On the other hand if the patient (human or planet) has a fatal disease and current treatments are't working, do we not intervene if more effect treatments might be available, or do we stand idly by because we don't want to play God? Medicine has well establish rules for when riskier treatments are justified, not to mention extensive research and testing of treatments to understand those risk/benefits. If as you say the value of a life is less than that of a planet, then it would seem a few billion times more important that we research and understand all possible treatments for our current planetary predicament, given that current treatments are failing. Greg
Sent from the Rau's iPad > On Mar 22, 2015, at 12:10 PM, Jamais Cascio <[email protected]> wrote: > > Because, to be overly-blunt, people are disposable. Planets aren’t. > > If you try a radical cutting-edge medical treatment and it fails, one person > dies. The family of the person who died might sue you, and may or may not win > depending upon how informed the patient had been. > > If you try a radical cutting-edge geophysical treatment and it fails, you’re > potentially making life worse for millions or even billions of people. The > nations of the people hurt might declare war on you. > > In other words, it’s because the impact of both success and failure has the > potential to be far greater than anything else we’ve done, and we don’t have > a bunch of planets volunteering to be part of randomized trials. > > -Jamais > > > >> On Mar 22, 2015, at 11:19 AM, Greg Rau <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> Physicians play "God" every day, improving/saving/prolonging lives using >> unnatural, high tech methods. People flock to them. Where's the >> moral/ethical handwringing here, and why is saving a life using a rational >> application of science different from suggesting that through further >> research we might be able to do the same for the planet? >> >> Greg >> >> From: Andrew Lockley <[email protected]> >> To: geoengineering <[email protected]> >> Sent: Sunday, March 22, 2015 4:44 AM >> Subject: [geo] Playing God: The Social and Cultural Debate - The Carbon Tree >> >> http://www.thecarbontree.com/geoengineering-part-2-playing-god-social-cultural-debate/ >> Geoengineering Part 2: Playing God - The Social and Cultural Debate >> Phil Anderson >> February 6th, 2015 >> The concept of controlling the natural climate through Geoengineering >> unravels a multitude of social, ethical and political issues. >> “The biggest barriers to the implementation of Geoengineering proposals >> relate to social, ethical and political issues of developing legal and fair >> methods of managing Geoengineering.” >> (Royal Society, 2009) >> One of the most discussed aspects of geoengineering is not the plausibility >> of the science related to creating these technologies, it’s a question of >> should we do it! There are substantial moral and ethical issues relating to >> humanities right to “bet” on saving the globe through geoengineering (Mark, >> 2009). Through geoengineering we would create global control, described as >> “Godlike”. Many religions see their God(s) as the controlling factor of the >> planet and climate, what gives human beings the right to take that control? >> “Once powers bestowed by gods, control over weather and climate is now >> sought through technology due to shifts in humanity’s relationship with >> nature.” >> (Bellamy et al., 2012, pp.598) >> Taking control of the climate is contentious. “The heavens were considered >> the playgrounds of the Gods” (Goodell, 2010). This scale of global control >> can be traced to mythologies such as the parables of Zeus the “Cloud >> Gatherer” and in Norse mythology Thor who controlled the skies. The climate >> was once the ‘domain of the Gods’, now this realm is becoming examined. >> Humans would become the controlling factor in stewardship of the planet, >> resulting in what Mark (2009) deduces as a shift from a relation of meaning >> between humans and nature, to a source of potential threat where nature is >> no longer independent from humankind. The moral hazard of accepting that we >> live in a manmade world creates assumptions of the end of wilderness living >> in a “global zoo” (Preston, 2011). >> “Through technology we distance ourselves with the natural world…. >> Geoengineering may well turn out to be another tool of dominance, a >> new-fangled way for human beings to screw things up even faster.” >> (Goodell, 2010, pp.216-7) >> Nature’s place within society will become questioned. There are >> psychological consequences. “What happens when the colour of the sky on a >> particular day is the result not of Mother Nature, but of the geoengineers >> who are spreading dust in the stratosphere? What happens to our romance with >> nature when we are living in a terrarium?” (Goodell, 2010). Finally there’s >> the question of global representation. Who controls geoengineering >> technologies? How will it be regulated? New technologies may become >> available to private sector business without authorisation (Bracmort & >> Latanzio, 2013). The engaging debate of geoengineering is not of the >> science, it’s of humanities right to control the planet. Many people worry >> that a few rich westerners will take control of these technologies and have >> complete dominance of the Earth’s climate. >> “Geoengineering actions are certain to have global effects whether or not >> they occur within a single states jurisdiction” >> (Wirth, 2013, pp.428) >> Scientists who favour geoengineering relate to a “lesser evils” argument, >> deducing geoengineering as a last resort against global warming (Preston, >> 2011). The moral context in which the decision to undertake geoengineering >> continually takes place around the question; do we have a choice? Even >> though there is risk of moral corruption via advocating geoengineering, it >> remains that it might be the lesser evil. >> References: >> Bellamy,R. Chilvers,J. Vaughan,N.E. and Lenton, T.M. (2012) A review of >> climate geoengineering appraisals, Climate Change ,3, pp.597–615 >> Bracmort,K & Latanzio, R.K. (2013) Geoengineering: Governance and >> Technology Policy, Congressional Research Service, [Online] Available from: >> https://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/R41371.pdf >> Corner, A & Pidgeon, N. (2010) Geoengineering the Climate: the Social and >> ethical implications, Environment, 52(1), pp.25-37 >> Goodell,J. (2010) How to cool the planet: Geoengineering and the Audacious >> Quest to fix Earth’s climate, Mariner Books, New York. >> Mark, J. (2009). Hacking the sky. Earth Island Journal. >> Preston, C.J. (2011) Re-Thinking the Unthinkable: Environmental Ethics and >> the Presumptive Argument against Geoengineering, Environmental Values, 20, >> pp.457–479 >> Rayfuse,R. Lawrence, M.G. Gjerde, K.M. (2008) Ocean Fertilisation and >> Climate Change: The Need to Regulate Emerging High Seas Uses, The >> International Journal of Marine and Coastal Law, 23, pp.297–326 >> Royal Society (2009) Geoengineering the climate Science, governance and >> uncertainty, [Online] Available from: >> http://royalsociety.org/uploadedFiles/Royal_Society_Content/policy/publications/2009/8693.pdf >> Smetacek, V & Naqvi, S.W.A (2008) The next generation of iron fertilization >> experiments in the Southern Ocean. >> Tuana,N. Sriver ,R. Svoboda,T. Olson,R. Irvine,P.J. Haqq-Misra,J. and >> Keller,K. (2012) Towards Integrated Ethical and Scientific Analysis of >> Geoengineering: A Research Agenda, Ethics Policy & Environment,15(2), pp. >> 136-157 >> Wirth, D. A. (2013). Engineering the Climate: Geoengineering as a Challenge >> to International Governance. Boston College Environmental Affairs Law >> Review, 40(2),pp.413-437 >> -- >> 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.
