Ken, no offense, but you're thinking about this very narrowly and very naively. It's probably true that geoengineering doesn't pose many new metaethical questions, but ethics isn't limited to metaethics in much the same way that mathematics isn't limited to pure math. There are applied mathematical questions associated with geoengineering, just as much as there are applied ethical questions associated with geoengineering.
So to start, try the question: "Ought we to geoengineer?" That's a fairly general question, but there are lots of little questions wrapped up in it. Also, many of those little questions don't take the same form as "ought I to plow my fields?" or "ought I to stick a fork in my dog?" If you don't see the vast range of ethical questions associated with geoengineering, we have a lot more to worry about than I've otherwise been assuming. Benjamin Hale Assistant Professor/Graduate Director (ENVS) Philosophy <http://www.colorado.edu/philosophy> and Environmental Studies <http://envs.colorado.edu/> University of Colorado, Boulder Tel: 303 735-3624; Fax: 303 735-1576 http://www.practicalreason.com <http://www.practicalreason.com/> http://cruelmistress.wordpress.com <http://cruelmistress.wordpress.com/> Ethics, Policy <http://www.tandf.co.uk/journals/cepe> & Environment From: geoengineering@googlegroups.com [mailto:geoengineering@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of Ken Caldeira Sent: Sunday, November 11, 2012 5:04 PM To: nrbon...@gmail.com Cc: geoengineering@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 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 <tel:%2B1%20650%20704%207212> kcal...@carnegiescience.edu http://dge.stanford.edu/labs/caldeiralab @kencaldeira Our YouTube videos <http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ce2OWROToAI> The Great Climate Experiment: How far can we push the planet? <http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0U7PXjUG-Yk> Geophysical Limits to Global Wind Power <http://www.youtube.com/user/CarnegieGlobEcology/videos> More 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 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://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 > > 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 > >> > >> 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. > >> > >> -- > >> 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. > > > > -- > > 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. > > > > -- > 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. -- 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. -- 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 <mailto:geoengineering%2bunsubscr...@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. -- 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.
