David, list and ccs: Thanks for joining in. Great to find there are at least two recent PhDs working on the interface of ethics and geoengineering. I asked Dr. Wong several questions just now and hope you can respond as well - to carry this geoengineering-ethics topic further (independent of Hamilton and Heidegger). Again, including CDR, not only SRM.
Few notes below also On Jan 20, 2014, at 7:18 AM, David Morrow <[email protected]> wrote: > 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. [RWL: I wrote on the paper access: http://clivehamilton.com/what-would-heidegger-say-about-geoengineering/ - But you have to find the small “pdf” symbol there." I need help in the interpretation - and probably others do as well.] > > > 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. [RWL: I am also complaining that Professor Hamilton and too many others do not explain clearly what they mean when they use the term “Geoengineering”. I think there must be a whole different set of ethical issues for SRM and (many) CDR options. Anything you can add on the differences would be most helpful. > 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. [RWL: Yes. Please provide. > > 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. [RWL: And we should also be asking which of the good/necessary options is best. And why (what are the metrics being used to determine “best”?) > > 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?” [RWL: I’d like to rephrase your final question to: What can…………..about the two sides of geoengineering” Again. Thanks. Glad you are so active at the University of Alabama in this ethics/geoengineering discussion. Ron > > > > > 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. -- 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.
