Micah Saul: This project is built on a hypoth­e­sis. There are moments in his­to­ry when the sta­tus quo fails. Political sys­tems prove insuf­fi­cient, reli­gious ideas unsat­is­fac­to­ry, social struc­tures intol­er­a­ble. These are moments of crisis. 

Aengus Anderson: During some of these moments, great minds have entered into con­ver­sa­tion and torn apart inher­it­ed ideas, dethron­ing truths, com­bin­ing old thoughts, and cre­at­ing new ideas. They’ve shaped the norms of future generations.

Saul: Every era has its issues, but do ours war­rant The Conversation? If they do, is it happening?

Anderson: We’ll be explor­ing these sorts of ques­tions through con­ver­sa­tions with a cross-section of American thinkers, peo­ple who are cri­tiquing some aspect of nor­mal­i­ty and offer­ing an alter­na­tive vision of the future. People who might be hav­ing The Conversation.

Saul: Like a real con­ver­sa­tion, this project is going to be sub­jec­tive. It will fre­quent­ly change direc­tions, con­nect unex­pect­ed ideas, and wan­der between the tan­gi­ble and the abstract. It will leave us with far more ques­tions than answers because after all, nobody has a monop­oly on dream­ing about the future.

Anderson: I’m Aengus Anderson.

Saul: And I’m Micah Saul. And you’re lis­ten­ing to The Conversation.


Aengus Anderson: So, I’m back in Arizona. You’re still in San Francisco. Finally, we are both relo­cat­ed to places that we can at least nom­i­nal­ly call home.

Micah Saul: Yes. Exactly.

Anderson: Fourteen thou­sand miles lat­er. Fourteen thou­sand miles and sev­en and a half months.

Saul: Yeah, that’s… I did ten. 

Anderson: Not bad.

Saul: Turns out we put out a lot of car­bon in this project.

Anderson: And we couldn’t opt out of that choice. Which is an inter­est­ing con­nec­tion to a lot of oth­er con­ver­sa­tions. Now, today we’re talk­ing a lot about car­bon. We’re talk­ing about cli­mate change. We’re talk­ing about geo­engi­neer­ing. We’re talk­ing with David Keith, who is a Harvard pro­fes­sor. He’s got a joint appoint­ment in applied physics and pub­lic pol­i­cy. He’s been study­ing geo­engi­neer­ing for two decades.

Saul: Yeah. He’s also President of Carbon Engineering, research­es car­bon seques­tra­tion. Which is prob­a­bly a pret­ty use­ful thing for you and I to donate mon­ey to, just to off­set what we’ve done.

Anderson: Or we can just geo­engi­neer our way out of this all by shoot­ing some par­ti­cles into the atmos­phere or encour­ag­ing algae growth in the oceans.

Saul: Exactly.

Anderson: Some of our lis­ten­ers may not know what geo­engi­neer­ing is. David gives you a real­ly brief back­ground on it in the very begin­ning of our episode. But unlike a lot of episodes, this is one where we real­ly plunge right into the phi­los­o­phy, into the val­ues con­ver­sa­tion. It feels like you know, typ­i­cal­ly in these episodes I try to give us a pret­ty rich foun­da­tion of like okay, here’s some­thing tan­gi­ble we start with, and then we jump into phi­los­o­phy. But here we jump in. 

And so for those of you who are inter­est­ed in learn­ing more about geo­engi­neer­ing, I’ll have some links up on his page. You can watch his TED talk, you can read arti­cles about it. There’s a lot of infor­ma­tion. This is a real­ly con­tentious issue, so it’s worth read­ing about for any num­ber of rea­sons. But it will cer­tain­ly affect your life at some point. I’m will­ing to put…well, I don’t have any mon­ey to bet at this point. I’m dead broke. But if I had mon­ey to bet, I would bet that this will mat­ter in our lifetimes. 

Saul: Oh, absolute­ly. Which is inter­est­ing con­sid­er­ing our pre­vi­ous con­ver­sa­tions and our sort of dis­trust of the idea of inevitabil­i­ty. This is one that actu­al­ly does feel inevitable in some form or another. 

Anderson: Right.

Saul: And that’s going to come up in this con­ver­sa­tion. So, think about that while you’re lis­ten­ing. Also while lis­ten­ing, keep Carolyn Raffensperger and Robert Zubrin in mind. Keith pro­vides an inter­est­ing sort of bridge between those two. Which is real­ly sur­pris­ing because on the sur­face, their ideas seem com­plete­ly irreconcilable. 

Anderson: Yeah. I mean, they would both hate each other.

Saul: Right.

Anderson: We talk a lit­tle bit at the end of this con­ver­sa­tion about how geo­engi­neer­ing bridges a lot of dif­fer­ent con­ver­sa­tions. Now, whether or not you end up buy­ing that, I think it is fas­ci­nat­ing how this inter­view does bridge a lot of themes with­in this project. So, here we go.

Saul: David Keith.


David Keith: There are two essen­tial­ly inde­pen­dent and unre­lat­ed things that get labeled geo­engi­neer­ing. One is the idea that we could put reflec­tive par­ti­cles in the atmos­phere to make the earth a lit­tle bit brighter, which would reflect away some sun­light and cool the plan­et. And the oth­er idea is var­i­ous ways that we might remove car­bon from the atmos­phere, trans­fer­ring it to trees, or the deep ocean, or under­ground. And those ideas have both his­tor­i­cal­ly been called geo­engi­neer­ing, but in prac­tice they have sort of noth­ing to do with each oth­er respect with respect to sci­ence or the pub­lic pol­i­cy chal­lenged they raise. I mean, they’re both part of the broad set of things we might do about cli­mate change that ranges from just liv­ing with less, to mak­ing things more effi­cient, to decar­boniz­ing our ener­gy sys­tem, to adapt­ing to the change, etc.

Aengus Anderson: What’s the prob­lem that geo­engi­neer­ing is address­ing? Essentially, the why care about about any sort of cli­mate change,” opposed to just accept adaptation.”

Keith: I think that’s exact­ly the right ques­tion. I’m real­ly glad you’re ask­ing it. I think if peo­ple don’t have a clear idea about what prob­lem they’re try­ing to solve, there’s no way to make sen­si­ble deci­sions about what to do. And I think often, we have this kind of tech­no­crat­ic idea that it’s sort of obvi­ous what the prob­lem is. And so then we just should go ahead and do what­ev­er solu­tion is the right solu­tion for the problem.

But it’s not obvi­ous. So you know, should we care about it because we care about polar bears and the High Arctic melt­ing? Or because we care about New Yorkers who might be threat­ened by ris­ing sea lev­els? Or poor farm­ers in south­ern India who might have crop loss­es when tem­per­a­tures go up? And it’s very tempt­ing to sort of say that the right answer is oh, we should just care about every­thing. All of the above. But in fact, that’s a cop out. And unless you have some idea about what your pri­or­i­ties are, it’s impos­si­ble to say much about what we should do about cli­mate change.

And these are not tech­ni­cal ques­tions. These are val­ue ques­tions that can’t be answered tech­ni­cal­ly. There’s no way to say what’s the right answer. You know, I have lots of tech­ni­cal knowl­edge that an aver­age cit­i­zen doesn’t have, but my judg­ments about those things are no bet­ter than an aver­age citizen’s, in my opin­ion, because those are fun­da­men­tal­ly val­ue judg­ments, and I think in democ­ra­cy we should take the view that everybody’s val­ues count the same.

And the answers real­ly mat­ter. So, if you just care about say, pro­tect­ing poor farm­ers, you’ve got to ask whether mon­ey spent to do that wouldn’t be much more effec­tive­ly spent direct­ly on help­ing them get crops that were bet­ter off, or address­ing the under­ly­ing caus­es of pover­ty. It might be that that real­ly is the issue. So unless you have some clar­i­ty about that, I think it’s very hard to even know why we should deal with cli­mate change. 

And I think… Let me address one oth­er answer. Another pos­si­ble answer to why we should deal with cli­mate change is that it’s an exis­ten­tial threat. That if we don’t deal with it, we’re all going to die. That is the answer that quite a lot of the sci­en­tif­ic com­mu­ni­ty wants to retreat to. So, very promi­nent peo­ple like Jim Hansen have said you know, if we devel­op the Keystone Pipeline, it’s game over for the plan­et.

So, I hap­pen to oppose the Keystone Pipeline like Jim Hansen does, and that’s a much more mean­ing­ful thing for me because I live part-time in Calgary, Alberta. And While I do believe we should close down the oil sands, I under­stand that that will crush the town I live in and prob­a­bly result in lit­er­al­ly parts of town being bull­dozed, and all the stuff that hap­pens in a col­laps­ing town, from sui­cides to all sorts of sad­ness. But I still do believe we should close down the oil sands. But I think it is sci­en­tif­i­cal­ly unsup­port­able to say that it’s game over for the plan­et. I think that is just mean­ing­less, and I think he should be ashamed of mak­ing that claim. Because I do not believe it is a sci­en­tif­ic claim.

Anderson: I’m always intrigued by the places where sci­ence runs into democ­ra­cy, or runs into the world of pop­u­lar opin­ion. His claim may be in a way nec­es­sary almost for him to make a point or even be heard.

Keith: I think that’s what he and oth­ers like him might say. I’ve talked to him a few times over the years. But I think it’s end­ed up real­ly not help­ing the pub­lic debate. So, the idea that the way to get your mes­sage across is just to turn the vol­ume up to max, [inaudi­ble] a result of where we are. 

So first of all, let’s talk about real exis­ten­tial threats. There real­ly are things that could slaugh­ter a good frac­tion of the human pop­u­la­tion. And I think those things are real­ly pret­ty much all things humans do to each oth­er. Humans are fan­tas­ti­cal­ly good at killing each oth­er. It’s deep in our genes, and through bio­log­i­cal weapons or nuclear weapons or what have you, there’s a cer­tain frac­tion of the pop­u­la­tion that seem to have the will to kill their fel­low cit­i­zens in large num­bers and the tech­no­log­i­cal abil­i­ty to do it. And that is, I think, the real exis­ten­tial threat we face.

You can imag­ine exter­nal threats like let’s say, that there was an aster­oid that was inbound and due to impact in 2050. If that [were to] real­ly hap­pen, that would be exis­ten­tial threat and it’s worth ask­ing the ques­tion, How would we react?” My guess is peo­ple would actu­al­ly focus pret­ty darn hard on that threat, and you’d be amazed how well dif­fer­ent coun­tries would work together.

But cli­mate change is just not like that. There are win­ners and losers. I cer­tain­ly spend my whole career on it and care very very much about it. But I do not think you can make a claim that is sci­en­tif­i­cal­ly ground­ed that it is that kind of exis­ten­tial threat. I real­ly don’t. And I think that doing so is a way to short-circuit the actu­al con­ver­sa­tions about val­ues and trade-offs that are in fact the core of this issue. And it’s an attempt to side-step the real conversation. 

And I think the sci­en­tif­ic com­mu­ni­ty in part has done that, and the result is part of what we’ve seen on the Right. So, why is it that so many peo­ple on the Right just say that cli­mate sci­ence is non­sense? For some of them, it’s real­ly sci­en­tif­ic skep­ti­cism. But I think for most of them, it is that they feel that when some­body says, If you believe this sci­ence, then you must act in this dra­mat­ic way,” and you don’t hap­pen to believe that we should act in this dra­mat­ic way…that if the ques­tion is posed that way, the only way that you feel you can respond, per­haps, is to say, Well, I don’t believe the science.”

And real­i­ty is of course in the mid­dle. The core sci­ence that says if we dou­ble or triple CO2 in the atmos­phere we’re going to see a fair amount of cli­mate change, that’s about as strong as any oth­er piece of sci­ence I’ve been involved in. It’s very, very strong. But that does not mean that we nec­es­sar­i­ly have to put a lot of effort into cut­ting CO2 emis­sions right now. That’s cer­tain­ly what I believe. But to get between those two facts requires some val­ues about how you val­ue the dis­tant future com­pared to today; how you think about the val­ue of insti­tu­tion­al action com­pared to col­lec­tive con­trol; how you val­ue the idea of kind of pro­tect­ing the world as it was com­pared to just direct, mea­sur­able, eco­nom­ic human benefit.

And those are things where peo­ple have legit­i­mate­ly dif­fer­ent views. And it’s not my posi­tion that you can accept the core of the cli­mate sci­ence as being sci­ence and still actu­al­ly not think that we should do very much about it, depend­ing on essen­tial­ly the set­tings of those knobs.

Anderson: Right. Right. Are you famil­iar with Robert Zubrin of the Mars Society?

Keith: Yeah.

Anderson: So, obvi­ous­ly he starts from a val­ue posi­tion that is extreme­ly anthropocentric. 

Keith: Yeah.

Anderson: I think he called envi­ron­men­tal­ism plac­ing an aes­thet­ic pref­er­ence above human needs.” And of course on the oth­er end I’ve had very strong biocen­trists who would say that no, we need to be just as wor­ried about the con­di­tion of the polar bear as we do about any­one else.

Keith: So they said they need­ed to be? Is that…why do they need to be?

Anderson: I think because there is a spir­i­tu­al belief that the polar bear’s exis­tence in its cur­rent state is innate­ly valuable.

Keith: Good. So, that’s the view I hold, too. But I think we real­ly need to dis­tin­guish claims that we should pro­tect nature for prag­mat­ic, util­i­tar­i­an rea­sons from claims that we should care about it, or that we do care about it. Environmentalism has become increas­ing­ly tech­no­crat­ic, so that peo­ple feel when they speak to pow­er, envi­ron­men­tal­ists, that they must argue that the rea­son to pro­tect rain­forests is because they’ll yield won­der drugs, or the rea­son we should pro­tect some beau­ti­ful marsh­land is because of its reser­voir water hold­ing capacity.

Anderson: Right. It’s the anthro­pocen­tric way of get­ting to biocentrism.

Keith: I think for many peo­ple who say those things, that’s not remote­ly the rea­son that they actu­al­ly care about it. So, there are biol­o­gists who’ve spent their careers work­ing on some species of bee­tle in the trop­i­cal rain­for­est, and they just love the rain­for­est in their bones. And they feel that when they go tes­ti­fy in Congress to some com­mit­tee, that they can’t just say, I love it in my bones and you guys will love it too, if you share it with me.” They have to say, Oh, we’ve done all this math and com­put­ed that there’s an ecosys­tem ser­vice here.” And I think that that has real­ly impov­er­ished our debate about envi­ron­men­tal issues. 

So, like many peo­ple that prob­a­bly talk about polar bears, I’ve spent a fair amount of time in the High Arctic trav­el­ing on some long ski trips just on my own, with friends, and have seen plen­ty of polar bears, and looked down the bar­rel of a gun at polar bears and so on. And I real­ly per­son­al­ly feel the kind of bio­phil­ia hypoth­e­sis that E.O. Wilson has put for­ward that there is some­thing innate in us because of our genet­ic her­itage and where we came from that makes many of us love and respond to that world. And that’s some­thing that’s real­ly valu­able for rea­sons that aren’t mea­sured by ecosys­tem services.

Anderson: There’s no way to quan­ti­fy what that polar bear brings to you in that expe­ri­ence in the Arctic.

Keith: Certainly not in the kind of nar­row, eco­nom­ic view. But you got­ta be care­ful. I don’t want to claim that my val­ues trump every­body else’s. And I think there’s a real wor­ry here that as—at least a wor­ry for me, but objec­tive­ly you might argue it’s not a worry—that as peo­ple grow up more and more in cities they see much less of the nat­ur­al world and there­fore care­less about it. Because peo­ple kind of care about what they grew up with. 

Anderson: Are you famil­iar with Wes Jackson of The Land Institute in Salina, Kansas?

Keith: Oh, dim­ly. Not in any sub­stan­tive way.

Anderson: He popped up in this con­ver­sa­tion ear­li­er. There’s a big theme here in terms of how much can we know and con­trol and pre­dicts out­comes in the world. And his argu­ment was if you start look­ing at the immense­ly com­plex sys­tems that we’re mov­ing through… We’re talk­ing about nat­ur­al, but also where the eco­nom­ic sys­tems merge with that, where cul­tur­al sys­tems bump into that, ener­gy sys­tems… You real­ly can­not fath­om the rip­ples that will go out from your motions. And to some extent, that should incline you towards think­ing very care­ful­ly about mak­ing any sort of choic­es that are that big. So rather than say, cre­at­ing a mono­cul­ture and then try­ing to con­struct a world around it that makes that mono­cul­ture work per­fect­ly, he would rather breed new plants that work in a poly­cul­ture on the prairie and yet are grain-bearing. Because he feels that is essen­tial­ly try­ing to work with­in an estab­lished nat­ur­al sys­tem more, and not try­ing to rebuild a man-made sys­tem from the ground up, which will have ram­i­fi­ca­tions we can’t understand.

And so I just kind of want­ed to throw that out to ask you how much you think we can know about nat­ur­al sys­tems? And does that ever make you appre­hen­sive with some­thing like geoengineering?

Keith: Um…I mean, to sort of extreme ver­sion this claim is that every­thing is con­nect­ed to every­thing else, and so any action you do has unpre­dictable con­se­quences, so you should be very loath to do any action at all. And I don’t find that par­tic­u­lar­ly help­ful. So it’s cer­tain­ly true that we can’t pre­dict every­thing that the world will do. Certainly not. I think we nev­er will be able to. And parts of it are kind of inher­ent­ly chaot­ic and there­fore unpredictable. 

But the prob­lem with that argu­ment is it pulls you pro­found­ly to the cur­rent sta­tus quo. And that might be rea­son­able if the sta­tus quo was some­how equi­lib­ri­um. But it isn’t. I mean, the way to think about what’s hap­pen­ing in the mid­dle of this giant tech­no­log­i­cal and pop­u­la­tion tran­si­tion that we’re in, which is sure­ly way out of equi­lib­ri­um in all sorts of ways, the anal­o­gy we need to think about is going down rapids or ski hills and kind of try­ing to avoid the very worst of the bumps, and prob­a­bilis­ti­cal­ly hope we’re not going to crash. But we do not have the option to just stop.

Anderson: Ah, okay. [crosstalk] And that’s some­thing I’m inter­est­ed in.

Keith: Unless we’re real­ly pre­pared to you know, have a big frac­tion of the cur­rent pop­u­la­tion die. So, you might make an argument—it’s not one I’m nec­es­sar­i­ly sign­ing up to—that you pre­fer some kind of more prim­i­tive agri­cul­ture. But the fact is that the agri­cul­ture sys­tems we’ve devel­oped over ten thou­sand years and espe­cial­ly over the last hun­dred and some, with inputs of nitrogen-fixed fer­til­iz­ers and so on, are able to get fan­tas­ti­cal­ly high­er yields than we could get before. And those yields I think are broad­ly sus­tain­able. There’s not a sign that they’re slip­ping away despite what some extreme folks would say. And if we real­ly sud­den­ly went back to much more prim­i­tive kinds of agri­cul­ture with­out say, nitro­gen inputs, there’s sim­ply no way we could feed that many peo­ple. And also, we would have to expro­pri­ate much more land from nature, that would have a huge envi­ron­men­tal impact.

So I think talk like that is just real­ly thought­less. Unless peo­ple real­ly mean what they say, which is they’re hap­py to have a big frac­tion of the pop­u­la­tion die off, and to have a big­ger impact on nature. But I’m not.

Anderson: Boy, that’s been one for the peo­ple who have espoused more prim­i­tivist ideas. And Jackson isn’t one among them at all—

Keith: Fair enough.

Anderson: I don’t want to mis­char­ac­ter­ize him. But it’s tricky, right? Because you’ve men­tioned anoth­er one of these things we don’t want to talk about, which is that we are car­ry­ing a giant pop­u­la­tion that’s only sus­tain­able through perfectly-working inter­con­nect­ed systems.

Keith: Well, no that’s too strong.

Anderson: [crosstalk] That’s too strong?

Keith: That’s way too strong. There’s lots of slack in the system. 

Anderson: [crosstalk] There’s lots of slack?

Keith: It doesn’t all have to be— Well, I mean if it was lit­er­al­ly true as you said, that it only works with per­fect sys­tems, we’d be all dead by the end of the day.

Anderson: [laughs]

Keith: Because, you know, it’s evi­dent that things aren’t per­fect. Not in my world, any­way. And yet my pre­dic­tion is that most of the same peo­ple who are alive this morn­ing will still be alive tomor­row morn­ing. And that’s despite enor­mous imper­fec­tion. So I think that state­ment is just real­ly, real­ly not true.

There may be ways in which there are insta­bil­i­ties that come from the very tight con­nec­tions now that could yield some kind of col­laps­es. But I think those col­laps­es will come fun­da­men­tal­ly through things that look more like wars.

Anderson: Okay.

Keith: That’s the way peo­ple real­ly can bring the sys­tem down fast.

Anderson: I guess what I was think­ing about—

Keith: Let me give you a sense. So, ear­ly on when I was work­ing on cli­mate, there were some peo­ple who would say that the impacts on North American agri­cul­ture could be gigan­tic and amount to many many per­cent GDP. And a very thought­ful guy who was my men­tor, [Hadid Dalarabari?], got me to think about real­ly what were the lim­its to decou­pling us from nature. That’s not—again—not what I want. But I think it’s impor­tant to be hon­est about where we actu­al­ly stand. 

So, where we actu­al­ly stand is that less than 1% of GDP is now tied up, not just in agri­cul­ture, agri­cul­ture plus all the kind of agro­forestry sec­tor. It’s real­ly tiny. And the basic thing that that says is that you could afford to 10× the cost of doing that and still basi­cal­ly be fine. If we did that in one year it would be very trau­mat­ic, but if we did that over thir­ty years, we’d be you know, a lit­tle poor­er than we oth­er­wise would have been. But it’s not like it would bring indus­tri­al civ­i­liza­tion to a stop. And we could, at that kind of price, if you actu­al­ly go do the math, put the whole damn thing under glass. You could iso­late your­self almost entire­ly from the envi­ron­ment in a civ­i­liza­tion this rich. 

It’s a lit­tle dif­fer­ent in China or India—

Anderson: Right.

Keith: —but the rich few bil­lion on the plan­et, if you sort of put a gun to their head and said, Okay, we’re going to essen­tial­ly force you to bring all agri­cul­ture inside over the next three decades,” the cost of doing that is you know, a per­cent of GDP but not 50% of GDP. And that gives you a sense of how fun­da­men­tal­ly we are break­ing our­selves free of the kind of core depen­dence on the nat­ur­al process­es of the planet.

That’s not an argu­ment not to care about them. I care about them a lot. But it’s an argu­ment that the util­i­tar­i­an view that we are so depen­dent on the nat­ur­al world that we must pro­tect it because if we don’t pro­tect it we’re killing our­selves… I think that’s back to the fact that I think those argu­ments real­ly don’t car­ry that much weight, and that the real argu­ments peo­ple have to make [are] the argu­ments than in fact are in a lot of our hearts, which is that there’s some­thing absolute­ly fan­tas­ti­cal­ly mar­velous about the nat­ur­al world, and it’s not just out there. We’re part of it. We evolved as part of it. It shapes our genes, which shapes our cul­ture in all sorts of ways. We respond to it. And we should trea­sure it, because we care about things like that. Not because we must. 

Anderson: I guess when I was think­ing about sys­tems work­ing per­fect­ly togeth­er, I was think­ing more in the sense of a his­to­ri­an and that now things work togeth­er pret­ty well com­pared to say, Medieval Europe or Medieval China, when you had real­ly slop­py sys­tems work­ing togeth­er. But the idea of putting agri­cul­ture under glass goes back to some­thing we were talk­ing about a moment ago with the idea that we can kind of know we could put it under glass and it would still work okay.

Keith: Yeah, and it’s impor­tant to say that there are lots of ways in which human envi­ron­men­tal impacts can and obvi­ous­ly are destroy­ing a bunch of beau­ti­ful, spe­cial­ized ecosys­tems and mark­er species and charis­mat­ic megafau­na, as peo­ple talk about. Tigers, and pere­grine fal­cons, although those are things we’ve brought back from the edge of extinc­tion. But those megafau­na are not the things that dri­ve the core, kind of chem­i­cal cycling on the plan­et. The things that dri­ve those things are real­ly archaea, these ancient bac­te­ria, microbes, and all sorts of kind of low­er, sim­pler parts of the ecosys­tem through which much more ener­gy flows. And it’s very very hard to imag­ine any­thing we’re going to do that affects that in a sub­stan­tial way. 

But let’s turn the ques­tion around the oth­er way. So, on cli­mate change, the thing I work, the cost of mak­ing real­ly deep cuts in car­bon emis­sions, which would get us out of a lot of the risk of dra­mat­ic cli­mate change (not all of it), that cost is on the order of a cou­ple per­cent of GDP. You know, over a big half of a cen­tu­ry, that’s a fac­tor of between five and ten. Less than we spend on med­ical care. Arguably it’s less than we spend on the waste and the med­ical care sys­tem. It’s less than we spend on the military.

There’s just no ques­tion we could do it. And what we would get for that is a chance to pass on to our great-great-grandkids a kind of an option for them. An option to have a plan­et that is a lit­tle less dis­turbed and car­ries more of the nat­ur­al her­itage of the planet.

And we can’t real­ly know what the val­ues of our great-great-grandkids will be. Perhaps they won’t give a fig about the nat­ur­al world and will be total­ly hap­py liv­ing in arti­fi­cial envi­ron­ments. And indeed maybe they’ll think that the views that I have are kind of an atavis­tic throw­back that is very prim­i­tive and con­nect­ed with a kind of vio­lent part of human cul­ture that they’d like to not think about.

But there’s a chance that they will real­ly, real­ly love that nat­ur­al world as we do. And if we can pre­serve it at a few per­cent of GDP, some­thing that might be that valu­able for them, I think we’d be nuts not to do it.

Anderson: Is the log­ic of the soci­ety we live, the sys­tem of growth, the econ­o­my, our cul­tur­al mind­set in terms of quan­ti­fy­ing things and mea­sur­ing things… Does that inher­ent­ly push us away from leav­ing that future? Say we could eas­i­ly afford it. But there’s some­thing that like…it’s a dif­fi­cult argu­ment, right?

Keith: So, I came out of a very left wing back­ground, and I have lots of gra­nola friends who believe that. But I think I believe the oppo­site. I have spent a fair amount of time trav­el­ing on the land with native peo­ple, peo­ple in the High Arctic, and in some Indian com­mu­ni­ties. And I am lucky enough to know some­thing about the envi­ron­men­tal his­to­ry of the way native peo­ple man­age their envi­ron­ment. And I think that in fact the kind of detailed and quan­ti­ta­tive knowl­edge that we have of the nat­ur­al world…which isn’t just num­bers, it’s how species do what they do and why they do what they do, even indi­vid­ual lev­el, is in many ways far far bet­ter than what native cul­tures had. It’s very un-PC to say that, but I believe it’s true. 

Not every case. And cer­tain­ly not every one of us, because the way our knowl­edge is dif­fused, lots of us have no clue. And that gives us the chance to make much bet­ter deci­sions about the future. I mean, if you think about the native peo­ple who arrived in New Zealand or Australia fifty thou­sand years ago who basi­cal­ly wiped out almost all of the big fau­na in an envi­ron­men­tal holo­caust. Partly maybe they were just hap­py to do it, and even had they known exact­ly what they were doing they wouldn’t have done oth­er­wise. But I think prob­a­bly if they could have real­ly known what they were doing, they might not have done it. And in fact, prim­i­tive soci­eties caused extinc­tions every­where they went. And I think that we do know more and have a chance to act more sensibly.

Anderson: Though knowl­edge and val­ue, they’re sort of par­al­lel tracks in this con­ver­sa­tion, right? So, we have the knowl­edge. We also have part of that knowl­edge, part of our greater under­stand­ing of the nat­ur­al world, has also come with the abil­i­ty to change things in a way that gives us much more pow­er than they had. And so with­out the val­ue com­po­nent of that, do you think that the knowl­edge we’re devel­op­ing tech­ni­cal­ly is like­ly to be used in a pos­i­tive way?

Keith: No, I’m very pes­simistic. So I’m opti­mistic about knowl­edge and about the abil­i­ty of tech­nol­o­gy to accom­plish lots of these things. But I’m pro­found­ly pes­simistic about people’s inter­est in actu­al­ly accom­plish­ing them. And maybe there’s some­thing about the kind of com­mod­i­fi­ca­tion of our knowl­edge, the way it all just gets thrown into text­books and the Internet that actu­al­ly makes peo­ple care less about it, or makes most peo­ple care less about it.

Anderson: That makes me won­der, then, with con­ver­sa­tions about things that have glob­al effects but can be trig­gered cen­tral­ly, some­thing like geo­engi­neer­ing, do we even feel good about the idea of that being some­thing that is put up to a demo­c­ra­t­ic vote?

Keith: [Laughs] Well, we don’t have mech­a­nisms for glob­al demo­c­ra­t­ic votes. I mean, I think the only thing I can do is retreat to the Churchill state­ment that democ­ra­cy is the worst sys­tem in the world except for all the oth­ers. The short answer is that’s not the way it will be decid­ed. It will be decid­ed by a few big coun­tries mak­ing deci­sions. And those coun­tries are you know…crudely demo­c­ra­t­ic, or maybe…getting more democratic.

Anderson: I’ve talked to a lot of dif­fer­ent peo­ple about their ide­al visions of the future, and it’s always fun when you get into that. Because so many of them seem like there’s no way they could ever be demo­c­ra­t­i­cal­ly implemented.

Keith: Yeah.

Anderson: And yet that’s always one of our sym­pa­thies. Like, I think with every­one in this project, there have been very few who would say—maybe with one or two exceptions—that that they should just be imposed for everyone’s ben­e­fit from above.

Keith: Well, I think one of the fun­ny things about the geo­engi­neer­ing debate is that a lot of peo­ple who are very uncom­fort­able about it are real­ly con­cerned that it be a demo­c­ra­t­ic deci­sion. And I agree. But I think you can’t treat it in iso­la­tion. There are all sorts of deci­sions that are being made all around the world that have pro­found glob­al con­se­quences. From deci­sions about the archi­tec­ture of the Internet, to deci­sions about syn­thet­ic biol­o­gy, to big deci­sions about how trade between China and the US is managed. 

There are a myr­i­ad of deci­sions that are made in hideous­ly unde­mo­c­ra­t­ic ways that have pro­found century-long glob­al con­se­quences. And I would like it if geo­engi­neer­ing deci­sions were made in some beau­ti­ful­ly demo­c­ra­t­ic way. But I don’t think we should use the hope of that to put off any deci­sion for the whole cen­tu­ry. Because the real­i­ty is, on the one hand we need as a species to get bet­ter at mak­ing demo­c­ra­t­ic deci­sions, but that doesn’t mean that until we get there we make no decisions.

Anderson: Do you think it’s more like­ly that we will use geo­engi­neer­ing tech­nol­o­gy rather than try to scale back our emis­sions? Is there some­thing in our psy­chol­o­gy that makes us want to try to use some­thing to fix rather than to cease a behavior?

Keith: Yeah, but I think it’s a sim­ple thing in our psy­chol­o­gy. People grew up in a cul­ture of scarci­ty over mil­len­nia, and peo­ple want stuff. And so they make deci­sions to get more stuff. And that’s a pro­found thing, but I don’t think it’s like an easy cul­tur­al fix.

Anderson: Right, so there’s—

Keith: Fundamentally it’s that desire for stuff, the con­sump­tion that’s dri­ving CO2 emis­sions, and it’s hard to restrain. 

But I don’t want to pre­tend geo­engi­neer­ing is just like all the oth­er deci­sions. I think that the fan­tas­tic and fright­en­ing pow­er, the fact that a very tiny amount of mon­ey, which is equiv­a­lent to say­ing a very small num­ber of peo­ple and hard­ware, can alter the entire planet’s cli­mate, poten­tial­ly in ways that are dis­as­trous— It doesn’t need to be dis­as­trous. My sense is that geo­engi­neer­ing can indeed pro­vide lots of ben­e­fits if used sen­si­bly. The fact that we have that huge lever­age I think forces some deci­sions about glob­al gov­er­nance, in the same way I think it’s a very tight anal­o­gy to nuclear weapons.

So there are lots of ways to think about what has hap­pened since the inven­tion of nuclear weapons. Certainly we’ve lived on a knife edge, and we still do. But it’s also true that the rea­son we haven’t had a real war since 1945 is because they exist. Many peo­ple will think, what is this idiot? not think­ing about a real war. But what war meant for a lot of say the sort of stan­dard European civ­i­liza­tion, war more or less meant that the dom­i­nant coun­tries of the day went at it with all they had. And with the advent of nuclear weapons, that won’t work. 

We’ve had a bunch of proxy wars which were absolute­ly hideous for the peo­ple in them. But by many objec­tive mea­sures, we’re much less bad than World War II. And we haven’t had a nuclear war. And I think the rea­son is that ulti­mate­ly, the polit­i­cal lead­ers (more than the mil­i­tary in many cas­es), when push came to shove real­ized that nuclear weapons made war unus­able. And as a con­se­quence we’ve had this long peri­od of peace of expan­sion, which I think is relat­ed to nuclear weapons. But we’ve also had a dri­ve to more glob­al­iza­tion of deci­sions. Which is won­der­ful, because nuclear weapons and nation states are incom­pat­i­ble. We can­not live on this plan­et with the old idea of the way nation states were and have a world of nuclear weapons. It won’t work. 

In the end, nuclear weapons force us to devel­op some sys­tem of glob­al gov­er­nance. Because it’s do that or die. And we could still fall off the cliff and die. And it’s not like some sin­gle moment where we sign a glob­al treaty and it’s all sweet­ness and light. But bit by bit, in all sorts of lit­tle ways, deci­sions are becom­ing more glob­al­ized in the world, and that’s a good thing because it pro­tects us from the ulti­mate catastrophe.

And I think that geo­engi­neer­ing is the same thing. So, the geo­engi­neer­ing tech­nolo­gies, in the end, can only sta­bly be decid­ed in a way that’s sort of glob­al and some­what demo­c­ra­t­ic. In the sense that if we make gross­ly unde­mo­c­ra­t­ic deci­sions about them, that will cause ten­sions that could lead to war. And so they’re yet anoth­er spur for us to devel­op these meth­ods of glob­al gov­er­nance, and essen­tial­ly we have a race between tech­nol­o­gists devel­op­ing more and more poten­tial­ly ben­e­fi­cial and hideous things, and our abil­i­ty to gov­ern our­selves and make decisions.

Anderson: I mean, when I think about that race, that sort of ter­ri­fies me, right. And it also feels like a race that when I debate with myself, is this some­thing we can be opt­ed out of? And obvi­ous­ly fram­ing it as inevitable makes it inevitable.

Keith: Yeah. So that’s a great question. 

Anderson: But you know, there’s the respon­si­bil­i­ty. I think of Oppenheimer and the guilt of cre­at­ing the Bomb. Because you may cre­ate some­thing, and in the con­text of World War II. It may be won­der­ful. And then you may be liv­ing in the Cold War era and think, Good god, the politi­cians are run­ning away with this. The mil­i­tary is run­ning away with this.” I mean, do you ever wor­ry that you’re going to have that moment, as some­one who’s devel­op­ing geo­engi­neer­ing technology?

Keith: Oh, yes. I mean, I already have in some ways. I’m one of the peo­ple who—not so much as a devel­op­er, maybe—but I’m one of the peo­ple who argued peo­ple should take this seri­ous­ly. And I was one of the rel­a­tive­ly ear­ly ones to do that over twen­ty years. And now that peo­ple have tak­en it more seri­ous­ly, not nec­es­sar­i­ly because of my action, I def­i­nite­ly am ter­ri­fied there’ll be a rush to do it and the con­se­quences could be very bad. And so I wor­ry about that a lot. On the oth­er hand, I think that it’s bet­ter to talk about these things than to not talk about them when they’re fun­da­men­tal­ly there.

But I do wish there were ways to slow down. And I think we should look for things that actu­al­ly do delib­er­ate­ly slow down deci­sions and add kind of…inertia to some of these deci­sions, because I think that means less chance of real disasters. 

Anderson: Perfect world sce­nario, what does a bet­ter future look like?

Keith: Yeah… I don’t feel cre­ative enough to try. [both laugh] I have trou­ble say­ing any­thing that’s not going to sound kind of trite and incre­men­tal. You’re a lit­tle bit bet­ter at democ­ra­cy, and a lit­tle bit bet­ter at mak­ing these deci­sions, and a few less peo­ple get killed. And we’re a lit­tle bet­ter on the envi­ron­ment. But that sounds real­ly kind of painful­ly foolish.

And I think I appre­ci­ate more than I used to that a bunch of the ways that humans are is prob­a­bly genet­i­cal­ly shaped. And it’s not very real­is­tic to imag­ine some sorts of dra­mat­ic changes.

Anderson: Is that a cop out?

Keith: No… [Aengus laughs] Well, one thing is we could poten­tial­ly change our genome…

Anderson: And that’s been a big theme in this project. [crosstalk] I wish we had more time I don’t want even want to open the tran­shu­man­ist can of worms.

Keith: Yeah. So, I’ve had these kind of fun­ny debates with peo­ple about what you would do if you real­ly want­ed to cut con­sump­tion. And obvi­ous­ly my answer’s you change the genet­ics of people’s desire to have con­sump­tion. But I mean, I don’t real­ly think that that’s a plau­si­ble thing to do.

Anderson: I was going to say, how do you square that with this sort of biocentrism? 

So, here you are try­ing to artic­u­late a posi­tion that real­ly encour­ages a lot of think­ing that involves nuance, that involve data sets, that involves a type of knowl­edge that a lot of peo­ple may not have. And I’m sort of curi­ous, just based on your expe­ri­ence, do you think con­ver­sa­tion is one of these things that changes his­tor­i­cal moments? Or is it just sort of coin­ci­dence, or force or…marketing?

Keith: No, I think con­ver­sa­tions are fun­da­men­tal. I think they are what change and shape people’s views about things. One of the things the social sci­ence com­mu­ni­ty has real­ized when you try and poll peo­ple about what do they think about geo­engi­neer­ing, and which I’ve done, is that peo­ple don’t have well-formed views about things they don’t rou­tine­ly inter­act with. And so those polls are to some extent mean­ing­less, includ­ing our own work and we freely admit that. And that peo­ple only real­ly form their views about geo­engi­neer­ing or whether they like a cer­tain new kind of Internet phe­nom­e­na once they’ve engaged with it and con­versed with it. And so I think con­ver­sa­tions, the social net­work that peo­ple have with oth­er peo­ple, are absolute­ly the cen­ter of how our views are shaped, and there­fore what deci­sions we make on these topics.

So I mean, one of things I have real­ly enjoyed about work­ing on geo­engi­neer­ing is the strange bed­fel­low nature. So, there are the strange ways in which it cuts across the tra­di­tion­al right/left divide in ways that are very sur­pris­ing. It’s cer­tain­ly not true that every­body in the envi­ron­men­tal community’s against. There are plen­ty of peo­ple in the core of the envi­ron­men­tal com­mu­ni­ty who are very very sup­port­ive. And then on the flip side there are peo­ple in the Right who on the one hand would like to say cli­mate change is real, but then they kind of love to stick it to peo­ple on the Left, and they kind of like a tech­no­log­i­cal fix. So the fun thing is it kind of reshuf­fles the deck in an inter­est­ing way and gets peo­ple to talk to each oth­er in a way they might not have.

And the cli­mate con­ver­sa­tion, after all, was pro­found­ly stale. It kind of devolved into a kind of trench war­fare. And so I think one of the fun things about this top­ic is it helps to move things around a lit­tle bit in a way that might actu­al­ly be help­ful in not just mak­ing bet­ter deci­sions about geo­engi­neer­ing, but in mak­ing bet­ter deci­sions more broadly. 

You start­ed with a ques­tion about val­ue. Those are ques­tions I spend a lot of time think­ing and talk­ing about it. And I think geo­engi­neer­ing forces peo­ple to get seri­ous about what val­ues are at the root of deci­sions about cli­mate change that they can often oth­er­wise ignore. And I think that even if we do noth­ing about geo­engi­neer­ing, hav­ing that con­ver­sa­tion about val­ues in a seri­ous way is the only way we’re going to get to sen­si­ble deci­sions about cli­mate change.

Anderson: Do you think the con­ver­sa­tion is hap­pen­ing now, in a broad­er way?

Keith: Not… I don’t know. I care about it immense­ly, so it’s easy to wish that it was. I think these con­ver­sa­tions tend to hap­pen more in times that are trou­bled. So I think that when the money’s rolling in, most people’s incli­na­tion is just to par­ty. And I think that in times where the world seems stuck or at a cross­roads, then peo­ple are more will­ing to think about what these future choic­es are. And so in some ways, we’re in such a time, but but only part­ly, I think. And that may mean peo­ple are more will­ing to have these conversations. 

Anderson: So, a lit­tle bit of an eco­nom­ic kick to the stom­ach and we could be more will­ing to have those conversations.

Keith: Yeah, prob­a­bly. But it’s not sim­ply eco­nom­ic. It’s some sense that we real­ly don’t know where to go. I mean, I do won­der about American democ­ra­cy, and in gen­er­al democ­ra­cy in the West. Ultimately, what are peo­ple in Washington sup­posed to do, or the oth­er Western cap­i­tals? They’re sup­posed to man­u­fac­ture deci­sions. And I feel that increas­ing­ly, it’s become dif­fi­cult to make any big deci­sions. And I think in that sense our democ­ra­cy isn’t work­ing very well. And my ques­tion is what hap­pens as more peo­ple become con­vinced of that view?

At some point, we have to make more deci­sions on these big top­ics, and if our democ­ra­cy isn’t work­ing, we have to fix it in some way that isn’t about one par­ty win­ning. It’s about deep surgery. And I think we’re not there yet, but I can imag­ine us get­ting there in a decade or two, espe­cial­ly if America real­ly begins to stag­nate and kind of vis­i­bly fall behind on account of its inabil­i­ty to make decisions.


Aengus Anderson: So, before we start any­thing I think it’s worth not­ing that this is one of the short­est con­ver­sa­tions I’ve record­ed. It was prob­a­bly fifty min­utes. Knew that at the out­set. As a gen­er­al rule, I’m real­ly wary of record­ing con­ver­sa­tions that short, espe­cial­ly now that we’re lat­er in the project and there’s a lot of stuff to talk about, and we kind of need wig­gle room to explore dif­fer­ent intel­lec­tu­al alleys. So, giv­en that I am real­ly hap­py with how this con­ver­sa­tion turned out. There’s a lot of mate­r­i­al in here.

Micah Saul: Yeah, I think ideas per sec­ond, this is one of the highest-density con­ver­sa­tions we’ve had.

Anderson: Yeah. And it’s fab­u­lous because David is an incred­i­bly orga­nized thinker, and a very clear speak­er. You can tell that he’s spo­ken pub­licly a lot, because he’s just real­ly good at it, and there’s no wast­ed time with him.

Saul: So, because there was no wast­ed time let’s not waste any more time, and just jump into this.

Anderson: So, util­i­tar­i­an­ism, innate val­ue. This is a big dif­fer­ence between a lot of oth­er con­ver­sa­tions we’ve had. When we’ve talked about jus­ti­fi­ca­tions for pre­serv­ing the nat­ur­al world in one state or anoth­er, a lot of peo­ple we’ve talked to have giv­en us util­i­tar­i­an argu­ments. Even thinkers who are bio­cen­trists and may have spir­i­tu­al rea­sons for pre­serv­ing the nat­ur­al world? They’ll often say, Look, you don’t have to be behind that. Here’s a rea­son why sav­ing the nat­ur­al world helps you as a person.”

Saul: Right.

Anderson: And I think what I real­ly like about David is he’s will­ing to go you know what? That is not a com­pelling argu­ment. If we’re going to talk about pre­serv­ing the nat­ur­al world, there’s one val­ue ques­tion, and that is Is there some innate val­ue that pos­ter­i­ty might want?”

Saul: Right. I think that’s huge. To real­ly chal­lenge the pre­sumed way to win or to con­vince peo­ple that some­thing is worth sav­ing. To chal­lenge that as being non-scientific, and say­ing, No, lis­ten. There maybe isn’t actu­al­ly a sci­en­tif­ic rea­son that we need to pre­serve the nat­ur­al envi­ron­ment. But we need to pre­serve the nat­ur­al envi­ron­ment because it does have this innate val­ue, and I tru­ly believe that,” he says. And you know, this is not the stereo­typ­i­cal sci­en­tist per­spec­tive at all, is it? 

Anderson: Well, it feels like he’s fear­less­ly going into a con­ver­sa­tion about val­ues, and I real­ly like that he says you know, I have this tech­ni­cal knowl­edge, but that doesn’t make me any more or less good at ques­tions of value.”

Saul: Right.

Anderson: You know, this is a con­ver­sa­tion every­one can have and every­one needs to be hav­ing. And he’s will­ing to pub­licly say that. Which I think is some­thing that I don’t know, I real­ly respect that in sci­en­tists. And I feel that some­thing that’s real­ly impor­tant for them to do.

Saul: Yeah, no. I agree com­plete­ly. I men­tion­ing on the out­set, I saw a strong Raffensperger echo through this con­ver­sa­tion. And this is real­ly where it comes in. What’s inter­est­ing is that unlike Raffensperger, David Keith is very much embed­ded in sci­ence the insti­tu­tion. And so to have that cri­tique of util­i­tar­i­an­ism from with­in sci­ence I think is a very pow­er­ful thing.

Anderson: And you know, when we record­ed Raffensperger’s episode and we talked about util­i­tar­i­an­ism, we cri­tiqued her and said well, util­i­ty is a wide open thing, is she crit­i­ciz­ing the right cat­e­go­ry? And in this, case I think we could still actu­al­ly say the same thing. You know, if we want­ed to be strict and real­ly get down to what is util­i­tar­i­an­ism as a philo­soph­i­cal con­cept, if util­i­ty is pro­tect­ing the innate val­ue of nature? util­i­tar­i­an­ism maybe kind of a straw man here. What we may be going after is anthro­pocen­tric values—

Saul: Right.

Anderson: —that are being achieved through a util­i­tar­i­an frame­work. Utilitarianism real­ly is a big tent.

Saul: Yeah, it’s too vague of a word. Really what we’re talk­ing about here is not just anthro­pocen­tric val­ues. It’s quan­tifi­able anthro­pocen­tric value. 

Anderson: Explain that a lit­tle more to me.

Saul: I would argue that pro­tect­ing some­thing because we believe it has innate val­ue is also still in some ways an anthro­pocen­tric view. And this may just be a prob­lem with the anthropocentric/biocentric divide, which I think has come up before.

Anderson: Right. You can nev­er get away from being anthro­pocen­tric. Sure.

Saul: Because we are in fact just people.

Anderson: Yes. Actually, that leads us into anoth­er point that I think is real­ly impor­tant that has been a big­ger themed recent­ly. As we’ve been talk­ing about quan­tifi­a­bil­i­ty, what can we as peo­ple know, what sort of choic­es do we make as we attempt to man­age and reg­u­late the nat­ur­al world. Whether it’s for our ben­e­fit or for some­thing else’s ben­e­fit. It’s Wes Jackson and Robert Zubrin that real­ly sort of set the para­me­ters of the what can we know” con­ver­sa­tion. And I feel that we return to that here, and kind of com­bine bits and pieces of both, don’t we?

Saul: And in var­i­ous places through­out the con­ver­sa­tion we get dif­fer­ent sides, I think, of real­ly what Keith thinks about what is know­able. But right off the bat, I would say that he feels that we may not be able to know every­thing, but we can know a lot. We can know most.

Anderson: Yeah, that sense of drop­ping agri­cul­ture under glass…

Saul: Right. I think it’s not nec­es­sar­i­ly explic­it here that he thinks we can ful­ly know a sys­tem. But that seems a pret­ty strong indi­ca­tion that he does. The idea that we can cut our­selves off from the nat­ur­al world, com­plete­ly, and still main­tain an agri­cul­tur­al sys­tem. That seems to me to sug­gest he believes well, agri­cul­ture is a solved sys­tem. Biology is a solved system? 

Anderson: Maybe? And that was what I found real­ly intrigu­ing. Because we’ve had peo­ple on this project who would say that is patent­ly wrong. And I think some of our thinkers who are root­ed in biol­o­gy would say, Well, that’s the think­ing of a physi­cist. That’s the think­ing of some­one who deals with per­fect, clean sys­tems very often.” And of course, David is work­ing with atmos­pher­ic things that are not per­fect or clean and are very nuanced and com­pli­cat­ed. But, I can eas­i­ly imag­ine Jackson point­ing that out and say­ing, You drop that sys­tem under glass, there are a mil­lion exter­nal­i­ties.” Like, David Keith talks about the chem­i­cal process­es. We don’t need the megafau­na for these under­ly­ing sys­tems of the nitro­gen cycle to be work­ing. But…what if we do, you know? And I think that’s kind of the ques­tion Tim Morton would ask us. Eh, he wouldn’t ask us. He would say, Look, everything’s con­nect­ed to every­thing. Until you put it under glass, you have no idea what strange rela­tion­ship the polar bear might have to that.”

Saul: Right. That’s the big one. And here we get to that big bio­log­i­cal sys­tem which I don’t think he’s real­ly giv­ing it enough cre­dence here.

Anderson: I agree with you, and I won­der if part of my… I can hear Wes Jackson going, Hubris!” And I won­der how much of this in my part like, is tap­ping into a dif­fer­ent sense. A sense of well, val­ues and moral­i­ty. We’re talk­ing about hubris in a sci­en­tif­ic way. What can you real­ly live with­out in terms of parts of the ecosys­tem. But part of me just thinks god, the con­ceit to think that we could put agri­cul­ture under glass. [laughs] You know, maybe that’s some sort of like 17th cen­tu­ry Puritan in me think­ing that.

Saul: So, while we’re on the sub­ject of the agri­cul­ture under glass thing, this actu­al­ly brings up one of my biggest prob­lems with the con­ver­sa­tion. It’s all well and good for us to say we can put agri­cul­ture under glass. But then he’s got that lit­tle aside. Maybe not China, maybe not India.

Anderson: I can hear you chan­nel­ing the spir­it of Ethan Zuckerman, actu­al­ly.

Saul: Absolutely. If we can ignore a quar­ter of the world’s pop­u­la­tion… And grant­ed this is a hypo­thet­i­cal con­ver­sa­tion about putting agri­cul­ture under glass, you know. He’s just try­ing to show that we’re sep­a­rat­ed from the nat­ur­al world. But the same argu­ment, if at least a quar­ter of the world’s pop­u­la­tion, and I’m assum­ing even larg­er than that, can’t afford to do this, if we can ignore them when talk­ing about the fact that we are sep­a­rat­ed from nature… I mean, are we talk­ing about big sys­tems at all, then?

Anderson: Well, I would say, are we sep­a­rat­ed from nature? Are we tru­ly sep­a­rat­ed from nature if—and I’m going to try to antic­i­pate where you’re going with this—if the social and eco­nom­ic and cul­tur­al pres­sures from these oth­er coun­tries actu­al­ly make it impos­si­ble to put these things under glass, right? 

Saul: Right.

Anderson: So, maybe you aren’t real­ly sep­a­rat­ed from nature, because the rest of human­i­ty, which is part of nature, is out there and prob­a­bly doesn’t want you to put it under glass. Or will prob­a­bly break your glass and try to get in. And obvi­ous­ly we’re we’re play­ing with a hypo­thet­i­cal built on a hypo­thet­i­cal here. And of course I know that David would nev­er advo­cate the first world putting agri­cul­ture under glass and he was just doing that to illus­trate a point. But I think this is… Yeah, I think you bring up some­thing real­ly impor­tant, which is, is that point real­ly illustrated?

Saul: And this actu­al­ly in some ways has an echo, very ear­ly in the con­ver­sa­tion, when he con­demns the idea of cli­mate change being an exis­ten­tial cri­sis. But

Anderson: But Bangladesh?

Saul: Pacific islands?

Anderson: And this is some­thing we’ve talked about before, too. With Alexander Rose, with Jan Lundberg. What’s your time­frame? Who is includ­ed in exis­ten­tial?” And some of that was obvi­ous­ly time. There were roads that we couldn’t go down.

Saul: Yeah, no. Exactly.

Anderson: You know what’s fun­ny, we’ve just had this enor­mous con­ver­sa­tion about this episode, and we have bare­ly talked about the moral­i­ty of geo­engi­neer­ing, or some of the oth­er parts of geo­engi­neer­ing, the con­ver­sa­tion it sparks. How did we get this far with­out talk­ing about geoengineering.

Saul: It’s indica­tive of what a big ques­tion geo­engi­neer­ing is. And what an impor­tant ques­tion geo­engi­neer­ing is. And I think that’s some­thing that David Keith does very very well, is point out the big ram­i­fi­ca­tions of this. You know, I’m cri­tiquing it on one hand for not rec­og­niz­ing sys­tems, but on the oth­er hand he very much rec­og­nizes that con­ver­sa­tion about this is going to affect every­thing. His com­par­i­son between geo­engi­neer­ing and nuclear tech­nol­o­gy I think was very apt. The idea that the nuclear bomb sud­den­ly changed the con­ver­sa­tion about war. I think he’s absolute­ly right. I think geo­engi­neer­ing is going to change the con­ver­sa­tion about how glob­al gov­er­nance works.

Anderson: You know, there’s an odd con­nec­tion, a real­ly cool con­nec­tion, with John Fife right there, in terms of mak­ing the nation state obso­lete. Fife gets to that idea through the notion that all peo­ple are equal under God, and so the nation state is this arbi­trary divi­sion of them. And here we are with David Keith get­ting to that notion through the idea of we have cre­at­ed tech­nol­o­gy so big and so pow­er­ful that the nation state is utter­ly insuf­fi­cient to deal with it. You couldn’t have more eclec­tic ways of get­ting to the idea of the nation state being obsolete.

You know, as we’re talk­ing about geo­engi­neer­ing and the nation state and decision-making, David leaves us with, are we frozen polit­i­cal­ly? Can we even make big deci­sions any­more? But ear­li­er, he does men­tion maybe it would be bet­ter if we made slow­er deci­sions. And I won­der is there a con­tra­dic­tion there? Are those things apply­ing to dif­fer­ent con­ver­sa­tions? Is one sci­en­tif­ic and is one polit­i­cal? Because at first when I heard that I thought oh, he’s real­ly con­tra­dict­ed him­self. And then when I went through again and I edit­ed more and I lis­tened a lit­tle bit more deeply I began to won­der, is the first one kind of a pre­cau­tion­ary prin­ci­ple throw­back? Do we need more sci­en­tif­ic drag? And is the sec­ond one specif­i­cal­ly polit­i­cal? I don’t know, what you think of that?

Saul: So, I don’t know. In some ways I think it’s fair­ly clear through­out the con­ver­sa­tion that this is one of the ten­sions that he’s just strug­gling with. How much tech­nol­o­gy, how fast of tech­no­log­i­cal inno­va­tion can we real­ly han­dle? Can gov­ern­ment real­ly handle?

Anderson: Can moral­i­ty handle?

Saul: Can moral­i­ty han­dle. We’re just peo­ple. Can peo­ple real­ly handle?

Anderson: Well, that’s a small ques­tion. Let’s leave it there.

That was David Keith, record­ed at Harvard University, October 25th, 2012 in Cambridge, Massachusetts.

Saul: This is The Conversation. You can find us on Twitter at @aengusanderson and on the web at find​the​con​ver​sa​tion​.com

Anderson: So thanks for lis­ten­ing. I’m Aengus Anderson.

Saul: And I’m Micah Saul.

Further Reference

This interview at the Conversation web site, with project notes, comments, and taxonomic organization specific to The Conversation.


Help Support Open Transcripts

If you found this useful or interesting, please consider supporting the project monthly at Patreon or once via Square Cash, or even just sharing the link. Thanks.