The use of "playing god" in these discussions is somewhat opaque to me. (I have been accused in the blogosphere of wanting to "play god", but outside of a theatrical sense, I am not sure what that means, since I do not believe in a god that takes positive action to intervene in the lives of humans or our planet.)
So, google to the rescue: Playing God Ethics A popular term for the usurping by physicians—or by the health care system—the role of a higher power or God—e.g., rationing limited medical resources in underserved areas or underinsured populations, deciding who is entitled to a limited number of organs for transplantation, or terminating life support in the terminally ill or in a persistent vegetative state Genetics A popular term for the ethical issues regarding manipulation of the human genome and whether gene therapy usurps God’s omnipotence Medspeak A generic term for the role that doctors, especially surgeons, play in saving lives Segen's Medical Dictionary. © 2012 Farlex, Inc. All rights reserved. http://medical-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Playing+God So, it seems that a core meaning has to do with people put in the position of making difficult decisions that they would rather not have to make. The doctor would rather have more organs to transplant, but is forced to make the difficult allocation decision. I think the real issue here is not "playing god" but "playing community". We don't want doctors to make this decision but we want the community, society, to set up rules and criteria that would tell doctors how these scarce resources should be allocated. When people say someone is 'playing god' in the context of 'geoengineering', are they responding to the fear that a small number of people will make a decision that should be made by the broader society? Or is there really some theological meaning that some decisions are the domain of 'god' and not decisions that humans should make? If the latter, not being a theologian, I simply do not understand what that could possibly mean. Should we be saying that we are afraid that 'geoengineers' will 'play community', or is there some additional meaning to the phrase 'playing god'? A decision not to make the transplantation decision is itself a transplantation decision. The decision not to solar geoengineer is itself a solar geoengineering decision. These are not decisions we can avoid. We should work to make these broadly inclusive societal decisions, but we cannot pretend that humanity can avoid making these decisions. (Aren't the tiny groups trying to prevent research themselves trying to make decisions for the broader society?) _______________ 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 Sat, Nov 17, 2012 at 6:12 AM, Robert Tulip <rtulip2...@yahoo.com.au>wrote: > Ethics and Geoengineering > > Recent debate about whether to allow experiments to manage global climate > has raised the profile of the ethical permissibility of geoengineering. I > don't think a lot of the ethical debate properly addresses the critical > issues. > The precautionary principle says that an action is unethical where its > costs, broadly understood, have significant risk of outweighing its net > benefits. A further, if more metaphysical, ethical consideration is > whether humans have a right to ‘play God’ by endeavouring to manage the > global climate. The precautionary principle seeks to factor > externalities into quantitative economic and ecological analysis. The > more metaphysical argument about rights opens hypothetical spectres, > comparing geoengineering to a Frankenstein monster, or an uncontrollable > sorcerer’s apprentice. > These ethical issues were raised as long ago as the 1970s by writers such > as James Lovelock, with the Gaia Hypothesis speculating about the risk of > uncontrollable algae blooms, and introducing the importance of ecological > externalities in decision making. > The ethical dilemmas for geoengineering need to quantify facts and risks. > Some relevant points include > · Humanity added 34 gigatonnes of CO2 to the atmosphere in 2011, > actively destabilising the global climate > · Emission rate is growing exponentially, supported by a political > backlash against science > · Climate-related major events, such as storms, droughts and > floods, have nearly tripled in annual number from 300 to 800 since 1980, > 3.3% per year, according to data published by the reinsurer Munich Re, > apparently due to anthropogenic global warming > · Arctic melting, methane release, weather events and ocean > acidification pose massive risks to climate, biodiversity and human security > These trends pose extreme dangers, including war and economic collapse. > Ethical > response to global warming has to start from recognition of the urgency of > stabilising the planetary climate. However, we find that the debate > appears to be occurring in a surreal parallel universe. Small > experiments, such as the Haida salmon algae work, are vilified as criminal. > Funding for research is absent, even though Nobel Laureates writing for > the Copenhagen Consensus Center identified research and development of new > technology as the most cost-effective climate mitigation strategy. > Something strange is going on here. It appears the so-called ethicists > who are trying to stymie research are motivated by dubious agendas. Firstly, > a main argument advanced against technology research is that it undermines > the need to reduce emissions. This contention elevates emission > reduction to a sort of moral totem that must be upheld regardless of > whether it is practical or effective. But the problems are that emission > reduction has little prospect of being achieved, and even if the fanciful > targets were met, it would not stabilise the climate. The political > consensus on emission reduction has been cruelled by its apparent > incompatibility with economic growth and vested interests, and has > completely failed. > And yet, the ineffectual mentality persists in some quarters that we have > to make sacrifices, that using less energy is the key to climate > management, despite the powerful drivers arrayed against any change to > business as usual. Critics of geoengineering are effectively saying > ‘don’t do something that might work, because it stops us from doing > something we know doesn’t work’. > Climate change has potential to cause more suffering in coming decades > than the Second World War did. People who actively campaign against > research into new technology to mitigate climate change could be considered > as the moral equivalent of appeasers, well-meaning dupes who lack > understanding of reality. > So-called ethicists need to understand orders of magnitude. Climate > change is a big ethical problem. Geoengineering research design and > piloting is a small ethical problem. Any risks in geoengineering can > readily be managed, and are massively outweighed by the risks of not > proceeding. > There are indeed big ethical issues raised by geoengineering, first and > foremost whether we want humanity to flourish on our planet or not. > Technology > for global climate management, like it or not, will inevitably be central > to human flourishing in a peaceful and stable global ecosystem. > Robert Tulip > > *From:* Andrew Lockley <andrew.lock...@gmail.com> > *To:* geoengineering <geoengineering@googlegroups.com> > *Sent:* Sunday, 11 November 2012 11:33 AM > *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 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.
