geoengineers as God(s)?
26 views
Skip to first unread message
RAU greg
Apr 24, 2012, 9:05:26 PM4/24/12
to geoengi...@googlegroups.com
"E&T asks whether engineers should play God, making fundamental changes to the environment and attempting to control climate change. "
Should engineers control the eco-system?
23 April 2012By Anne Harris
With the visible effects of climate
change growing, is it time for engineers to step in and make fundamental changes to the eco-system?
Anyone who has delved into the morass of conflicting reports and opinions that surround the thorny issue of climate change will readily admit that plain ‘truth’ is not easy to come by. There are many fields in science where controversies still remain.
This is healthy for science. It keeps us on our toes and forces us to question our assumptions and models. So it is revealing that, when it comes to climate change, the overwhelming majority of scientists acknowledge that it is taking place, that it is potentially
catastrophic and is, in all likelihood, caused by humans.
Having given this acceptance, the next question on scientists’ lips is whether anything can be done. The drive is on, albeit grudgingly and at an agonisingly torpid pace, to limit the volume of greenhouse gases that are pumped into the atmosphere, but
that alone is unlikely to be sufficient. What is really required is a solution that will reverse the climate-change effects, and this has been dubbed ‘geoengineering’.
much more here: http://eandt.theiet.org/magazine/2012/04/index.cfm
Mike MacCracken
Apr 24, 2012, 9:32:50 PM4/24/12
to Geoengineering
What a truly terrible title (or maybe tag line) for an article in a science magazine.
Both greenhouse gas induced climate change, and the proposed response to it, are, or would be, a result of humans relying on the laws of physics and chemistry—not some sort of super power. Whom does the article say is causing the change—human activities or God? Is not causing the change with GHGs and choosing not to act to control emissions “playing” God? And “play” makes this all sound like a little game when the discussion is much more serious. And no way are engineers saying they are in charge, so they miss all the discussion on governance, etc.
I’ll agree I am a literalist because scientists try to be precise in their use of words (it might be interesting to ask them to define “God”--their capital letter). Really poorly title choice, in my view.
Mike MacCracken
Both greenhouse gas induced climate change, and the proposed response to it, are, or would be, a result of humans relying on the laws of physics and chemistry—not some sort of super power. Whom does the article say is causing the change—human activities or God? Is not causing the change with GHGs and choosing not to act to control emissions “playing” God? And “play” makes this all sound like a little game when the discussion is much more serious. And no way are engineers saying they are in charge, so they miss all the discussion on governance, etc.
I’ll agree I am a literalist because scientists try to be precise in their use of words (it might be interesting to ask them to define “God”--their capital letter). Really poorly title choice, in my view.
Mike MacCracken
Ken Caldeira
Apr 25, 2012, 2:38:23 AM4/25/12
to mmac...@comcast.net, Geoengineering
This framing of "should engineers play God" assumes that those who have the ability and motivation to do research also have the ability and motivation to deploy, making it little more than a fantastical science fiction story dressed up in quasi-religious garb.
______________
Ken Caldeira
Carnegie Institution Dept of Global Ecology
260 Panama Street, Stanford, CA 94305 USA
+1 650 704 7212 kcal...@carnegie.stanford.edu
http://dge.stanford.edu/labs/caldeiralab @kencaldeira
Currently visiting Institute for Advanced Sustainability Studies (IASS)
Ken Caldeira
Carnegie Institution Dept of Global Ecology
260 Panama Street, Stanford, CA 94305 USA
+1 650 704 7212 kcal...@carnegie.stanford.edu
http://dge.stanford.edu/labs/caldeiralab @kencaldeira
Currently visiting Institute for Advanced Sustainability Studies (IASS)
and Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Resarch (PIK) in Potsdam, Germany.
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "geoengineering" group.
To post to this group, send email to geoengi...@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to geoengineerin...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering?hl=en.
Christopher Preston
Apr 25, 2012, 10:41:05 AM4/25/12
to geoengineering
Like it or not, the ‘playing God’ frame is widely used to raise
questions about a certain types of technology (e.g. biotechnology and
synthetic biology). If you don’t take the ‘God’ part literally, the
framing can be thought of in secular terms as raising questions about
the proper role humans should adopt in relation to planetary
processes. It seems to me that this remains an open question….. and
some legitimate ethical discussions could take place.
On Apr 24, 7:32 pm, Mike MacCracken <mmacc...@comcast.net> wrote:
> What a truly terrible title (or maybe tag line) for an article in a science
> magazine.
>
> Both greenhouse gas induced climate change, and the proposed response to it,
> are, or would be, a result of humans relying on the laws of physics and
> chemistry‹not some sort of super power. Whom does the article say is causing
> the change‹human activities or God? Is not causing the change with GHGs and
> choosing not to act to control emissions ³playing² God? And ³play² makes
> this all sound like a little game when the discussion is much more serious.
> And no way are engineers saying they are in charge, so they miss all the
> discussion on governance, etc.
>
> I¹ll agree I am a literalist because scientists try to be precise in their
> use of words (it might be interesting to ask them to define ³God²--their
> capital letter). Really poorly title choice, in my view.
>
> Mike MacCracken
>
questions about a certain types of technology (e.g. biotechnology and
synthetic biology). If you don’t take the ‘God’ part literally, the
framing can be thought of in secular terms as raising questions about
the proper role humans should adopt in relation to planetary
processes. It seems to me that this remains an open question….. and
some legitimate ethical discussions could take place.
On Apr 24, 7:32 pm, Mike MacCracken <mmacc...@comcast.net> wrote:
> What a truly terrible title (or maybe tag line) for an article in a science
> magazine.
>
> Both greenhouse gas induced climate change, and the proposed response to it,
> are, or would be, a result of humans relying on the laws of physics and
> chemistry‹not some sort of super power. Whom does the article say is causing
> the change‹human activities or God? Is not causing the change with GHGs and
> choosing not to act to control emissions ³playing² God? And ³play² makes
> this all sound like a little game when the discussion is much more serious.
> And no way are engineers saying they are in charge, so they miss all the
> discussion on governance, etc.
>
> I¹ll agree I am a literalist because scientists try to be precise in their
> use of words (it might be interesting to ask them to define ³God²--their
> capital letter). Really poorly title choice, in my view.
>
> Mike MacCracken
>
> On 4/24/12 9:05 PM, "RAU greg" <gh...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > "E&T asks whether engineers should play God, making fundamental changes to the
> > environment and attempting to control climate change. "
>
> > Should engineers control the eco-system?
> > 23 April 2012By Anne Harris
> > With the visible effects of climate change growing, is it time for engineers
> > to step in and make fundamental changes to the eco-system?
> > Anyone who has delved into the morass of conflicting reports and opinions that
> > surround the thorny issue of climate change will readily admit that plain
> > Œtruth¹ is not easy to come by. There are many fields in science where
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > "E&T asks whether engineers should play God, making fundamental changes to the
> > environment and attempting to control climate change. "
>
> > Should engineers control the eco-system?
> > 23 April 2012By Anne Harris
> > With the visible effects of climate change growing, is it time for engineers
> > to step in and make fundamental changes to the eco-system?
> > Anyone who has delved into the morass of conflicting reports and opinions that
> > surround the thorny issue of climate change will readily admit that plain
> > controversies still remain. This is healthy for science. It keeps us on our
> > toes and forces us to question our assumptions and models. So it is revealing
> > that, when it comes to climate change, the overwhelming majority of scientists
> > acknowledge that it is taking place, that it is potentially catastrophic and
> > is, in all likelihood, caused by humans.
>
> > Having given this acceptance, the next question on scientists¹ lips is whether
> > anything can be done. The drive is on, albeit grudgingly and at an agonisingly
> > torpid pace, to limit the volume of greenhouse gases that are pumped into the
> > atmosphere, but that alone is unlikely to be sufficient. What is really
> > required is a solution that will reverse the climate-change effects, and this
> > has been dubbed Œgeoengineering¹.
> > toes and forces us to question our assumptions and models. So it is revealing
> > that, when it comes to climate change, the overwhelming majority of scientists
> > acknowledge that it is taking place, that it is potentially catastrophic and
> > is, in all likelihood, caused by humans.
>
> > Having given this acceptance, the next question on scientists¹ lips is whether
> > anything can be done. The drive is on, albeit grudgingly and at an agonisingly
> > torpid pace, to limit the volume of greenhouse gases that are pumped into the
> > atmosphere, but that alone is unlikely to be sufficient. What is really
> > required is a solution that will reverse the climate-change effects, and this
Josh Horton
Apr 25, 2012, 2:52:43 PM4/25/12
to geoengi...@googlegroups.com
Fair enough, but I don't know of any researchers in this field (as represented by those on this list) who propose to play God or make deployment decisions about geoengineering. Scientists and engineers propose to develop different options for managing risk, and leave it to accountable decision-makers (political leaders) to choose the path forward. So the title and premise of the article are mistaken from the outset.
Josh
Robert H. Socolow
Apr 25, 2012, 2:59:45 PM4/25/12
to joshuah...@gmail.com, geoengi...@googlegroups.com
Instead of being defensive, consider that to many people the whole activity is playing God. The distinction between researchers and decisionmakers is second order.
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "geoengineering" group.
To view this discussion on the web visit
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/geoengineering/-/ZMmtIPXOMjAJ.
Mike MacCracken
Apr 25, 2012, 8:03:02 PM4/25/12
to Geoengineering
What I found particularly objectionable was that the God framing and inaccurate representation of our efforts (as Josh noted) was done by a magazine intended to be representing the technical community, just the type of communication that we would hope would be accurate in explaining a technical issue. I would not have been surprised if the headline had appeared in the National Enquirer and the like—but, to my mind, a supposedly technical magazine should be held to a higher standard. There are enough misconceptions out there to be explained without this.
Mike
Mike
Ninad Bondre
Apr 25, 2012, 1:25:24 PM4/25/12
to geoengineering
I agree, no need to get apoplectic over the phrasing. Besides, there
is an ever shifting and historically contingent line between the human
and the divine. In ancient times, at least in some parts of the world,
mining asteroids for resources or the wilful modification of Earth's
climate would have been considered to be outside the realm of human
possibilities. The human relationship with technology in the modern
world and its attendant effects are encapsulated by Heidegger's
discussion of machination and the "flight of the gods".
Ninad Bondre
On Apr 25, 4:41 pm, Christopher Preston
is an ever shifting and historically contingent line between the human
and the divine. In ancient times, at least in some parts of the world,
mining asteroids for resources or the wilful modification of Earth's
climate would have been considered to be outside the realm of human
possibilities. The human relationship with technology in the modern
world and its attendant effects are encapsulated by Heidegger's
discussion of machination and the "flight of the gods".
Ninad Bondre
On Apr 25, 4:41 pm, Christopher Preston
Reply all
Reply to author
Forward
0 new messages