I quote from my earlier missive: *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. *
Judging from the responses, my assertion seems correct. If I read Benjamin correctly, there is nothing in geoengineering for philosophical theory, and the interest is in the realm of applied philosophy: *How can the body of theory developed by philosophers be applied in these particular cases?* Again, I think this is similar to the case with, say, statistics: *Statisticians are needed to help apply statistical theory to geoengineering-relevant climate model simulations, but these particular simulations do not pose new problems for theoretical development of statistics.* If I asked whether geoengineering poses new fundamental problems in statistical theory, I don't think the statisticians are likely to respond by asserting that I have little to add to discussions or that I am thinking narrowly. They would answer the question and not resort to *ad hominem*remarks. Perhaps this represents a cultural difference between philosophers and statisticians, but the statisticians would tell me that I cannot base such conclusions on such a small sample size. _______________ Ken Caldeira Carnegie Institution for Science Dept of Global Ecology 260 Panama Street, Stanford, CA 94305 USA +1 650 704 7212 kcalde...@carnegiescience.edu 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 4:58 PM, Benjamin Hale <bh...@colorado.edu> wrote: > 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://cruelmistress.wordpress.com**** > > *Ethics, Policy & Environment <http://www.tandf.co.uk/journals/cepe>* > > ** ** > > ** ** > > ** ** > > *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 kcal...@carnegiescience.edu**** > > 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**** > > ** ** > > ** ** > > ** ** > > ** ** > > 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 > Ethics, Policy & Environment**** > > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: geoengi...@googlegroups.com > > [mailto:geoengi...@googlegroups.com <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. > 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.
