Niad, I am still waiting for you to tell me what new problems geoengineering poses for philosophy.
When I asked this in the past, I never received a satisfying answer, and now you are criticizing me for asking again. Rather than criticizing me for asking a question, why not answer the question: *What new problem does geoengineering pose for philosophy?* Best, Ken On Sun, Nov 11, 2012 at 3:35 PM, Ninad Bondre <nrbon...@gmail.com> wrote: > Ken, > > During an email exchange on this topic in April, in which several of us > offered diverse perspectives on philosophy, you said: > > "It is clear to me that my conception of what constitutes 'philosophy' is > different from both the popular conception and the conception of currently > practicing academic philosophers." And later, "Call me obtuse, but nothing > in this discussion has caused me to reassess the view I started out with..." > > Your recent emails suggest you have little new to contribute to this > discussion. So before asking others to demonstrate the novelty of the > ethical questions raised by geoengineering, it would be nice to have some > fresh arguments from your end. > > Ninad > > > > > On Sunday, November 11, 2012 10:46:02 PM UTC+1, Ken Caldeira wrote: > >> Stephen, >> >> I think you misunderstand my point. >> >> To think quantitatively about geoengineering, we need arithmetic but >> geoengineering adds nothing to the study of arithmetic. Geoengineering is >> therefore not a fitting field of study for arithmeticians, but it may make >> sense for geoengineers to speak with arithmeticians when confronted with >> thorny arithmetic problems. >> >> To think ethically about geoengineering, we need to rely on the >> progress philosophers have made in the study of ethics but I simply do not >> see how geoengineering adds anything to the study of ethical theory. There >> is nothing logically new about this problem. It may differ in magnitude and >> scale from previous ethical dilemmas, but there is nothing that is >> qualitatively new from an ethical dimension. >> >> In other words, I am not arguing that geoengineering does not need >> philosophy. I am arguing that philosophers do not need geoengineering, in >> the same way that arithmeticians do not need geoengineering. >> >> If you think that geoengineering poses any fundamentally new philosophic >> problems, I would like to hear what they are. >> >> Best, >> >> Ken >> >> _______________ >> Ken Caldeira >> >> Carnegie Institution for Science >> Dept of Global Ecology >> 260 Panama Street, Stanford, CA 94305 USA >> +1 650 704 7212 kcal...@**carnegiescience.edu >> >> http://dge.stanford.edu/labs/**caldeiralab<http://dge.stanford.edu/labs/caldeiralab> >> @kencaldeira >> >> *Our YouTube videos* >> The Great Climate Experiment: How far can we push the >> planet?<http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ce2OWROToAI> >> >> Geophysical Limits to Global Wind >> Power<http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0U7PXjUG-Yk> >> More videos <http://www.youtube.com/user/CarnegieGlobEcology/videos> >> >> >> >> On Sun, Nov 11, 2012 at 12:36 PM, Stephen Gardiner < >> smg...@u.washington.edu> wrote: >> >>> >>> Dear Ken, >>> >>> I hereby challenge you (in the friendliest way) to a public debate on >>> the ethics of geoengineering, and in particular your thesis about the >>> irrelevance of philosophy. I'd be glad to host it up here at the >>> University of Washington. >>> >>> With all due respect, we had an exchange on this list back in April, and >>> I don't think you've addressed that yet. I find your views strange. It >>> would be good to have this out, to see what the central issues between us >>> are and whether they make any difference for geoengineering policy. It >>> might also be fun. >>> >>> Best wishes, >>> >>> Steve >>> >>> Stephen M. Gardiner >>> Professor of Philosophy & Ben Rabinowitz Endowed Professor of the Human >>> Dimensions of the Environment >>> Department of Philosophy >>> Box 353350 >>> University of Washington >>> Seattle, WA 98195 >>> USA >>> >>> >>> (206) 221-6459 (telephone) >>> (206) 685 8740 (fax) >>> >>> http://depts.washington.edu/**philweb/faculty/gardiner.html<http://depts.washington.edu/philweb/faculty/gardiner.html> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> On Nov 11, 2012, at 11:43 AM, Ken Caldeira wrote: >>> >>> So what is new under the sun? >>> >>> Don't these ethical problems have the same logical structure as those >>> that have plagued humanity since its inception? >>> >>> >>> On Sun, Nov 11, 2012 at 11:10 AM, Benjamin Hale <bh...@colorado.edu>wrote: >>> >>>> Maybe you guys should read a bit more before making such >>>> pronouncements, or >>>> at least consider a bit more deeply how vexing and multidimensional the >>>> geoengineering challenge really is. Where ethics goes, so too goes >>>> policy >>>> and politics. If you think there's nothing new under the sun there, >>>> you're >>>> speaking from a strange place indeed. >>>> >>>> Benjamin Hale >>>> Assistant Professor/Graduate Director (ENVS) >>>> Philosophy and Environmental Studies >>>> >>>> University of Colorado, Boulder >>>> Tel: 303 735-3624; Fax: 303 735-1576 >>>> http://www.practicalreason.com >>>> http://cruelmistress.**wordpress.com<http://cruelmistress.wordpress.com/> >>>> Ethics, Policy & Environment >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> > -----Original Message----- >>>> > From: geoengi...@googlegroups.**com >>>> > [mailto:geoengi...@**googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of Ken Caldeira >>>> > Sent: Sunday, November 11, 2012 12:04 PM >>>> > To: xben...@gmail.com >>>> > Cc: gh...@sbcglobal.net; geoengi...@googlegroups.**com >>>> > Subject: Re: [geo] Ethics and geoengineering: reviewing the moral >>>> issues >>>> > raised by solar radiation management and carbon dioxide removal - >>>> Preston >>>> - >>>> > 2012 - Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews: Climate Change - Wiley Online >>>> Library >>>> > >>>> > I don't think that geoengineering brings up any ethical issue that >>>> have >>>> not >>>> > been faced from time immemorial. >>>> > >>>> > Since the beginning of time people have made decisions that affect >>>> others >>>> > without getting the consent of everyone ( or everything ) affected. >>>> > >>>> > How to get broader participation and how to make just decisions in the >>>> > absence of universal participation are difficult practical problems >>>> but >>>> they are >>>> > not new problems for ethical theorists. >>>> > >>>> > Geoengineering raises ethical issues but it doesn't raise any new >>>> ethical >>>> > issues. So, I don't see why ethicists are interested in this topic. >>>> > >>>> > With regards to ethics, iIt seems to me that there is nothing new >>>> under >>>> the >>>> > sun. >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > Ken Caldeira >>>> > kcal...@carnegie.stanford.**edu >>>> >>>> > +1 650 704 7212 >>>> > http://dge.stanford.edu/labs/**caldeiralab<http://dge.stanford.edu/labs/caldeiralab> >>>> > >>>> > Sent from a limited-typing keyboard >>>> > >>>> > On Nov 11, 2012, at 10:53, Gregory Benford <xben...@gmail.com> wrote: >>>> > >>>> > > The idea that "ethical merit" can be diagnosed before we know much >>>> > > about how it works, and how well, is...useless. I find it curious >>>> that >>>> > > the ethicists want to jump on a subject when it's still barely >>>> begun. >>>> > > Reminds me of a decade ago for SRM, about which we still know >>>> little, >>>> > > because we don;t do experiments. >>>> > > >>>> > > Gregory Benford >>>> > > >>>> > > On Sun, Nov 11, 2012 at 10:06 AM, RAU greg <gh...@sbcglobal.net> >>>> wrote: >>>> > >> "The wide range of geoengineering technologies currently being >>>> > >> discussed makes it prudent that each technique should be evaluated >>>> > >> individually for its ethical merit." >>>> > >> Amen. - Greg >>>> > >> >>>> > >> ______________________________**__ >>>> > >> From: Andrew Lockley <andrew....@gmail.com> >>>> > >> To: geoengineering <geoengi...@googlegroups.**com> >>>> >>>> > >> Sent: Sat, November 10, 2012 4:34:02 PM >>>> > >> Subject: [geo] Ethics and geoengineering: reviewing the moral >>>> issues >>>> > >> raised by solar radiation management and carbon dioxide removal - >>>> > >> Preston - 2012 - Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews: Climate Change - >>>> > >> Wiley Online Library >>>> > >> >>>> > >> http://onlinelibrary.wiley.**com/doi/10.1002/wcc.198/**abstract<http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/wcc.198/abstract> >>>> > >> >>>> > >> Ethics and geoengineering: reviewing the moral issues raised by >>>> solar >>>> > >> radiation management and carbon dioxide removal >>>> > >> >>>> > >> Christopher J. Preston >>>> > >> Article first published online: 8 NOV 2012 >>>> > >> DOI: 10.1002/wcc.198 >>>> > >> >>>> > >> Abstract >>>> > >> >>>> > >> After two decades of failure by the international community to >>>> > >> respond adequately to the threat of global climate change, >>>> > >> discussions of the possibility of geoengineering a cooler climate >>>> have >>>> > recently proliferated. >>>> > >> Alongside the considerable optimism that these technologies have >>>> > >> generated, there has also been wide acknowledgement of significant >>>> > ethical concerns. >>>> > >> Ethicists, social scientists, and experts in governance have begun >>>> > >> the work of addressing these concerns. The plethora of ethical >>>> issues >>>> > >> raised by geoengineering creates challenges for those who wish to >>>> > >> survey them. The issues are here separated out according to the >>>> > >> temporal spaces in which they first arise. Some crop up when merely >>>> > >> contemplating the prospect of geoengineering. Others appear as >>>> > >> research gets underway. Another set of issues attend the actual >>>> > >> implementation of the technologies. A further set occurs when >>>> > >> planning for the cessation of climate engineering. Two cautions >>>> about >>>> > >> this organizational schema are in order. First, even if the issues >>>> > >> first arise in the temporal spaces identified, they do not stay >>>> > >> completely contained within them. A good reason to object to the >>>> > >> prospect of geoengineering, for example, will likely remain a good >>>> > >> reason to object to its implementation. Second, the ethical >>>> concerns >>>> > >> intensify or weaken depending on the technology under >>>> consideration. >>>> > >> The wide range of geoengineering technologies currently being >>>> discussed >>>> > makes it prudent that each technique should be evaluated individually >>>> for >>>> its >>>> > ethical merit. >>>> > >> >>>> > >> WIREs Clim Change 2012. >>>> > >> doi: 10.1002/wcc.198 >>>> > >> >>>> > >> -- >>>> > >> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google >>>> > >> Groups "geoengineering" group. >>>> > >> To post to this group, send email to geoengi...@googlegroups.**com >>>> . >>>> >>>> > >> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to >>>> > >> geoengineerin...@**googlegroups.com. >>>> >>>> > >> For more options, visit this group at >>>> > >> http://groups.google.com/**group/geoengineering?hl=en<http://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering?hl=en> >>>> . >>>> > >> >>>> > >> -- >>>> > >> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google >>>> > >> Groups "geoengineering" group. >>>> > >> To post to this group, send email to geoengi...@googlegroups.**com >>>> . >>>> >>>> > >> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to >>>> > >> geoengineerin...@**googlegroups.com. >>>> >>>> > >> For more options, visit this group at >>>> > >> http://groups.google.com/**group/geoengineering?hl=en<http://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering?hl=en> >>>> . >>>> > > >>>> > > -- >>>> > > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google >>>> > Groups "geoengineering" group. >>>> > > To post to this group, send email to geoengi...@googlegroups.**com. >>>> >>>> > > To unsubscribe from this group, send email to >>>> > geoengineerin...@**googlegroups.com. >>>> >>>> > > For more options, visit this group at >>>> > http://groups.google.com/**group/geoengineering?hl=en<http://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering?hl=en> >>>> . >>>> > > >>>> > >>>> > -- >>>> > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google >>>> Groups >>>> > "geoengineering" group. >>>> > To post to this group, send email to geoengi...@googlegroups.**com. >>>> >>>> > To unsubscribe from this group, send email to >>>> > geoengineerin...@**googlegroups.com. >>>> >>>> > For more options, visit this group at >>>> > http://groups.google.com/**group/geoengineering?hl=en<http://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering?hl=en> >>>> . >>>> >>>> >>> >>> -- >>> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google >>> Groups "geoengineering" group. >>> To post to this group, send email to geoengi...@googlegroups.**com. >>> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to geoengineerin...@** >>> googlegroups.com. >>> >>> For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/** >>> group/geoengineering?hl=en<http://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering?hl=en> >>> . >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >> -- > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups > "geoengineering" group. > To view this discussion on the web visit > https://groups.google.com/d/msg/geoengineering/-/9KIr35tviAsJ. > > 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. > -- 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.
