THE ETHICS OF GEOENGINEERING

There is a saying that what was once unthinkable, becomes debatable and gradually becomes acceptable.  That saying can now appropriately be applied to a relatively new field of science—geoengineering:  Technologies that have the potential to change the planet.  Some examples:  Last year a private company proposed “fertilizing” parts of the ocean with iron in hopes of encouraging carbon-absorbing blooms of plankton.  Also, researchers are talking about injecting chemicals into the atmosphere, launching sun-reflecting mirrors into stationary orbit above the earth or taking other steps to reset the thermostat of planet earth.  So incredible is such technology and so uncertain are scientists about their potential effects, that the former head of the National Academy of Engineering, William Wulf, suggested:  “The complexity of newly engineered systems coupled with their potential impact on lives, the environment, etc., raise a set of ethical issues that engineers had not been thinking about.”  The fundamental ethical issues are that we really have no idea how to predict the effects of such technologies and that they would in all likelihood be impossible to undo.

Several thoughts:

• For the sake of argument, let us suppose that some of these would accomplish their intended results, with no real negative or life-threatening side-effects.  But also suppose that the planet came to depend on chemicals in space or orbiting mirrors or regular oceanic infusions of iron.  What if one of these systems fails?  Such a failure would mean instantaneous catastrophe—and then real climate change!  For the stability and predictability of such systems, there would need to be political stability on earth to guarantee the stable functioning of such systems.

• In geoengineering, and even nanotechnology, robotics and genetic technologies, the technological imperative (aka the scientific imperative) may not apply.  Each of these is so powerful and filled with so much uncertainty that an entire new class of accidents and abuses could be possible.  In some cases, it would be better to not pursue the technology at all.  Bill Joy, in a seminal essay in the magazine Wired (April 2000), made this argument about nanotechnology, robotics and genetic engineering.  Such technologies, Joy writes, “are so powerful that they can spawn whole new classes of accidents and abuses.  Most dangerously, for the first time, these accidents and abuses are widely within the reach of individuals or small groups.  They will not require large facilities or rare raw materials.  Knowledge alone will enable the use of them.  Thus we have the possibility not just of weapons of mass destruction but of knowledge-enabled destruction, this destructiveness hugely amplified by the power of self-replication” (p. 242).  Is it possible that we are entering an age where “. . . knowledge has become a weapon we wield against ourselves?” 

• Does the Bible give us some guidelines on how to at least begin to think about such things?  I believe it does.  Permit me to summarize a few from my book on Biblical Ethics:

1. Human beings are created in God’s image.  This makes humans more valuable than any other of God’s creatures.  We can then stipulate that humans are always more valuable (intrinsically so) than all other created things.  There is an essential, Creation-order distinction between humans and other created things (both living and non-living).  See Genesis 1 and 2.
2. Issues and practices in geoengineering, robotics, nanotechnology and genetics fall under the stewardship responsibility of humans.  In Genesis 1:26ff, God creates humans--male and female--in His image and then gives them the responsibility to “be fruitful and multiply, and fill the earth and subdue it; and rule over the fish of the sea and over the birds of the sky, and over every living thing that moves on the earth (1:28).”  Verse 29 extends this dominion to plants, trees and seeds.  Because God is sovereign and humans have dominion status, accountability of the human is a necessary corollary.  This matter of accountability has powerful implications for the technologies discussed in this Perspective.  These technologies give humans power never before realized in history.  Because humans are cursed with sin, it is difficult to be optimistic about the ultimate use of some of these technologies.  Humans must never forget that God is sovereign; we are stewards!
3. The question of using these technologies is probably not so much whether to use them but how, when and at what cost?  In the technologies discussed above, we simply do not know the effects of their widespread use.
4. Human life itself is of higher value than the quality of human life.  With the eternal perspective that the Bible gives, many of these technologies border on the quality of human life ethic.  Where might the technologies discussed in this Perspective lead?  Although seemingly innocuous at first, they are potentially very dangerous.  Is the quality of life as a governing ethic too subjective, too self-centered, so that as a governing ethic it may actually be self-destructive?
5. From God’s perspective, concern for the improvement of the “inner man” is always more important than concern for improvement of the “outer man.”  Because of death and its inevitability, no procedure or practice will prevent it.  Perhaps that is why the Scripture gives focus to such issues as the fruit of the Spirit (Galatians 5:22-23) and the eight quality traits called the Beatitudes (Matthew 5:1-16).  From God’s perspective, these seem more paramount than using certain technologies with a goal that approaches human perfectibility.  Carl Henry, years ago in his book, Christian Personal Ethics (1957), argued that there is clear biblical warrant for procedures that restore man; there is no clear biblical warrant for manipulation toward perfection (p. 210), an insightful guideline in approaching some of the technologies discussed above.
6. When one views God’s creation, one realizes that values like unpredictability, variety, diversity and uniqueness are central to God’s creative work.  Some technologies discussed above seem, at least potentially, to violate His values.  Control over gender selection and other human features could produce a “sameness” that God did not intend.  Do humans know how to exercise wisely the kind of power and control that these procedures bring?  With the reality of sin ever before us, it is difficult to answer in the affirmative.  Caution, methodical, meticulous caution, is needed in approaching these technological minefields.  That is why the prudent, biblical stance is that if a procedure will likely and eventually violate biblical guidelines, it is best to proceed on a very selective basis or to not proceed at all.

Print