Re: [geo] etc_hbf_geobriefing_may2017.pdf

2017-05-11 Thread Jonathan Marshall 
​I like to hope that the fossil fuel era is ending. One question is whether it 
is ending soon enough.

There is also the question of whether political resistance will slow down the 
end, or attempt to continue the era.

There is also the question as to whether the social-political-economic system 
will continue to produce ecological devastation and planet alteration, 
irrespective of whether fossil fuel ends or not - if that system is not changed.

There is another question of whether without political and social change, 
geoengineering will simply prolong the problem and add complications to any 
solution

I still say if we really want to solve the problem we have to think of social 
change. We may need geoengineering,  recycling, and energy efficient light 
bulbs, but they are probably not enough by themselves
​

jon



From: geoengineering@googlegroups.com <geoengineering@googlegroups.com> on 
behalf of Andrew Lockley <andrew.lock...@gmail.com>
Sent: Friday, 12 May 2017 9:56 AM
To: Jonathan Marshall
Cc: geoengineering
Subject: Re: [geo] etc_hbf_geobriefing_may2017.pdf

The fossil era is ending, regardless of what happens with geoengineering. The 
only question is whether we attempt to limit the damage and clean up the mess.

A

On 12 May 2017 00:52, "Jonathan Marshall" 
<jonathan.marsh...@uts.edu.au<mailto:jonathan.marsh...@uts.edu.au>> wrote:


Unfortunately the only real solution is probably social, political and 
psychological change.

If we keep the current social system then people will keep gaming any solutions 
put forward to keep that social system, and its power and wealth distribution, 
going - probably one reason why you can get support for Geoengineering from 
people who loudly declaim that climate change is not real.

Geoengineering will simply allow the powerful to continue to pollute, plus it 
will likely add dangers of uncontrollable ecological feedbacks, catastrophic 
collapse in financial crisis, and weather warfare - or blaming people for that 
warfare.

This is the case if we don't do geoengineering as well, although the 
catastrophe may come sooner and force some social change earlier

jon





From: geoengineering@googlegroups.com<mailto:geoengineering@googlegroups.com> 
<geoengineering@googlegroups.com<mailto:geoengineering@googlegroups.com>> on 
behalf of Adam Dorr <adamd...@gmail.com<mailto:adamd...@gmail.com>>
Sent: Friday, 12 May 2017 9:33 AM
To: Greg Rau
Cc: s.h.sal...@ed.ac.uk<mailto:s.h.sal...@ed.ac.uk>; 
geoengineering@googlegroups.com<mailto:geoengineering@googlegroups.com>; 
f...@boell.de<mailto:f...@boell.de>; 
schnei...@boell.de<mailto:schnei...@boell.de>; 
n...@etcgroup.org<mailto:n...@etcgroup.org>
Subject: Re: [geo] etc_hbf_geobriefing_may2017.pdf

I'm sympathetic to some of the criticisms of technofixes, but only when other 
plausible fixes are available.

In the case of climate change, it seems that the notion of solving the problem 
with interventions like recycling, energy-efficient lightbulbs, organic food 
and the rest of the "locally adapted ecologically and socially sound solutions" 
folks typically have in mind is every bit "speculative and distracting" (if not 
just plain delusional) as CDR climate engineering.


On Thu, May 11, 2017 at 3:57 PM, Greg Rau 
<gh...@sbcglobal.net<mailto:gh...@sbcglobal.net>> wrote:
Yes, this seems to stem from a fear of technology as summarized in their 
closing statement:

"Because of the geopolitical high-stakes, risk of weaponization,
and intergenerational implications of geoengineering, the
global community should first and foremost debate these
aspects, before allowing the development of tools that a
climate-denying government or “a coalition of the willing”
could use, even if all other governments would conclude it is
too risky and unfair to use. Geoengineering can never be
confined to a technical discussion, a matter of “developing
tools, just in case” or confined just to a climate perspective.
Geoengineering research should – in line with the CBD
decision – be focused on socio-political, ecological, ethical
questions and potential impacts and contribute to a debate
about whether democratic governance of geoengineering is
ever possible, and how. And even more important: funding
and research on climate change needs to urgently be scaled
up to support implementation of proven and locally
adapted ecologically and socially sound solutions to the
climate crisis – not speculative and distracting technofixes."

While I'm all for debating the various actions before deciding when/if to use 
them, it would seem important to fully understand the benefits as well as the 
risks and impacts of these, and that requires research and testing. Or shall we 
continue to base our decisions on speculation? Case in point, while BECCS,

Re: [geo] etc_hbf_geobriefing_may2017.pdf

2017-05-11 Thread Andrew Lockley 
The fossil era is ending, regardless of what happens with geoengineering.
The only question is whether we attempt to limit the damage and clean up
the mess.

A

On 12 May 2017 00:52, "Jonathan Marshall" <jonathan.marsh...@uts.edu.au>
wrote:

>
> Unfortunately the only real solution is probably social, political and
> psychological change.
>
> If we keep the current social system then people will keep gaming any
> solutions put forward to keep that social system, and its power and wealth
> distribution, going - probably one reason why you can get support for
> Geoengineering from people who loudly declaim that climate change is not
> real.
>
> Geoengineering will simply allow the powerful to continue to pollute, plus
> it will likely add dangers of uncontrollable ecological feedbacks,
> catastrophic collapse in financial crisis, and weather warfare - or blaming
> people for that warfare.
>
> This is the case if we don't do geoengineering as well, although the
> catastrophe may come sooner and force some social change earlier
>
> jon
>
>
> --
>
> *From:* geoengineering@googlegroups.com <geoengineering@googlegroups.com>
> on behalf of Adam Dorr <adamd...@gmail.com>
> *Sent:* Friday, 12 May 2017 9:33 AM
> *To:* Greg Rau
> *Cc:* s.h.sal...@ed.ac.uk; geoengineering@googlegroups.com; f...@boell.de;
> schnei...@boell.de; n...@etcgroup.org
> *Subject:* Re: [geo] etc_hbf_geobriefing_may2017.pdf
>
> I'm sympathetic to some of the criticisms of technofixes, but only when
> other plausible fixes are available.
>
> In the case of climate change, it seems that the notion of solving the
> problem with interventions like recycling, energy-efficient lightbulbs,
> organic food and the rest of the "locally adapted ecologically and socially
> sound solutions" folks typically have in mind is every bit "speculative and
> distracting" (if not just plain delusional) as CDR climate engineering.
>
>
> On Thu, May 11, 2017 at 3:57 PM, Greg Rau <gh...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>
>> Yes, this seems to stem from a fear of technology as summarized in their
>> closing statement:
>>
>> "Because of the geopolitical high-stakes, risk of weaponization,
>> and intergenerational implications of geoengineering, the
>> global community should first and foremost debate these
>> aspects, before allowing the development of tools that a
>> climate-denying government or “a coalition of the willing”
>> could use, even if all other governments would conclude it is
>> too risky and unfair to use. Geoengineering can never be
>> confined to a technical discussion, a matter of “developing
>> tools, just in case” or confined just to a climate perspective.
>> Geoengineering research should – in line with the CBD
>> decision – be focused on socio-political, ecological, ethical
>> questions and potential impacts and contribute to a debate
>> about whether democratic governance of geoengineering is
>> ever possible, and how. And even more important: funding
>> and research on climate change needs to urgently be scaled
>> up to support implementation of proven and locally
>> adapted ecologically and socially sound solutions to the
>> climate crisis – not speculative and distracting technofixes."
>>
>> While I'm all for debating the various actions before deciding when/if to
>> use them, it would seem important to fully understand the benefits as well
>> as the risks and impacts of these, and that requires research and testing.
>> Or shall we continue to base our decisions on speculation? Case in point,
>> while BECCS, DAC, enhanced weathering, biochar and the others on ETCs s&*t
>> list might be risky (e.g., they don't work as advertised, too expensive,
>> etc, -let's find out for sure), how could these be "weaponized"and
>> "unfair"? Interestingly I see that a-/re- forestation is not on their s&*t
>> list, despite serious concerns from ecologists (though weaponization is
>> still not mentioned):
>> https://ecopreservationsociety.wordpress.com/2008/02/03/
>> does-reforestation-contribute-to-global-warming-part-1/
>> https://news.mongabay.com/2016/02/in-the-rush-to-reforest-
>> are-the-worlds-old-growth-grasslands-losing-out/
>> https://cereo.wsu.edu/wp-content/uploads/sites/95/2016/03/
>> Joppa_Science_IPBES_2016.pdf
>>
>> Then there is this curious statement: "funding
>> and research on climate change needs to urgently be scaled
>> up to support implementation of proven and locally
>> adapted ecologically and socially sound solutions to the
>> climate

Re: [geo] etc_hbf_geobriefing_may2017.pdf

2017-05-11 Thread Jonathan Marshall 

Unfortunately the only real solution is probably social, political and 
psychological change.

If we keep the current social system then people will keep gaming any solutions 
put forward to keep that social system, and its power and wealth distribution, 
going - probably one reason why you can get support for Geoengineering from 
people who loudly declaim that climate change is not real.

Geoengineering will simply allow the powerful to continue to pollute, plus it 
will likely add dangers of uncontrollable ecological feedbacks, catastrophic 
collapse in financial crisis, and weather warfare - or blaming people for that 
warfare.

This is the case if we don't do geoengineering as well, although the 
catastrophe may come sooner and force some social change earlier

jon





From: geoengineering@googlegroups.com <geoengineering@googlegroups.com> on 
behalf of Adam Dorr <adamd...@gmail.com>
Sent: Friday, 12 May 2017 9:33 AM
To: Greg Rau
Cc: s.h.sal...@ed.ac.uk; geoengineering@googlegroups.com; f...@boell.de; 
schnei...@boell.de; n...@etcgroup.org
Subject: Re: [geo] etc_hbf_geobriefing_may2017.pdf

I'm sympathetic to some of the criticisms of technofixes, but only when other 
plausible fixes are available.

In the case of climate change, it seems that the notion of solving the problem 
with interventions like recycling, energy-efficient lightbulbs, organic food 
and the rest of the "locally adapted ecologically and socially sound solutions" 
folks typically have in mind is every bit "speculative and distracting" (if not 
just plain delusional) as CDR climate engineering.


On Thu, May 11, 2017 at 3:57 PM, Greg Rau 
<gh...@sbcglobal.net<mailto:gh...@sbcglobal.net>> wrote:
Yes, this seems to stem from a fear of technology as summarized in their 
closing statement:

"Because of the geopolitical high-stakes, risk of weaponization,
and intergenerational implications of geoengineering, the
global community should first and foremost debate these
aspects, before allowing the development of tools that a
climate-denying government or “a coalition of the willing”
could use, even if all other governments would conclude it is
too risky and unfair to use. Geoengineering can never be
confined to a technical discussion, a matter of “developing
tools, just in case” or confined just to a climate perspective.
Geoengineering research should – in line with the CBD
decision – be focused on socio-political, ecological, ethical
questions and potential impacts and contribute to a debate
about whether democratic governance of geoengineering is
ever possible, and how. And even more important: funding
and research on climate change needs to urgently be scaled
up to support implementation of proven and locally
adapted ecologically and socially sound solutions to the
climate crisis – not speculative and distracting technofixes."

While I'm all for debating the various actions before deciding when/if to use 
them, it would seem important to fully understand the benefits as well as the 
risks and impacts of these, and that requires research and testing. Or shall we 
continue to base our decisions on speculation? Case in point, while BECCS, DAC, 
enhanced weathering, biochar and the others on ETCs s&*t list might be risky 
(e.g., they don't work as advertised, too expensive, etc, -let's find out for 
sure), how could these be "weaponized"and "unfair"? Interestingly I see that 
a-/re- forestation is not on their s&*t list, despite serious concerns from 
ecologists (though weaponization is still not mentioned):
https://ecopreservationsociety.wordpress.com/2008/02/03/does-reforestation-contribute-to-global-warming-part-1/
https://news.mongabay.com/2016/02/in-the-rush-to-reforest-are-the-worlds-old-growth-grasslands-losing-out/
https://cereo.wsu.edu/wp-content/uploads/sites/95/2016/03/Joppa_Science_IPBES_2016.pdf

Then there is this curious statement: "funding
and research on climate change needs to urgently be scaled
up to support implementation of proven and locally
adapted ecologically and socially sound solutions to the
climate crisis – not speculative and distracting technofixes."

Am all for more funding of climate change research, but there seems to be 
enough scary knowledge already to warrant greatly expanded R funding 
specifically on a broad and deep search for solutions. Locally adapted 
ecological ones certainly are preferred, but with 7+B of us now on the planet 
is it likely that these solutions alone will solve the problem in the time 
required,  while they also continue to (so how) feed, house and clothe us?? For 
the sake of ecology, might it be wise and less risky to also search for 
solutions that don't ask more from Earth's already overtaxed ecosystems?

Anyway, I'll cc the ETC authors to see if we can elicit a response as to why 
and how we have the luxury of ignoring/castigating technolog

Re: [geo] etc_hbf_geobriefing_may2017.pdf

2017-05-11 Thread Adam Dorr 
I'm sympathetic to some of the criticisms of technofixes, but only when
other plausible fixes are available.

In the case of climate change, it seems that the notion of solving the
problem with interventions like recycling, energy-efficient lightbulbs,
organic food and the rest of the "locally adapted ecologically and socially
sound solutions" folks typically have in mind is every bit "speculative and
distracting" (if not just plain delusional) as CDR climate engineering.


On Thu, May 11, 2017 at 3:57 PM, Greg Rau <gh...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:

> Yes, this seems to stem from a fear of technology as summarized in their
> closing statement:
>
> "Because of the geopolitical high-stakes, risk of weaponization,
> and intergenerational implications of geoengineering, the
> global community should first and foremost debate these
> aspects, before allowing the development of tools that a
> climate-denying government or “a coalition of the willing”
> could use, even if all other governments would conclude it is
> too risky and unfair to use. Geoengineering can never be
> confined to a technical discussion, a matter of “developing
> tools, just in case” or confined just to a climate perspective.
> Geoengineering research should – in line with the CBD
> decision – be focused on socio-political, ecological, ethical
> questions and potential impacts and contribute to a debate
> about whether democratic governance of geoengineering is
> ever possible, and how. And even more important: funding
> and research on climate change needs to urgently be scaled
> up to support implementation of proven and locally
> adapted ecologically and socially sound solutions to the
> climate crisis – not speculative and distracting technofixes."
>
> While I'm all for debating the various actions before deciding when/if to
> use them, it would seem important to fully understand the benefits as well
> as the risks and impacts of these, and that requires research and testing.
> Or shall we continue to base our decisions on speculation? Case in point,
> while BECCS, DAC, enhanced weathering, biochar and the others on ETCs s&*t
> list might be risky (e.g., they don't work as advertised, too expensive,
> etc, -let's find out for sure), how could these be "weaponized"and
> "unfair"? Interestingly I see that a-/re- forestation is not on their s&*t
> list, despite serious concerns from ecologists (though weaponization is
> still not mentioned):
> https://ecopreservationsociety.wordpress.com/2008/02/03/does-
> reforestation-contribute-to-global-warming-part-1/
> https://news.mongabay.com/2016/02/in-the-rush-to-
> reforest-are-the-worlds-old-growth-grasslands-losing-out/
> https://cereo.wsu.edu/wp-content/uploads/sites/95/2016/
> 03/Joppa_Science_IPBES_2016.pdf
>
> Then there is this curious statement: "funding
> and research on climate change needs to urgently be scaled
> up to support implementation of proven and locally
> adapted ecologically and socially sound solutions to the
> climate crisis – not speculative and distracting technofixes."
>
> Am all for more funding of climate change research, but there seems to be
> enough scary knowledge already to warrant greatly expanded R funding
> specifically on a broad and deep search for solutions. Locally adapted
> ecological ones certainly are preferred, but with 7+B of us now on the
> planet is it likely that these solutions alone will solve the problem in
> the time required,  while they also continue to (so how) feed, house and
> clothe us?? For the sake of ecology, might it be wise and less risky to
> also search for solutions that don't ask more from Earth's already
> overtaxed ecosystems?
>
> Anyway, I'll cc the ETC authors to see if we can elicit a response as to
> why and how we have the luxury of ignoring/castigating technology/new ideas
> without having a better understanding of their actual risks and benefits.
>
> Greg
>
>
>
>
> --
> *From:* Stephen Salter <s.h.sal...@ed.ac.uk>
> *To:* geoengineering@googlegroups.com
> *Sent:* Thursday, May 11, 2017 12:40 PM
> *Subject:* Re: [geo] etc_hbf_geobriefing_may2017.pdf
>
> Hi all
> It would help if the ETC people could give more detail about why putting
> sea surface temperatures back to where we liked to have them in the good
> old days should be criminal. We may be able to do this by changing the size
> distribution of 0.5% of the mass of a natural material, shown to help
> asthmatic children, which is now being produced from breaking waves. We may
> be able to do this with energy coming from the wind at a cost below the
> climate conference budget.
> ETC, please explain, if possible with some

Re: [geo] etc_hbf_geobriefing_may2017.pdf

2017-05-11 Thread Greg Rau 
Yes, this seems to stem from a fear of technology as summarized in their 
closing statement:
"Because of the geopolitical high-stakes, risk of weaponization,and 
intergenerational implications of geoengineering, theglobal community should 
first and foremost debate theseaspects, before allowing the development of 
tools that aclimate-denying government or “a coalition of the willing”could 
use, even if all other governments would conclude it istoo risky and unfair to 
use. Geoengineering can never beconfined to a technical discussion, a matter of 
“developingtools, just in case” or confined just to a climate 
perspective.Geoengineering research should – in line with the CBDdecision – be 
focused on socio-political, ecological, ethicalquestions and potential impacts 
and contribute to a debateabout whether democratic governance of geoengineering 
isever possible, and how. And even more important: fundingand research on 
climate change needs to urgently be scaledup to support implementation of 
proven and locallyadapted ecologically and socially sound solutions to 
theclimate crisis – not speculative and distracting technofixes."
While I'm all for debating the various actions before deciding when/if to use 
them, it would seem important to fully understand the benefits as well as the 
risks and impacts of these, and that requires research and testing. Or shall we 
continue to base our decisions on speculation? Case in point, while BECCS, DAC, 
enhanced weathering, biochar and the others on ETCs s&*t list might be risky 
(e.g., they don't work as advertised, too expensive, etc, -let's find out for 
sure), how could these be "weaponized"and "unfair"? Interestingly I see that 
a-/re- forestation is not on their s&*t list, despite serious concerns from 
ecologists (though weaponization is still not mentioned): 
https://ecopreservationsociety.wordpress.com/2008/02/03/does-reforestation-contribute-to-global-warming-part-1/https://news.mongabay.com/2016/02/in-the-rush-to-reforest-are-the-worlds-old-growth-grasslands-losing-out/
https://cereo.wsu.edu/wp-content/uploads/sites/95/2016/03/Joppa_Science_IPBES_2016.pdf

Then there is this curious statement: "fundingand research on climate change 
needs to urgently be scaledup to support implementation of proven and 
locallyadapted ecologically and socially sound solutions to theclimate crisis – 
not speculative and distracting technofixes."
Am all for more funding of climate change research, but there seems to be 
enough scary knowledge already to warrant greatly expanded R funding 
specifically on a broad and deep search for solutions. Locally adapted 
ecological ones certainly are preferred, but with 7+B of us now on the planet 
is it likely that these solutions alone will solve the problem in the time 
required,  while they also continue to (so how) feed, house and clothe us?? For 
the sake of ecology, might it be wise and less risky to also search for 
solutions that don't ask more from Earth's already overtaxed ecosystems? 
Anyway, I'll cc the ETC authors to see if we can elicit a response as to why 
and how we have the luxury of ignoring/castigating technology/new ideas without 
having a better understanding of their actual risks and benefits.
Greg



  From: Stephen Salter <s.h.sal...@ed.ac.uk>
 To: geoengineering@googlegroups.com 
 Sent: Thursday, May 11, 2017 12:40 PM
 Subject: Re: [geo] etc_hbf_geobriefing_may2017.pdf
   
 Hi all It would help if the ETC people could give more detail about why 
putting sea surface temperatures back to where we liked to have them in the 
good old days should be criminal. We may be able to do this by changing the 
size distribution of 0.5% of the mass of a natural material, shown to help 
asthmatic children, which is now being produced from breaking waves. We may be 
able to do this with energy coming from the wind at a cost below the climate 
conference budget. ETC, please explain, if possible with some numbers. Stephen
  On 11/05/2017 19:42, Adam Dorr wrote:
  
 
While several of the concerns expressed in the document bear some 
consideration, I must say I'm discouraged by the overall thinking behind a 
priori opposition to climate engineering technology. By analogy, it would be 
like opposing the development of dentistry technologies because they might 
allow you to continue eating sugar without damaging your teeth.  
  The thinking seems to be rooted in the notion that actions with negative side 
effects are morally depraved (irrespective of their concomitant benefits), and 
that remedying those side effects only serves to *worsen* the depravity rather 
than alleviate it. I suspect a psychology that valorizes self-deprivation and 
self-flaggelation is at work here, but that isn't my field. 
  Regardless of whatever psychology is involved, I think it is clear that this 
orientation toward any specific technology cannot withstand any scrutiny since 
countless exa

Re: [geo] etc_hbf_geobriefing_may2017.pdf

2017-05-11 Thread Stephen Salter 

Hi all

It would help if the ETC people could give more detail about why putting 
sea surface temperatures back to where we liked to have them in the good 
old days should be criminal. We may be able to do this by changing the 
size distribution of 0.5% of the mass of a natural material, shown to 
help asthmatic children, which is now being produced from breaking 
waves. We may be able to do this with energy coming from the wind at a 
cost below the climate conference budget.


ETC, please explain, if possible with some numbers.

Stephen

On 11/05/2017 19:42, Adam Dorr wrote:
While several of the concerns expressed in the document bear some 
consideration, I must say I'm discouraged by the overall thinking 
behind a priori opposition to climate engineering technology. By 
analogy, it would be like opposing the development of dentistry 
technologies because they might allow you to continue eating sugar 
without damaging your teeth.


The thinking seems to be rooted in the notion that actions with 
negative side effects are morally depraved (irrespective of their 
concomitant benefits), and that remedying those side effects only 
serves to *worsen* the depravity rather than alleviate it. I suspect a 
psychology that valorizes self-deprivation and self-flaggelation is at 
work here, but that isn't my field.


Regardless of whatever psychology is involved, I think it is clear 
that this orientation toward any specific technology cannot withstand 
any scrutiny since countless examples of its hypocrisy (e.g. the 
benefits of dentistry and all the other accouterments of modernity) 
immediately emerge.




--
Adam Dorr
PhD Candidate
University of California Los Angeles School of Public Affairs
adamd...@ucla.edu 
adamd...@gmail.com 
www.adamdorr.com 

On Wed, May 10, 2017 at 1:08 PM, Andrew Lockley 
> wrote:


Climate change, smoke and mirrors

Latest missive from etc group.

A
-- 
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
.


--
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.


--
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.
The University of Edinburgh is a charitable body, registered in
Scotland, with registration number SC005336.

-- 
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.

Re: [geo] etc_hbf_geobriefing_may2017.pdf

2017-05-11 Thread Adam Dorr 
While several of the concerns expressed in the document bear some
consideration, I must say I'm discouraged by the overall thinking behind a
priori opposition to climate engineering technology. By analogy, it would
be like opposing the development of dentistry technologies because they
might allow you to continue eating sugar without damaging your teeth.

The thinking seems to be rooted in the notion that actions with negative
side effects are morally depraved (irrespective of their concomitant
benefits), and that remedying those side effects only serves to *worsen*
the depravity rather than alleviate it. I suspect a psychology that
valorizes self-deprivation and self-flaggelation is at work here, but that
isn't my field.

Regardless of whatever psychology is involved, I think it is clear that
this orientation toward any specific technology cannot withstand any
scrutiny since countless examples of its hypocrisy (e.g. the benefits of
dentistry and all the other accouterments of modernity) immediately emerge.



--
Adam Dorr
PhD Candidate
University of California Los Angeles School of Public Affairs
adamd...@ucla.edu
adamd...@gmail.com
www.adamdorr.com

On Wed, May 10, 2017 at 1:08 PM, Andrew Lockley 
wrote:

> Climate change, smoke and mirrors
>
> Latest missive from etc group.
>
> A
>
> --
> 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.
>

-- 
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.