pre-modern because Enframing must take its course. The task is not to >>> oppose technology but to open ourselves to its ontological meaning and the >>> power it has over us.86 We can then free ourselves from technology without >>> rejecting it, and until we free ourselves we cannot make a good judgment >>> about geoengineering. pp 27-28* >>> >>> (p28) *Diagnosing an insufficiency of mastery, we plan to expand >>> control over the so-far unregulated parts of the globe—the oceans whose >>> chemical balance we would change, the chemical composition of the >>> atmosphere, the amount of sunlight falling on the Earth. (p28)* >>> >>> (p28) "*Proposals to engineer the climate system confirm that we have >>> not yet found a way to respond to the climate crisis, except with more of >>> the same. * >>> >>> >>> *6. Thanks to Ken (below) for keeping the philosophical discussion >>> alive. But I need more help in understanding Heidegger. I understand >>> Hamilton’s views on SRM, but I remain uncertain on CDR.* >>> >>> *Ron* >>> >>> On Jan 19, 2014, at 2:42 AM, Ken Caldeira <[email protected]> >>> wrote: >>> >>> Let's not start insulting philosophers of science here. >>> >>> I do not believe that most philosophers of science see it as their role >>> to discourage inquiry, but rather see their role as doing things such as >>> analyzing how terms gain meaning and refer to things, how we can establish >>> the truth or falsity of statements, and so on. They try to make explicit >>> what is usually implicit in scientific inquiry. >>> >>> >>> >>> _______________ >>> Ken Caldeira >>> >>> Carnegie Institution for Science >>> Dept of Global Ecology >>> 260 Panama Street, Stanford, CA 94305 USA >>> +1 650 704 7212 [email protected] >>> http://dge.stanford.edu/labs/caldeiralab >>> https://twitter.com/KenCaldeira >>> >>> >>> >>> On Sun, Jan 19, 2014 at 1:33 AM, Charles H. Greene <[email protected]>wrote: >>> >>>> When we are on the verge of truly catastrophic climate change, I >>>> wonder what philosophers of science will offer us as an alternative? >>>> Obviously, if they wish to discourage scientists from even exploring >>>> possible geoengineering options, they must have alternatives to offer, >>>> right? >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> On Jan 18, 2014, at 10:31 PM, Andrew Lockley <[email protected]> >>>> wrote: >>>> >>>> >>>> http://anthem-group.net/2014/01/18/what-would-heidegger-say-about-geoengineering-clive-hamilton/ >>>> >>>> What Would Heidegger Say About Geoengineering? Clive Hamilton >>>> >>>> Abstract: Proposals to respond to climate change by geoengineering the >>>> Earth’s climate system, such as by regulating the amount of sunlight >>>> reaching the planet, may be seen as a radical fulfillment of Heidegger’s >>>> understanding of technology as destiny. Before geoengineering was >>>> conceivable, the Earth as a whole had to be representable as a total >>>> object, an object captured in climate models that form the epistemological >>>> basis for climate engineering. Geoengineering is thinkable because of the >>>> ever-tightening grip of Enframing, Heidegger’s term for the modern epoch >>>> of >>>> Being. Yet, by objectifying the world as a whole, geoengineering goes >>>> beyond the mere representation of nature as ‘standing reserve’; it >>>> requires >>>> us to think Heidegger further, to see technology as a response to disorder >>>> breaking through. If in the climate crisis nature reveals itself to be a >>>> sovereign force then we need a phenomenology from nature’s point of view. >>>> If ‘world grounds itself on earth, and earth juts through world’, then the >>>> climate crisis is the jutting through, and geoengineering is a last >>>> attempt >>>> to deny it, a vain attempt to take control of destiny rather than enter a >>>> free relation with technology. In that lies the danger. >>>> >>>> -- >>>> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google >>>> Groups "geoengineering" group. >>>> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send >>>> an email to [email protected]. >>>> To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. >>>> Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering. >>>> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> -- >>>> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google >>>> Groups "geoengineering" group. >>>> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send >>>> an email to [email protected]. >>>> To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. >>>> Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering. >>>> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. >>>> >>> >>> >>> -- >>> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google >>> Groups "geoengineering" group. >>> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send >>> an email to [email protected]. >>> To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. >>> Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering. >>> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. >>> >>> >>> >> -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "geoengineering" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to [email protected]. To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
