Thanks Oliver. That is the danger with out of context citation and the risk of using memorable language that tempts some to cite out of context.
Re "natural": I agree in the sphere of human discourse, "nature" and "natural" are social constructs. But as humans, we at least believe that science is based on an underlying reality (with ample supporting evidence) and science does place humans as a component of the biosphere. I don't think we disagree. The interesting topic is how the strains of human exceptionalism have influenced man's interactions with the rest of nature. ________________________________ From: geoengineering@googlegroups.com [geoengineering@googlegroups.com] on behalf of O Morton [omeconom...@gmail.com] Sent: Monday, October 28, 2013 12:17 PM To: geoengineering@googlegroups.com Subject: Re: [geo] TERRA FUTURA 2013: INTERVIEW WITH VANDANA SHIVA ABOUT GEOENGINEERING | NoGeoingegneria Dear David Though obviously you couldn't know this, in the context of the preceding paras, it should be fairly clear that the flight deck metaphor applies to a range of choices of which climate geoengineering options are only a subset (new energy sources, new farming practices etc) The subsequent paras make the case that considering things "carefully and thoughtfully" will lead people not to wish to press the button marked OIF. So I still don't see how your response differs from what I said. The nature discussion is probably a long one for another place; my basic point is that there is nothing more socially constructed than what gets counted as natural. On another topic, I can't speak to Vandana Shiva's publication record, but those wanting to know more about her thought and rhetoric may find this interesting: http://carboncounter.wordpress.com/2013/01/05/vandana-shiva-fanatic-or-fantasist/ Best Oliver On Monday, 28 October 2013 11:02:15 UTC, David Hawkins wrote: Oliver, I was reacting principally to the sentences that preceded the "carefully and thoughtfully" modifiers: "We are on the flight deck, and we are alone. We are at the controls and we have no option but to use them. And we know where we want to go." For me, this comes too close to saying if we have buttons in front of us we must push them; "no option but to use them" seems in conflict with "carefully and thoughtfully." For some buttons, the only careful and thoughtful posture may be not to push them. Again, I am not making this argument for all types of geo-engineering concepts; only disagreeing with the idea that if we can conceive of a button we must push it. I am interested in hearing more about how humans may not be a part of nature. If we are talking biologically, I can't see any answer but "of course." Perhaps you are talking about anthropological concepts and the perceptions humans have about their relationships with the rest of nature. There I would agree there is no "of course" about any aspect of that terrain. best, David -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "geoengineering" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to geoengineering+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to geoengineering@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "geoengineering" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to geoengineering+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to geoengineering@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
