See my book Fixing the Sky (2010), chapter 7. Jim
James R. Fleming Professor of Science, Technology, and Society, Colby College Research Associate, Columbia University Series Editor, Palgrave Studies in the History of Science and Technology, bit.ly/THQMcd Profile: http://www.colby.edu/directory/profile/jfleming/ On Fri, Jan 30, 2015 at 4:37 PM, Jim Fleming <[email protected]> wrote: > As argued in 1955: > > "Present awful possibilities of nuclear warfare may give way to others > even more > > awful. After global climate control becomes possible, perhaps all our > present > > involvements will seem simple. We should not deceive ourselves: > > once such possibilities become actual, they will be exploited." > > -- John von Neumann, “Can We Survive Technology?” Fortune, June 1955, > 106–108. > > James R. Fleming > Professor of Science, Technology, and Society, Colby College > Research Associate, Columbia University > Series Editor, Palgrave Studies in the History of Science and Technology, > bit.ly/THQMcd > Profile: http://www.colby.edu/directory/profile/jfleming/ > > > On Fri, Jan 30, 2015 at 11:00 AM, Olaf Corry <[email protected]> wrote: > >> >> I agree with the basic idea that the politics of this will be likely to >> be very tricky (although - and partly for that reason - I remain >> unconvinced by the other premise of the article that SPI has been >> overwhelmingly shown to have net life-saving potential). >> >> Andrew, why the incredulity at a conflict scenario? The thing about >> international relations is that outcomes do not always reflect intentions >> or desired collective outcomes. History is full of consensus processes >> breaking down and collectively sub-optimal (to put it mildly) outcomes. >> Presumably >> everybody had an incentive to avoid the chaos of WW1 and stick to a >> consensus process... >> >> So the authors are right in my opinion to raise this problem regarding >> SRM. I would add that by complicating/souring the international diplomatic >> situation SRM could easily affect the ability to agree and cooperate >> internationally on mitigation and adaptation too, which we agree would >> still need to happen as fast as possible. >> >> If we are consistently outcome-ethical about it we probably shouldn't put >> the politics in one compartment and the evaluation of the technology in >> another one. >> >> Best regards >> Olaf Corry >> >> >> >> >> On Friday, 30 January 2015 09:18:54 UTC, andrewjlockley wrote: >>> >>> I disagree fundamentally with the premise of this article. >>> >>> A decision on climate has to be made. Everyone knows it. Everyone has an >>> incentive to avoid chaos. Therefore, people have a very large incentive to >>> stick to a consensus process, because anyone who doesn't stick will >>> instantly break that consensus and cause chaos - which is a guaranteed >>> loser for all. >>> >>> Same reason villagers don't burgle their neighbours when police are busy >>> elsewhere dealing with a major incident. >>> >>> A >>> On 30 Jan 2015 08:54, "Andy Parker" <[email protected]> wrote: >>> >>>> Hey folks, the Washington Post just published an op ed on the messy >>>> politics of solar geoengineering, written by David Keith and me: >>>> http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/whats-the-right- >>>> temperature-for-the-earth/2015/01/29/b2dda53a-7c05-11e4- >>>> 84d4-7c896b90abdc_story.html >>>> >>>> -- >>>> 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/d/optout. >>>> >>> -- >> 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/d/optout. >> > > -- 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/d/optout.
