Not sure what happened there. Here's latest reply to the Hamilton rejection of a 'good' path in a turbulent time - from Michael Tobis and Curt Stager:
http://dotearth.blogs.nytimes.com/2014/06/22/two-climate-researchers-weigh-the-notion-of-a-good-path-in-the-anthropocene Two Climate Analysts Weigh the Notion of a ‘Good’ Path in the Anthropocene By ANDREW C. REVKIN <http://dotearth.blogs.nytimes.com/author/andrew-c-revkin/> JUNE 22, 2014 9:50 AM 20 Comments [image: A 2013 art installation at Edge Hill University near Liverpool, England, by Robyn Woolston included this mock sign, "Welcome to the Fabulous Anthropocene Era" (enlarge). The Anthropocene is a name some scientists have proposed for this era in which humans have become a dominant influence on the environment.]Robyn WoolstonA 2013 art installation <http://www.edgehill.ac.uk/news/story/habitus-art-installation-unveiled/> at Edge Hill University near Liverpool, England, by Robyn Woolston <http://www.robynwoolston.com/> included this mock sign, “Welcome to the Fabulous Anthropocene Era” (enlarge <http://graphics8.nytimes.com/images/2014/06/16/blogs/dotanthropocenesign/dotanthropocenesign-jumbo.jpg>). The Anthropocene is a name some scientists have proposed for this era in which humans have become a dominant influence on the environment. I’m just catching up with reactions from two climate and sustainability analysts (Michael Tobis and Curt Stager) to my recent talk charting a “good” path through the age of us <https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VOtj3mskx5k#t=523>, the Anthropocene, and Clive Hamilton’s blunt critique <http://dotearth.blogs.nytimes.com/2014/06/18/a-darker-view-of-the-age-of-us-the-anthropocene/> . Stager — a hybrid of climate scientist, ecologist and author <http://curtstager.com/About__Biography_.html> (and musician <https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TH8Syz0NvD4>) — posted a comment that is worth elevating here as a “Your Dot <http://j.mp/YourDot>” contribution: Ethicist Clive Hamilton’s premise that seeing anything but catastrophe in an Anthropocene future is “un-scientific” is itself unscientific – a value judgment, not a statement of fact. As a climate scientist, I see many changes coming that worry me, but I also try not to confuse my feelings about them with the full complexity of reality, and I do see some rays of hope amid the storm. Science demands that we consider more than what most grabs our attention, and as with past global changes one’s loss is another’s gain; this makes rigorous ethical analysis more difficult than the science itself. As Arctic sea ice species wane, southern taxa are re-colonizing waters their ancestors knew in past warm periods, and as parts of Bangladesh submerge Greenlanders find new opportunities. Hamilton’s response is understandable, but he seems to forget what “scientific” means. Judging from reactions to my book, “Deep Future: The Next 100,000 Years of Life on Earth <http://www.amazon.com/dp/0312614624>,” it is often strict scientific views of such changes that most upset people who, as Andy suggests, appear to hope for the worst. Our responses to global change reflect who we are, what we know (or think we know), and our emotional wiring. But in this turbulent dawn of the Anthropocene when our thoughts and actions trigger massive, long-lasting changes for better and for worse, recognizing what is or is not “science” is crucial to understanding what is happening and thus — by my own ethical lights — a responsibility, too. Michael Tobis <http://dotearth.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/11/30/a-new-blog-on-earth-friendly-policies/>, who is often a critic of my thinking on climate change science, creditably took the time to watch my talk and offered a constructive reaction on his Planet 3.0 blog <http://planet3.org/2014/06/17/a-good-anthropocene/>. Here’s an excerpt: [T]he argument is whether it is permissible to juxtapose the words “good” and “anthropocene.” But “good” is such a vague word that objecting to it seems to me a very weak posture. Indeed, in his Dot Earth piece he mentions that he is using “good” in an ethical sense, not in a sense of outcomes. He says: *I was invited to give the opening talk, which I called “Paths to a ‘Good’ Anthropocene” — with quotation marks around the adjective “good” to stress that values determine choices.* Not only do I entirely agree that we can have an ethically “good” future, I also believe that we can have an actually “good” future in terms of dignity, sustainability and joy. Some say it is automatic, and we should just eschew meddling with the corporate economy which will inevitably deliver left to its devices. I don’t believe that for a minute. A good outcome will require a lot of work and a fair amount of courage. But if I thought it was out of reach, I’d go all doomer and hide in a cave. What motivates me to keep going is the following by Bruce Sterling: *Our capacities are tremendous. Eventually, it is within our technical ability to create factories that clean the air as they work, cars that give off drinkable water, industry that creates parks instead of dumps, or even monitoring systems that allow nature to thrive in our cities, neighborhoods, lawns and homes. An industry that is not just “sustainable,” but enhances the world. The natural world should be better for our efforts and our ingenuity. It’s not too much to ask.* *You and I will never live to see a future world with those advanced characteristics. The people who will be living in it will pretty much take it for granted, anyway. But that is a worthy vision for today’s technologists: because that is wise governance for a digitally conquered world. That is is not tyranny. That is legitimacy.* *Without vision, the people perish. So we need our shimmering, prizes, goals to motivate ourselves, but the life is never in the prize. The living part, the fun part, is all in the wrangling. Those dark cliffs looming ahead — that is the height of your achievement.* *We need to leap into another way of life. The technical impetus is here. We are changing, but to what end? The question we must face is: what do we want? We should want to abandon that which has no future. We should blow right through mere sustainability. We should desire a world of enhancement. That is what should come next. We should want to expand the options of those who will follow us. We don’t need more dead clutter to entomb in landfills. We need more options.* *It needs to happen. It must happen. It is going to happen.* That’s the Planet3.0 Manifesto <http://planet3.org/beyond-sustainability-a-manifesto/>, in case you missed it. Is that Polyannish? I don’t think so. Is it true? Well, maybe not the part about hydrogen cars, but basically yes. Our capacities are immense. The future is not yet written. We must mourn our losses, but it is far too soon to be giving up. Those dark cliffs looming ahead? That is the height of your achievement. -- *_* ANDREW C. REVKIN Dot Earth blogger <http://www.nytimes.com/dotearth>, The New York Times Senior Fellow <http://www.pace.edu/paaes/faculty-and-staff>, Pace U. Academy for Applied Env. Studies Cell: 914-441-5556 Fax: 914-989-8009 Twitter: @revkin <http://twitter.com/revkin> Skype: Andrew.Revkin Music: "A Very Fine Line <http://veryfinelines.com>" CD -- 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/d/optout.
