Great reference. I want to add the following sentence of von Neumann:
"All experience shows that even smaller technological changes than those
now in the cards profoundly transform political and social relationships."
Von Neumann could be right in assuming that climate control will change
a lot. It will change also the relationship of science and policy.
Am 30.01.2015 um 22:37 schrieb Jim Fleming:
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 <http://bit.ly/THQMcd>
Profile: http://www.colby.edu/directory/profile/jfleming/
On Fri, Jan 30, 2015 at 11:00 AM, Olaf Corry <[email protected]
<mailto:[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]
<mailto:[email protected]>.
To post to this group, send email to
[email protected]
<mailto:[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]
<mailto:[email protected]>.
To post to this group, send email to [email protected]
<mailto:[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.
