Poster's note: Reviewer 2 did a podcast on the paper, "*Slippery Slope Arguments as Precautionary Arguments: A New Way of Understanding the Concern about Geoengineering Research."* Title of podcast: Slippery slope meets precautionary principle - AndowReviewer 2 does geoengineering <https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/reviewer-2-does-geoengineering/id1529459393>
*Some links to listen to the podcast: * https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/slippery-slope-meets-precautionary-principle-andow/id1529459393?i=1000602473351 https ://podcasts.google.com/feed/aHR0cHM6Ly9hbmNob3IuZm0vcy8zMjkzZDIzMC9wb2RjYXN0L3Jzcw/episode/Zjk3ZGZkMjAtYjM3MS00ZWE3LWE5NTktOTA5MTNlZDE0NWRk?ep=14 <https://podcasts.google.com/feed/aHR0cHM6Ly9hbmNob3IuZm0vcy8zMjkzZDIzMC9wb2RjYXN0L3Jzcw/episode/Zjk3ZGZkMjAtYjM3MS00ZWE3LWE5NTktOTA5MTNlZDE0NWRk?ep=14> https://open.spotify.com/show/2KSB1lU18qh5gYIRDYPJMb *Description:* "How can we merge the concepts of slippery slopes and the precautionary principle? James Andow explains how precautionary evaluation of risks can help us evaluate both the risks of ending up on a slippery slope to deployment, and the risks resulting from deployment. James argues that we need to concern ourselves with risks, not just inevitabilities, when considering slippery slopes. For additional reading discussed, see books "Innate" and "the WEIRDest people in the world". Paper: "Slippery Slope Arguments as Precautionary Arguments: A New Way of Understanding the Concern about Geoengineering Research" ( https://www.ingentaconnect.com/content/whp/ev/pre-prints/content-whp_ev_3729) " On Mon, Feb 6, 2023, 5:13 PM ayesha iqbal <[email protected]> wrote: > > *Author* > JAMES ANDOW > > *7 January 2023* > > *doi: **10.3197/096327123X16702350862737* > > *ABSTRACT* > It has been argued that geoengineering research should not be pursued > because of a slippery slope from research to problematic deployment. These > arguments have been thought weak or defective on the basis of > interpretations that treat the arguments as relying on dubious premises. > The paper urges a new interpretation of these arguments as precautionary > arguments, i.e. as relying on a precautionary principle. This > interpretation helps us better appreciate the potential normative force of > the worries, their potential policy relevance, and the kind of evidence > required by slippery slope arguments. Understood as precautionary > arguments, it is clear that slippery slope arguments against geoengineering > capture concerns that are worth taking seriously. > > *KEYWORDS*: > Geoengineering, slippery slope argument, precautionary principle, ethics, > climate change > > -- > 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 view this discussion on the web visit > https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/geoengineering/CAOyeF5snc9TFKjuNFSLRbpdP%2BPL7rh%2B5W_oHT0hYfZEr4vmZHw%40mail.gmail.com > <https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/geoengineering/CAOyeF5snc9TFKjuNFSLRbpdP%2BPL7rh%2B5W_oHT0hYfZEr4vmZHw%40mail.gmail.com?utm_medium=email&utm_source=footer> > . > -- 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 view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/geoengineering/CAHJsh9-O8V-1%2BD9YcNi_B8EW4t%2BAyVczj%3Df%2BfZh47bi3%2BuveVQ%40mail.gmail.com.
