The ethics of geoengineering is possibly the biggest philosophical problem facing the world, sitting at the intersection between philosophy and a range of practical disciplines. Crucial moral decisions on geoengineering will affect the immediate fate of our planet. Geoengineering certainly does open new ethical issues, primarily around whether humans have a right and duty to consciously manage the global climate in an effort to control nature through science. Ethical disquiet about geoengineering involves a belief that climate management crosses some threshold, although precisely what that threshold is seems more emotional than rational. The ethical questions blend into religious sentiments, with people seeing taboos about tampering with nature, somewhat like the debate on genetically modified organisms. Critics invoke moral pieties about the place of humanity within creation, and about what it means for humans to exercise dominion over nature. Ethical views on modern ideas of progress turn partly on whether humans are considered part of nature or above it. The risk, however small, of a Permian scale catastrophe as a result of anthropogenic climate change, and the potential need for geoengineering to avert it, illustrates that geoengineering may in fact be the biggest ethical issue ever, opening the existential problem of human planetary survival. Environmentalists expresses ethical concern about a perceived alliance between geoengineering and technological progress. "Deep ecologists" consider that addressing climate change requires reduction in human energy use and environmental footprint, including through population reduction and shift away from economic growth as a social objective towards a culture of lower material consumption, driven by emission reduction through carbon taxes. "Live simply so that all may simply live" is one of the slogans. The green movement associates ethics with personal sacrifice, and sees geoengineering as undermining the assumption that using less energy is a desirable goal. Geoengineering is perceived as a way to enable increased consumption and undermine ethical objectives of the environment movement. On the other hand, the development paradigm sees the reduction of poverty as the core ethical objective of the Millennium Development Goals, requiring economic growth to improve the quality of life of the poor. It is unclear why growth advocates have not engaged more with geoengineering as a way to increase energy use and reduce poverty. Taboos and misinformation around these topics result in a weak level of public debate. For Example the Copenhagen Consensus argued in 2009 that research into geoengineering is the most cost-effective response to climate change. Ethical issues perceived in this proposal are illustrated by the lack of support for the Copenhagen Consensus Center. I have a Master of Arts Honours Degree for a philosophy thesis on ethics and ontology, and an interest in large scale ocean based algae production as a geoengineering method. I work for the Australian Agency for International Development on its Mining for Development Initiative. These comments are my personal views. Robert Tulip.
-- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "geoengineering" group. To post to this group, send email to geoengineering@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to geoengineering+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering?hl=en.
