Exactly‹very well said. Mike MacCracken
On 11/20/12 10:47 AM, "Josh Horton" <joshuahorton...@gmail.com> wrote: > I think Jamais is on the right track. I don't think it's helpful for > supporters of GE research to view ethics as inapplicable to research, or as > offering nothing new, or as essentially hostile to GE, or in some other way > dismissing it. Any robust research program (let alone deployment) is going to > meet with public concerns, anxieties, and opposition, and such criticism can't > simply be steamrolled out of existence, nor should it be. The public debate > will invariably be influenced by the arguments of ethicists and moral > philosophers, though less so than most ethicists would like. I am personally > skeptical of many of the moral claims that have been made to justify > opposition to geoengineering research, but it is counterproductive or worse to > ignore them. A wiser and more effective strategy would be to engage with > these perspectives, without necessarily agreeing with them. If nothing else, > this would demonstrate good faith and a willingness to listen, and enhance the > political sophistication of research advocates. > > Josh > > On Monday, November 19, 2012 2:51:00 PM UTC-5, Jamais Cascio wrote: >>> there¹s gonna be blowback. >> >> This, I think, is the observation that should be at the root of the >> discussion about ethics and geoengineering. This is not a debate about >> whimsical notions of right and wrong, divorced from hard-nosed reality. >> Talking about ethics here means talking about how to anticipate and (ideally) >> minimize the potential for blowback, given the uneven impacts of >> geoengineering. We have to recognize that, in a system as complex as the >> climate, there's no way that an intervention will be universally and equally >> good for everyone. Some places are going to fare better than others, and some >> places may be harmed, even compared to a no-geoengineering scenario. >> >> The ethical quandaries of geoengineering are far more about balancing >> relative impacts than about any grand notion of "playing god" or whatnot. >> When both the costs and the benefits are unequally distributed, there will be >> political conflict. How much localized harm is too much? What if the places >> being harmed are low-income, low-political-power regions? Conversely, what if >> the developing world is helped the most, but the US or Europe sees measurable >> harm? Who decides when we stop? What happens when your choice isn't listened >> to -- and you believe (rightly or wrongly) that geoengineering is doing your >> nation great harm? >> >> There are myriad questions about liability, blame, and fear, rational and >> otherwise. One of the observations I made in my talk on the politics of >> geoengineering at the National Academies of Sciences a couple of years ago >> was "desperate people do desperate things" (I know that Ken picked up that >> line for at least one of his subsequent talks). I meant it then as a warning >> that there could well be attempts at geoengineering even if the potential for >> harm outweighs its benefits; it should also be taken as a warning that if we >> don't pay attention now to the potential for blowback, we'll be dealing with >> its consequences. >> >> -Jamais Cascio >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> On Nov 18, 2012, at 12:29 PM, Benjamin Hale <bh...@colorado.edu <javascript:> >> > wrote: >> >>> Well, look, not to press, but since this seems to get under your skin, I >>> might as well. >>> >>> AT&T most certainly had a legal department. None of the research in which >>> you were engaged would¹ve gotten off the ground without passing through >>> legal. The legal department, no doubt, would¹ve been aware of all relevant >>> laws, as well as any relevant political controversies. In telephone >>> research, one can¹t imagine much that would be particularly controversial, >>> but there probably were a few things that raised fundamental questions >>> maybe something about the rights of one researcher to import or export >>> findings from another lab, say. Those kinds of questions are the kinds of >>> questions that ethicists who work in responsible research conduct raise, >>> though they do so less with an eye toward to law and more with an eye toward >>> what is right. I think, in other words, that it¹s probably also false that >>> AT&T never grappled with challenging research ethics questions. If you never >>> encountered an ethicist, that probably just speaks more to the cloistering >>> of your particular job than to the reach of ethics into the laboratory. >>> >>> Beyond this, however, research into geoengineering is a far more complicated >>> undertaking. Depending on the nature of the research proposed -- whether, >>> say, through models or field experiments -- it may require further >>> consideration of impacts on vulnerable populations, much in the same way >>> that sociological research sometimes impacts populations, or even >>> demographic or ethnographic research impacts populations. It may also affect >>> sensitive ecosystems. These are the kinds of things, again, that ethicists >>> are concerned to address, and we can either help with that task, so that >>> research can get off the ground without trampling the rights of others, or >>> hinder that task, so that dangerous research never sees the light of day. >>> >>> Sure, if you¹re just fantasizing about spraying particles into the sky from >>> the comfort of your armchair and you¹re calling this ³research,² then this >>> isn¹t particularly controversial. Go ahead. Have a great time researching. >>> But if you¹re actually doing something with that research perhaps >>> affecting people or wildlife you¹d better get your ethical ducks in a rowŠ >>> because as I said, there¹s gonna be blowback. >>> >>> Peace, >>> Ben >>> >>> 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 & Environment <http://www.tandf.co.uk/journals/cepe> >>> >>> >>> >>> From: eugg...@comcast.net <javascript:> [mailto:eugg...@ <javascript:> >>> comcast.net <http://comcast.net/> ] >>> Sent: Sunday, November 18, 2012 1:02 PM >>> To: Benjamin Hale >>> Cc: geoengi...@googlegroups.com <javascript:> ; >>> christopherpreston1...@gmail.com <javascript:> >>> Subject: Re: [geo] Re: 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 >>> >>> Great, terrific; then there is nothing more to discuss. Thank you. Good >>> discussion >>> >>> Somehow I missed it all. I never met an ethicist in a 55 year career of >>> transformative research and development, half of it at AT&T Bell Labs. It >>> was all about providing the best and least expensive telephone and video >>> service everywhere including at the bottom of the various oceans. The big >>> requirement was that the telephone doesn't break when it falls off the desk >>> or the lasers for the digital repeaters last for 25 years at 18,000 feet >>> down. No ethicist could have taught how to do that. Fortunately my scuba >>> gear stayed in the box and the system was retired without a single failure. >>> >>> In contrast the French and English systems had very early laser failures and >>> AT&T came to the rescue. I doubt they used ethicists; at least they did not >>> admit it. >>> >>> -.gene >>> >>> >>> From: "Benjamin Hale" <bh...@colorado.edu <javascript:> > >>> To: eugg...@comcast.net <javascript:> >>> Cc: geoengi...@googlegroups.com <javascript:> , >>> christopherpreston1...@gmail.com <javascript:> >>> Sent: Sunday, November 18, 2012 11:07:00 AM >>> Subject: RE: [geo] Re: 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 >>> >>> The point below is that ethicists do in fact already play an important role >>> _inside the lab_ and _in the development of scientific research_, not just >>> after the fact or with regard to implementation. That¹s what IRBs do, that¹s >>> what professional codes are in place for, and that¹s what many practical >>> ethicists write about. >>> >>> 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 & Environment <http://www.tandf.co.uk/journals/cepe> >>> >>> >>> >>> From: eugg...@comcast.net <javascript:> [mailto:euggor...@comcast.net >>> <javascript:> ] >>> Sent: Sunday, November 18, 2012 8:31 AM >>> To: Benjamin Hale >>> Cc: geoengi...@googlegroups.com <javascript:> ; >>> christopherpreston1...@gmail.com <javascript:> >>> Subject: Re: [geo] Re: 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 >>> >>> Why do you persist in ignoring what I and others say? I have said clearly >>> there is a role for ethicists and many others when it comes to >>> implementation of a technique in the world outside the laboratory of >>> geoengineering technology development but it is not needed in the laboratory >>> during early R&D. Scientists exercise controls for safety etc. They do not >>> need ethicists to tell them how to do experiments or what safety measures >>> are needed in the laboratory. Cut it out and stop repeating the same >>> claptrap. >>> >>> >>> From: "Benjamin Hale" <bh...@colorado.edu <javascript:> > >>> To: eugg...@comcast.net <javascript:> , christopherpreston1...@gmail.com >>> <javascript:> >>> Cc: geoengi...@googlegroups.com <javascript:> >>> Sent: Saturday, November 17, 2012 6:52:28 PM >>> Subject: RE: [geo] Re: 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 >>> Every major scientific organization has codes of ethics to which their >>> practitioners and researchers must abide. Almost all major research >>> institutions have Institutional Review Boards which are committed to >>> ensuring that scientific research meets with basic ethical protocols. There >>> are reams of articles on the ethics of research and on the perils of not >>> attending to the multitudinous ethical concerns in play. Ethics is not in >>> any respect limited to the implementation of technologies and it will not go >>> away, no matter how much you may wish it to. >>> >>> 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 & Environment <http://www.tandf.co.uk/journals/cepe> >>> >>> >>> >>> From: geoengi...@googlegroups.com <javascript:> >>> [mailto:geoengineering@googlegroups.com <javascript:> ] On Behalf >>> ofeugg...@comcast.net <javascript:> >>> Sent: Saturday, November 17, 2012 4:10 PM >>> To: christopher...@gmail.com <javascript:> >>> Cc: geoengi...@googlegroups.com <javascript:> >>> Subject: Re: [geo] Re: 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 >>> >>> Nobody says it is hostle. Ethics just has no role in influencing research >>> and development of basic principles of geoengineering. As soon as you say >>> 'course of action' and apply it to geoengineering you have lost the >>> argument. What you are talking about is implementation and geoengineers will >>> not decide that but will participate in discussion with others including >>> ethicists. Give up the transparent argument. It doesn't become ethicists. >>> >>> >>> From: "Christopher Preston" <christopher...@gmail.com <javascript:> > >>> To: geoengi...@googlegroups.com <javascript:> >>> Sent: Saturday, November 17, 2012 7:11:20 AM >>> Subject: [geo] Re: 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 >>> >>> Yes....there are activist groups set on "preventing research" and trying to >>> "stymie" progress in understanding geoengineering. >>> >>> Ethicists, however, do something much different....generating discussion >>> about values, uncovering the complexities about participation and just >>> distribution of goods, looking for both moral benefits and moral costs of a >>> proposed course of action, seeking ways to broaden the conversation. >>> >>> There is a much richer discussion here that we can all participate in as >>> research into geoengineering picks up pace......but it requires abandoning >>> the assumption that ethics is always hostile to scientific research. >>> >>> Christopher >>> >>> On Sunday, November 11, 2012 12:34:01 AM UTC, andrewjlockley wrote: >>> 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.
