On Peter's wise input, one other thought. In ecosystems, there's some evidence that a lack of true "organization" - meaning coordination, consistency - appears to be a source of resilience. As Thomas Elmqvist captured as "response diversity" <http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1890/1540-9295(2003)001%5B0488:RDECAR%5D2.0.CO;2/full> in a remarkable 2003 paper. I cited it a couple of times in the context of intense deep divisions over climate change solutions (sift to Elmqvist mention here <https://medium.com/@revkin/around-2006-having-spent-more-than-two-decades-writing-about-the-science-behind-global-warming-i-96a21df2d68e> ).
Applied to human systems, the notion would be that our variegated responses to environmental stresses - both at individual ( http://culturalcognition.net ) and societal levels (the difference between China's climate/energy planning and ours and Europe's etc. <https://dotearth.blogs.nytimes.com/2015/07/11/in-paris-scientists-chart-varied-paths-to-a-sustainable-human-relationship-with-earths-climate/>) - are adaptive in the best evolutionary sense. (There's only been one peer reviewed paper <https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4028135/>assessing the social-resilience equivalent so far.) The result looks disorderly and is full of tensions, but it's totally human and got us through our mess.. so far.. The alternative - coordinated planetary 'management' - feels necessary but seems implicitly un-human. Of course we are entering what feels like uncharted terrain given how much our environmental potency is outstripping our capacity to understand its implications on time scales we're not set up to consider fully.. But that's also the human way, it seems. . On Mon, Jan 22, 2018 at 1:55 AM, Charles Greene <c...@cornell.edu> wrote: > Thank you for your insightful and thought-provoking comments Peter about > the evolution of human organizations. > > On Jan 21, 2018, at 1:12 AM, Peter Eisenberger < > peter.eisenber...@gmail.com> wrote: > > For what it is worth here is my 2 cts > > History is clear that human organizations have evolved much like other > living systems. That evolution has had a consistent direction -increased > social organziations covering ever larger populations.(eg hunter gatherer > groups, villages > cities , city states , nation states ) . This occurred because it made us > more fit - face the cahllenges of the time. The climate change issue is > amongst other things a recognition of the global impact of our collective > impacts and that no nation state can provide on their own a solution to the > challenges we face. Thus there will be over time an inevitable > globalization of our human systems. Looking back a previous organizations > with disdain rather than part of our evolutionary history makes no logical > sense but ignoring the need to change and that change will provide a better > future is equally misguided . > > In my view human knowledge will provide technology to address the > challenges we face and we will reorganize ourselves over time to be able to > implement them effectively just as we have in the past reorgnized ourselves > to address the challenges we faced. > My view is that this evolutionary path is inevitable because it will make > us more fit but what is not inevitable , as is the casse in the rest of > nature , is how much destruction will occur before we change . That in my > opinion in the challenge to all of us and I truly hope we are up to it. > > Finally to be clear whether that global organziation evolves into large > global bureaucracies or that stage is a transient organiztion giving way > to a technology enabled cloud connected bottom up organizations is yet to > be determined. > > On Sun, Jan 21, 2018 at 1:27 AM, Andrew Lockley <andrew.lock...@gmail.com> > wrote: > >> Thanks for the support, but I don't fully agree with the reasoning. I've >> encountered this thinking a great deal in the environmental movement, and >> it's not motivated by publication incentives. >> >> There's a category of people, often found cosseted inside institutions of >> various kinds, for whom "more government" is the answer to absolutely >> everything. This approach is often mocked as "watermelon politics" - red >> through and through, with a thin layer of green on the outside. >> >> Unfortunately, such people find it disproportionately easy to progress in >> institutions of great intellectual influence: academia, state media, public >> services, and government. This is despite the fact that their life >> experiences and values run counter to the undeniable realities lived by the >> vast majority of the population, who typically view the state as >> inefficient, bordering on Kafkaesque (hence the author's popularity). >> >> A >> >> On 21 Jan 2018 01:13, "Peter Flynn" <pcfl...@ualberta.ca> wrote: >> >>> Andrew, >>> >>> >>> Thank you for saying this, and saying it very well. I think that the >>> abstract is just nonsense: claptrap, as you say. I put this in the academic >>> realm of “I need to publish”, and even better, “if I say stupid stuff I’ll >>> get lots of citations from the refutation”. >>> >>> >>> I am reminded of the phrase that perfect is the enemy of the good. >>> Linking dealing with the risk of climate change to reversing capitalism >>> would doom any effective effort. Gunderson et al. can rest assured that any >>> real action will take place within the various economies as they exist and >>> evolve, slowly; thinking that climate change is the Trojan Horse that will >>> overturn existing choices about economies is both tedious and damaging >>> nonsense. >>> >>> >>> We have a serious problem to deal with, and distractions like this >>> reduce rather than enhance the ability to deal with it. I think all will >>> agree that perfection would be an instantaneous decarbonization that didn’t >>> ruin economies. But perfect won’t happen; we search for the good, the >>> practical. My personal guess is that a mix of decarbonization and >>> geoengineering is the likely future scenario, given the difficulty of >>> mounting the will to decarbonize quickly, in both capitalist and planned >>> economies. I look at catalytic converters added to cars: society found the >>> will to spend more for an existing technology to deal with an emission, but >>> only in some regions of the world, and only when the problem was evident >>> and severe. >>> >>> >>> There is a broad range of thinking on the challenge of climate change. >>> Trying to end capitalism, or perhaps more accurately regulated market >>> economies, is beyond the improbability of rapid decarbonization. >>> >>> >>> Thanks again for calling this out. >>> >>> >>> Peter >>> >>> >>> Peter Flynn, P. Eng., Ph. D. >>> >>> Emeritus Professor and Poole Chair in Management for Engineers >>> >>> Department of Mechanical Engineering >>> >>> University of Alberta >>> >>> peter.fl...@ualberta.ca >>> >>> cell: 928 451 4455 <(928)%20451-4455> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> *From:* geoengineering@googlegroups.com [mailto:geoengineering@googleg >>> roups.com] *On Behalf Of *Andrew Lockley >>> *Sent:* Saturday, January 20, 2018 5:07 PM >>> *To:* geoengineering <geoengineering@googlegroups.com> >>> *Subject:* Re: [geo] A Critical Examination of Geoengineering. Economic >>> and Technological Rationality in Social Context >>> >>> >>> I'm probably putting myself at risk of getting shouted at, but... >>> >>> >>> This paper, from my brief skim, >>> >>> A) is a total straw man argument - at least as far as geoengineering >>> research community's attitude towards the technology >>> >>> B) reads like parody of postmodern/neo-Marxist/critical theory academic >>> writing (admittedly, lots of comparable papers also read like parody) >>> >>> C) Misrepresents or misunderstands the current state of scientific >>> knowledge, especially vis-a-vis risk >>> >>> >>> I'd welcome other views, but I personally think it's important to call >>> out claptrap when we see it in the literature (even if that risks us >>> getting shouted at). >>> >>> >>> A >>> >>> >>> >>> On 20 Jan 2018 18:17, "CE News" <i...@climate-engineering.eu> wrote: >>> >>> http://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/10/1/269 >>> >>> >>> Gunderson, Ryan; Petersen, Brian; Stuart, Diana (2018): A Critical >>> Examination of Geoengineering. Economic and Technological Rationality in >>> Social Context (Sustainability, 10). >>> >>> Abstract >>> >>> Geoengineering—specifically stratospheric aerosol injection—is not only >>> risky, but supports powerful economic interests, protects an inherently >>> ecologically harmful social formation, relegates the fundamental >>> social-structural changes needed to address climate change, and is rooted >>> in a vision of a nature as a set of passive resources that can be fully >>> controlled in line with the demands of capital. The case for geoengineering >>> is incomprehensible without analyzing the social context that gave birth to >>> it: capitalism’s inability to overcome a contradiction between the need to >>> accumulate capital, on the one hand, and the need to maintain a stable >>> climate system on the other. Substantial emissions reductions, unlike >>> geoengineering, are costly, rely more on social-structural than technical >>> changes, and are at odds with the current social order. Because of this, >>> geoengineering will increasingly be considered a core response to climate >>> change. In light of Herbert Marcuse’s critical theory, the promotion of >>> geoengineering as a market-friendly and high-tech strategy is shown to >>> reflect a society that cannot set substantive aims through reason and >>> transforms what should be considered means (technology and economic >>> production) into ends themselves. Such a condition echoes the >>> first-generation Frankfurt School’s central thesis: instrumental >>> rationality remains irrational. View Full-Text >>> <http://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/10/1/269/htm> >>> >>> *Keywords: *climate engineering >>> <http://www.mdpi.com/search?q=climate%20engineering>; environmental >>> sociology <http://www.mdpi.com/search?q=environmental%20sociology>; critical >>> theory <http://www.mdpi.com/search?q=critical%20theory>; science and >>> technology studies >>> <http://www.mdpi.com/search?q=science%20and%20technology%20studies>; solar >>> radiation management >>> <http://www.mdpi.com/search?q=solar%20radiation%20management>; carbon >>> dioxide removal >>> <http://www.mdpi.com/search?q=carbon%20dioxide%20removal>; Marcuse >>> <http://www.mdpi.com/search?q=Marcuse>; stratospheric sulfate injection >>> <http://www.mdpi.com/search?q=stratospheric%20sulfate%20injection>; >>> stratospheric >>> aerosol injection >>> <http://www.mdpi.com/search?q=stratospheric%20aerosol%20injection>; albedo >>> modification <http://www.mdpi.com/search?q=albedo%20modification> >>> >>> >>> -- >>> 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 https://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering. >>> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. >>> >>> >>> >>> -- >>> 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 https://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering. >>> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. >>> >> >> -- >> 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 https://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering. >> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. >> > > > > -- > CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION: This email message and all attachments contain > confidential and privileged information that are for the sole use of the > intended recipients, which if appropriate applies under the terms of the > non-disclosure agreement between the parties. > > -- > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups > "Carbon Dioxide Removal" group. > To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an > email to carbondioxideremoval+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. > To post to this group, send email to carbondioxideremo...@googlegroups.com > . > Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/CarbonDioxideRemoval. > To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/ms > gid/CarbonDioxideRemoval/CANx_M7SdkCpU-pty4mQZzZe0EZ30PDa1GK > pS48L_oTdFcEXiEw%40mail.gmail.com > <https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/CarbonDioxideRemoval/CANx_M7SdkCpU-pty4mQZzZe0EZ30PDa1GKpS48L_oTdFcEXiEw%40mail.gmail.com?utm_medium=email&utm_source=footer> > . > For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. > > > -- > 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 https://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering. > For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. > -- *ANDREW C. REVKIN* *ProPublica Senior Reporter <https://www.propublica.org/site/author/andrew_revkin> (*climate etc.) *Mobile: 914-441-5556 <(914)%20441-5556> **@revkin <http://twitter.com/revkin>, Facebook <https://www.facebook.com/andrew.revkin.5>, Music <http://j.mp/revkinmusic>* -- 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 https://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
