I've almost finished reading Green Mars, so I was astonished to come across the following article, which matches Kim Stanley Robinson's insights into the strategic importance of terraforming. Unlike some of the more outlandish conspiracy theories regarding climate change, this piece is scrupulous in its attentiveness to scientific credentials, i.e how it could work, as well as the asymetrical distributions of power that would make such an abuse of the technology an attractive option for some (I took the liberty though of slightly modifying the title of the original piece so as to more explicitly reflect this blog's interest in biotechnological matters).
The stance adopted in this case differs as well from that of the fundamentalist environmentalist characters in Robinson's book. Its operating premise is not that geoengineering should be opposed in all forms, but rather that binding prescriptions for appropriate use need to be established. As per Robinson, space is also left for redressing the aforementioned socioeconomic dimensions of power that play a constitutive, and not merely an after the event role, in the questionable actions of both state and non-state actors. Such instances might amount to another manifestation of the [cynically opportunistic] "disaster capitalism" Naomi Klein has warned against. As such, it is feasible that they will also feature in future critical studies in the field of crisis management.
After pasting the reference below, along with a short excerpt, I've also linked to the author's blog, which is worthy of future monitoring.
In the early 1970s, the Pentagon’s Project Popeye attempted to use cloud seeding to increase the strength of monsoons and bog down the Ho Chi Minh Trail. In 1996, a group of Air Force and Army officers working with the Air Force 2025 program produced a document titled “Weather as a Force Multiplier: Owning the Weather in 2025” (it never went anywhere). The Soviet Union reputedly had similar projects underway. But although the idea of a geoengineering arms race may superficially parallel this line of thinking, it’s actually a very different concept. Unlike “weather warfare,” geoengineering would be subtle and long term, more a strategic project than a tactical weapon; moreover, unlike weather control, we know it can work, since we’ve been unintentionally changing the climate for decades.
Jamais Cascio is an environmental futurist and a fellow at the Institute for Ethics and Emerging Technologies. He blogs at Open the Future.
No comments:
Post a Comment