Indeed, I asked a question, you gave an answer. However, you still have the problem that pro-capitalist governments in the US and in Australia (where I live) are making it easier for corporations to poison and pollute without there being much recourse against this. They are also removing protections on national parks and areas of restricted access for economic purposes. And they are doing it in the name of economic prosperity (which in their eyes seems to mean corporate profits). They are also supporting coal burning and coal mining in the name of profits. They are doing it in the face of the evidence for massive ecological despoliation and climate change - so to that extent there appears to be a direct competition between profit and survival.
However, I'm sure that you are aware that primarily profit seeking and developmentalist behaviour is leading to massive deforestation (in the Amazon for example) and to massive pollution dumping, in many parts of the world. There is little sign of this behaviour stopping because of 'instrumental reason' (with the possible exception of a slow down in the rate of increase of despoliation in China) The fact that we have once had an era of governmental interference to lessen some of the effects of capitalist developmentalism is not a reason to say that this destruction has stopped, or that our social dynamics are not destructive in the long run, or that we may not need more attempts at control. You don't have to call this source of destruction capitalism if it makes you easier. I'm happy with other names.. And yes, as you say, we have to build a social consensus to regulate that destructive behaviour, and in the west that involves challenging corporate power and corporate control over governance. We might need to also use some geoengineering as well. However, you cannot pretend that GE is not tied in with social dynamics, and that if we ignore those dynamics we might make things worse. That is what I said, and what the article being discussed said. It is not unreasonable or stupid to discuss this. jon ________________________________________ From: Peter Flynn <pcfl...@ualberta.ca> Sent: Tuesday, 23 January 2018 2:50 AM To: Jonathan Marshall; andrew.lock...@gmail.com Cc: geoengineering Subject: RE: [geo] A Critical Examination of Geoengineering. Economic and Technological Rationality in Social Context If "the dynamics of capitalism are inherently destructive of ecologies", how does one explain the following: -the requirement that vehicles be equipped with catalytic converters, at considerable expense to the buyer, in "capitalist" (in fact, market regulated) economies. - ditto re the clean up of rivers, in my lifetime. Staggering cleanup compared to 60 years ago, when the Delaware river had no oxygen. - ditto re the removal of sulfur from power plant stacks and vehicle fuels. And so on....even in less developed countries. India, as one step to deal with horrible urban air, banned two cycle jitneys (that went over the border to Bangladesh, where the debate on banning them was active when I was there, many years ago). All of the above are protective actions aimed at the ecology. Start with the wrong statement and you can run anywhere with it. Capitalism isn't an unchained monster: it is regulated, by society. Sometimes more, sometimes less, but regulated. The issue isn't overturning capitalism, or even attacking it; the issue is building a social consensus to regulate. I continue to believe that attacks on capitalism as a discussion of the dangers of climate change is a dangerous distraction: dangerous in that it diverts attention, needlessly, from a very important issue. Peter Peter Flynn, P. Eng., Ph. D. Emeritus Professor and Poole Chair in Management for Engineers Department of Mechanical Engineering University of Alberta peter.fl...@ualberta.ca cell: 928 451 4455 -----Original Message----- From: Jonathan Marshall [mailto:jonathan.marsh...@uts.edu.au] Sent: Sunday, January 21, 2018 6:10 PM To: Peter Flynn <pcfl...@ualberta.ca>; andrew.lock...@gmail.com Cc: geoengineering <geoengineering@googlegroups.com> Subject: Re: [geo] A Critical Examination of Geoengineering. Economic and Technological Rationality in Social Context Ok, launched before ready but that's life... here's the second part. The primary question of this article is a simple one. If the dynamics of capitalism are inherently destructive of ecologies, then GE is unlikely to prevent that destruction, nor give a breathing space for new developments. GE, like everything else that depends on humans, is unlikely to be immune to its social bases. If it is applied within the current capitalist system, then we can suspect it will continue the destructive dynamics of that system, unless another case is properly made. Demonstrating otherwise may be possible, and it may need to be done, rather than just asserted. GE could be the equivalent of encouraging smoking to preserve corporate profits, while trying to do research in the hope of some day being able to postpone the increasing cancer toll. The paper also suggests that if GE becomes the main way of dealing with problems of Climate change, then we live in a society in which 'instrumental reason' does not function very well as there are cheaper and possibly better options, but those options require us to challenge established corporate power, and we are unlikely to do that successfully. I think the last 20 to 30 years of politics in the English Speaking world demonstrates that is very likely to be the case. There are plenty of people on this list who think that SRM is problematic, and that is what this paper is primarily about, so its position is hardly unusual, even among those who are interested in the field. The governing idea of SRM seems that it is easier to change the whole ecological system than to change a political arrangement of economic power and profit. I'm not sure it is, but it is comfortable to think it is not - if we are going to spread accusations that people think things because it is comfortable for them. The author's referencing on risk, seems reasonably up to date to me. However, I would suggest that the author minimizes the risks, because, in their framework, they cannot deal with complex maladaptive systems which are likely to destroy themselves completely. That is probably the result of Marxist optimism, which I think is unjustified, and has been shown to be unjustified by history. All of the points the author makes involve reasonable questions. The correct answers to them, may well involve disagreement, but not dismissal. Personally I think the problem is a version of developmentalist ideology, which could be magnified by capitalism, and that we both need to challenge corporate power and investigate GE, particularly CDR. jon UTS CRICOS Provider Code: 00099F DISCLAIMER: This email message and any accompanying attachments may contain confidential information. If you are not the intended recipient, do not read, use, disseminate, distribute or copy this message or attachments. If you have received this message in error, please notify the sender immediately and delete this message. Any views expressed in this message are those of the individual sender, except where the sender expressly, and with authority, states them to be the views of the University of Technology Sydney. Before opening any attachments, please check them for viruses and defects. Think. Green. Do. Please consider the environment before printing this email. UTS CRICOS Provider Code: 00099F DISCLAIMER: This email message and any accompanying attachments may contain confidential information. If you are not the intended recipient, do not read, use, disseminate, distribute or copy this message or attachments. If you have received this message in error, please notify the sender immediately and delete this message. Any views expressed in this message are those of the individual sender, except where the sender expressly, and with authority, states them to be the views of the University of Technology Sydney. Before opening any attachments, please check them for viruses and defects. Think. Green. Do. Please consider the environment before printing this email. -- 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 geoengineering+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to geoengineering@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
