There was no approval for a "*Berlin Declaration 2014 on geoengineering." *
I was at the meeting and the session. Correct me if I am wrong. James R. Fleming On Sat, Jan 31, 2015 at 10:54 AM, Cush Ngonzo Luwesi <[email protected]> wrote: > I partly agree with Andy: Skepticism yes but realism is also needed. > Alvin Toffler (1970) predicted the “future shock” that “change denial” will > cause in the anthropocene. He used an analogy from the transmission of > sound through electrical cables, which until 1875, was unconceivable by > some while M. Bell was inventing the first telephone. Thence, he called for > improved anticipation in governance to mitigate that future shock and > ensure a smooth transition from hold practices to the new technological > environment with the pace of social and technical change (Jasanoff, 2011; > Stilgoe et al., 2013). Nonetheless, Toffler (1970) argued that not all > technological and scientific discoveries would come out from the > laboratories and take place nor would they see the light; some would just > abort while others would vanish in the impasse, owing to their > unfeasibility or fanciness or even disconnection to reality and > disconcertion. This corroborate with the recent Royal Society’s *Berlin > Declaration 2014 on geoengineering.* > > *Dr Cush Ngonzo Luwesi, PhD* > *Lecturer* > *Department of Geography* > *Kenyatta University* > > On Sat, Jan 31, 2015 at 3:24 PM, Motoko <[email protected]> wrote: > >> 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 >> 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. >> >> >> -- >> 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.
