Ken, In philosophical discussions, the privilege of asking questions is always contingent on a fundamental openness. This means that questions as well as questioners are willing to undergo a transformation as the discussion proceeds. I am not sure if you are open to the possibility of undergoing such a transformation, which is why I am not very motivated to answer your question. I can only invite you to read my response to you earlier this year (pasted below).
Cheers, Ninad On Apr 7, 2012, at 9:20 PM, Ninad Bondre wrote: Ken, I am not sure why the question of "anything new" arose, but I agree with what Nathan states in the first paragraph of his earlier email. Some additional thoughts here as my view of philosophy differs from yours. Novelty doesn't play the same role in philosophical inquiry as it might in scientific research. The fundamental questions of (Western) philosophy have remained essentially the same; yet this has in no way led to the demise or even stagnation of philosophy as an academic discipline. This is because "Applying old philosophical insights to new empirical facts" -- in a new social, political and historic context -- is bread and butter of philosophical inquiry. This is a process by which the old insights are themselves transformed, in tangible and intangible ways. Empirical facts are as important to philosophy as are other ways of knowing. Philosophy is neither solely an ascetic or contemplative pursuit nor one confined to academic ivory towers, but instead one that each of us engages in simply by virtue of being engaged with the world. New philosophical research is not an endless quest for new questions and its quality or relevance cannot be judged in this fashion. Coming to geoengineering, I think that elucidating the attendant ethical dilemmas and understanding how people choose to address those is most fertile ground for philosophical investigation in the academia. Best, Ninad On Monday, November 12, 2012 1:04:39 AM UTC+1, Ken Caldeira wrote: > > 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 <nrbo...@gmail.com<javascript:> > > 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 geoengi...@googlegroups.com<javascript:> >> . >> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to >> geoengineerin...@googlegroups.com <javascript:>. >> 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/-/JPxjQFMtnKMJ. 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.
