Before we concern ourselves too much with channeling Heidegger's ghost, and echo-ing born-again Christians in asking what the great man would do, we might want to keep in mind that Heidegger was a member of the Nazi party and never publicly apologized for having become one.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Martin_Heidegger_and_Nazism Are we supposed to be concerned that a Nazi might have disapproved of SRM? Are we supposed to be persuaded of the infallibility of his judgment? Is this relevant to any important current discussion? _______________ 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 https://twitter.com/KenCaldeira On Sun, Jan 19, 2014 at 2:08 PM, Ronal W. Larson <rongretlar...@comcast.net>wrote: > List: cc Ken, Charles, Andrew > > 1. I finally found the full Sept. 2013 paper at > http://clivehamilton.com/what-would-heidegger-say-about-geoengineering/ - > But you have to find the small “pdf” symbol there. 33 pages with > language that is difficult for me as a non-philosopher (e.g. “Being”, > enframing, dasein, etc..) > > To help - there is an interesting long set of Heidegger definitions at > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heideggerian_terminology > > 2. I conclude after several hours of reading that the answer to the > paper’s title question would be “I (Heidegger) disapprove”. But I missed > such a sentence if it was there. > > 3. Prof Hamilton has essentially zero mention of the CDR concept - and I > think also of biochar, although I am pretty sure Prof. Hamilton has used a > word like “benign” in the past for biochar. The iron fertilization > concept is mentioned, but I think the words geoengineering and sulfur > release are virtually synonymous in this paper. > > 4. So this note is to ask list members who understand Heidegger the > question: "What Would Heidegger Say About CDR (and/or Biochar)?" > I looked carefully and am totally unsure - there was considerable > reference to “nature”, differences between “world” and “earth”, entropy, > etc. I am not asking about Hamilton’s view, but rather Heidegger’s. > > 5. Here are some quotes I thought pertinent to my above follow-on question > > (p 19) "* Plans to engineer the climate—through the creation of a > planetary command centre—are bound to come to grief on the rock of earth > **because, > through all attempts by humans to understand and control the earth, > disorder irrupts.**”* *(RWL: Hamilton not Heidegger speaking - and > often same below.)* > (p 20) *"It is worth noting that Heidegger’s conception implies a > rejection of all ethical naturalism, such as that captured in Aldo > Leopold’s maxim: ‘A thing is right when it tends to preserve the integrity, > stability and beauty of the biotic community. It is wrong when it tends > otherwise. **[RWL: Shucks - I liked the Leopold version]* > > (p22 ) * Geoengineering schemes aim to confine Being to the shadows.* > > (p22) *Geoengineering itself is proof that the future is not in our > hands, for if it were we would not have the crisis that geoengineering > wants to solve.* *[RWL: Hmm. Here I disagree. I think the future > is in our hands. Professor Hamilton is missing the full range of > Geoengineering.]* > > .(p26) *So we may say that it is not geoengineering itself that is most > dangerous, but the ever-tightening grip of Enframing that makes > geoengineering thinkable. * > > (p 27-28) *Heidegger was not opposed to technology. Yes, it represents > the danger, but there can be **no going back to the pre-modern because > Enframing must take its course. The task is not to oppose technology but to > open ourselves to its ontological meaning and the power it has over us.86 > We can then free ourselves from technology without rejecting it, and until > we free ourselves we cannot make a good judgment about geoengineering. pp > 27-28* > > (p28) *Diagnosing an insufficiency of mastery, we plan to expand control > over the so-far unregulated parts of the globe—the oceans whose chemical > balance we would change, the chemical composition of the atmosphere, the > amount of sunlight falling on the Earth. (p28)* > > (p28) "*Proposals to engineer the climate system confirm that we have > not yet found a way to respond to the climate crisis, except with more of > the same. * > > > *6. Thanks to Ken (below) for keeping the philosophical discussion > alive. But I need more help in understanding Heidegger. I understand > Hamilton’s views on SRM, but I remain uncertain on CDR.* > > *Ron* > > On Jan 19, 2014, at 2:42 AM, Ken Caldeira <kcalde...@carnegiescience.edu> > wrote: > > Let's not start insulting philosophers of science here. > > I do not believe that most philosophers of science see it as their role to > discourage inquiry, but rather see their role as doing things such as > analyzing how terms gain meaning and refer to things, how we can establish > the truth or falsity of statements, and so on. They try to make explicit > what is usually implicit in scientific inquiry. > > > > _______________ > 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 > https://twitter.com/KenCaldeira > > > > On Sun, Jan 19, 2014 at 1:33 AM, Charles H. Greene <c...@cornell.edu>wrote: > >> When we are on the verge of truly catastrophic climate change, I wonder >> what philosophers of science will offer us as an alternative? Obviously, if >> they wish to discourage scientists from even exploring possible >> geoengineering options, they must have alternatives to offer, right? >> >> >> >> >> On Jan 18, 2014, at 10:31 PM, Andrew Lockley <andrew.lock...@gmail.com> >> wrote: >> >> >> http://anthem-group.net/2014/01/18/what-would-heidegger-say-about-geoengineering-clive-hamilton/ >> >> What Would Heidegger Say About Geoengineering? Clive Hamilton >> >> Abstract: Proposals to respond to climate change by geoengineering the >> Earth’s climate system, such as by regulating the amount of sunlight >> reaching the planet, may be seen as a radical fulfillment of Heidegger’s >> understanding of technology as destiny. Before geoengineering was >> conceivable, the Earth as a whole had to be representable as a total >> object, an object captured in climate models that form the epistemological >> basis for climate engineering. Geoengineering is thinkable because of the >> ever-tightening grip of Enframing, Heidegger’s term for the modern epoch of >> Being. Yet, by objectifying the world as a whole, geoengineering goes >> beyond the mere representation of nature as ‘standing reserve’; it requires >> us to think Heidegger further, to see technology as a response to disorder >> breaking through. If in the climate crisis nature reveals itself to be a >> sovereign force then we need a phenomenology from nature’s point of view. >> If ‘world grounds itself on earth, and earth juts through world’, then the >> climate crisis is the jutting through, and geoengineering is a last attempt >> to deny it, a vain attempt to take control of destiny rather than enter a >> free relation with technology. In that lies the danger. >> >> -- >> 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. >> > > > -- > 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.
