"Geoengineering and Environmental Ethics" by Dane Scott


  • Firstly, I want to point out that I find it awesome that we are able to literally able to control the climate. The progression of the human was race is astonishingly impressive.
  • Given the lack of legal responsibility operations have to operate among restrictive parameters to stop climate change, I find the discussion of the ethics of geoengineering is silly. Assuming we believe that the current state of the world is operating ethically, "ethically" meaning "is legal," then there is absolutely no argument against permissing geoengineering. There is a "long-term" argument that geoengineering may not be helpful in the first place (technocratic and instrumentalis), but if that was point was supposed to be false then there is not argument against it given the person feels an obligation to protect earth. 
  • I find Drengson's statement that humans are not "power as masters and controllers of nature" to be a bit ironic. Humans, a large contributor to climate change, somehow have the ability to influence the global conditions of earth while not being "power as masters and controllers of nature." Additionally, the seemingly incorrect generalization of all technology to be the issue that is causing climate change is weird. I am not claiming that geoengineering is beneficial, but grouping geoengineering technology as "the problem" just because it is technology is just wrong. Not all technology takes more away from earth then it benefits it. 
  • "even if [geoengineering] were successful, it would still have the bad effect of reinforcing human arrogance and the view that the proper human relationship to nature is one of domination" 
    • How could someone think this? An attempt to stop an issue of global conditions is "domination?" How does Jamieson expect the problem to be fixed? Should we just get rid of all technology as it is a "domination" of earth and somehow that is an inherent moral wrong? I don't care about the well being of earth as most people do, but this argument is just credulous. If we have the power to create an issue, we have the power to fix it. Maybe I am the embodiment of "human arrogance" that Jamieson fears, but I find it hard to to be awestruck by the capabilities of the human mind. This counter-progressive view of the human ability seems more destructive than an "overconfidence."
  • There is no denying that the geoengineering may just be a short-term alleviation of an issue that has long term detriments, but I couldn't adamantly disagree more with the people mentioned in this article to get to that same conclusion. 

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Utilitarianism (Rachels, Chapter 7 & 8)

The idea of morality being "just the attempt to bring about as much happiness as possible in this world" rather than a faithfulness of abstract rules is, in a way, an abstract rule. I would argue that happiness isn't something that can be objectively measured, so there is no way to defined what will and won't increase the overall happiness of the world. Happiness has to be see as an abstract idea, so, by nature of that, morality is still a faithfulness to an abstract.  When I read philosophical ideas and theory, I always have a really hard time understanding the practicable use of such things. While Bentham's theory seems great in thought, I find it hard to see this ever being truly adopted in real life. I understand that Utilitarianism is defining how humans ought  act rather than do, but  a total disregard of practical application makes any conversation not worth having/ I can't fathom a world where Utilitarianism could be applied—I don't think a Util...
Read more

A Response to Mina Kimes' "The Sun Tzu at Sears"

This blog is late due to me somehow not hearing the blog was supposed to start on day two of class. I apologize. Using such words as "consiglieri," comparisons to Sun Tzu, and dictator-esk war-like imagery, the author is posing Eddie Lampert to be a ruthless man through initial inspection of the article. It's obvious that this is not going to be a very kind piece before even starting the actual reading. The article makes many assuming claims that are backed mostly by anonymous people. I am not saying the author is making these people up, but we have to assume she is telling the truth as she did not use many names of the people making claims in these interviews. I am personally adverse to anarcho-capitalism, something that Lampert seems to like the idea of. I understand that competition can be a strong factor in driving business, but I think there are other ways of promoting business and technological growth without clawing at the eyes of other businesses. His seemin...
Read more

The Altered Nature of Human Action (Jonas Reading)

I have not done a lot of research into the ethics of technology in general, but by interest I have written a few papers on the ethics and threat of the technological singularity—the supposed moment in time where artificial intelligence will reach a point in which there will be an instant, irreversible change. Given that, most of my ethical consideration surrounding non-medical sciences, ignorantly so, is based of what I have researched about singularity. As Jonas addressed at the end of the chapter, there is very much a possibility that there is too much emphasis on the threat of technology and underplayed its promise. I am a dissenter for Joans' view; however, I have no doubt that the promise of technology is overplayed—in fact, I think it may be under played. When thinking about hypothetical threats of technology, I believe that artificial intelligence poses the most threat. The very idea of creating a super-human mind is something that we cannot fathom, and there are studies t...
Read more