Thursday, July 9, 2015

GEOENGINEERING

Climate change has become a household issue nowadays. With the raising global temperature, causing virulent variation in weather patterns compared from the past and increasing sea level, climate change has become evident, most especially in communities and countries situated along coastal areas. Climate change has been blamed for the intensification of typhoons, longer drought, and desertification of some areas. It affects billions of people around the globe, causing inestimable damages to properties and loss of lives. It is so harmfulthat its issue has been brought to various global forums for discussions. Though some quarters of scientists and skeptics denies it existence and relevance to the changes in weather patterns, Climate change has been blamed by the majority of scientists and observers analyzing these various calamities that visited numbers of communities and countries. Considering these situations and their connections to climate change, scientists today propose mitigating measures on how man can deal with climate change. One of these measures is geoengineering. 

Climate change is the modification of the typical climate of the Earth. Each region and countries in the world has a distinctive climate, that is the averaged weather in a particular region. Philippines, for example, has a typical dry and wet climate. Climate change happens when this typical climates in various regions deviate from their ‘normal’ weather systems. Change may take place through an increase or decrease of usual rainfall, or change in warmness or coldness in a place in a given season. In a global scale, the Earth too suffers from climate change as the overall temperature of the Earth changes, or the change in the precipitation patterns.[1] Change in the Earth’s climate occurs naturally. In the past, the Earth’s climate had gone from cold to warm. These changes took place slowly, happening in span of millennia. But in recent times, scientists observed that the Earth’s climate changes in a drastic way, increasing by one degree Fahrenheit in the past 100 years. What could be the cause of this change? NASA states that:

Some causes of climate change are natural. These include changes in Earth's orbit and in the amount of energy coming from the sun. Ocean changes and volcanic eruptions are also natural causes of climate change. Most scientists think that recent warming can't be explained by nature alone. Most scientists say it's very likely that most of the warming since the mid-1900s is due to the burning of coal, oil and gas. Burning these fuels is how we produce most of the energy that we use every day. This burning adds heat-trapping gases, such as carbon dioxide, into the air. These gases are called greenhouse gases.[2]

In a more vivid and picturesque way, one can say that through climate change, the Earth is heat-up by the Sun due to the heat trapped on the Earth surface; heat blocked by greenhouse gases from bouncing back to the outer space. The greenhouse gases serve as blankets of the Earth, heating it up through the Sun’s heats. The trapped heat on the surface of the causes the melting of snow and ice caps in the North, rise in the sea level, causing floods through stronger typhoons and hurricanes, droughts and heat waves. 

Though some scientists and observers would opine otherwise, the fact of climate change is evidently manifested through numerous signs one can see in climatic phenomena in recent times. The global temperature has risen by 1.4 degree Fahrenheit and is expected to increase by two (2) to eleven degrees over the next century. Though the change seems to be little, this can proved to be lethal as it can trigger dangerous shift in climate patterns. The United States Environmental Protection Agency has this to say:

The evidence is clear. Rising global temperatures have been accompanied by changes in weather and climate. Many places have seen changes in rainfall, resulting in more floods, droughts, or intense rain, as well as more frequent and severe heat waves. The planet's oceans and glaciers have also experienced some big changes - oceans are warming and becoming more acidic, ice caps are melting, and sea levels are rising. As these and other changes become more pronounced in the coming decades, they will likely present challenges to our society and our environment.[3]

The change that is taking place on the Earth’s climate is primarily rooted in man’s various activities in the past centuries, starting from the era of Industrialization. Human activities release carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases in the atmosphere. This is through the burning of fossil fuel by energy plants, factories, automobiles and other machines. Deforestations, industrial processes and agricultural activities contribute too to the release of greenhouse gases. These gases placed in the Earth’s atmosphere prevents the sun light from  springing back to the space outside the earth. Though this phenomenon maybe natural, the excessive building-up of greenhouse gases deposits on the Earth’s atmosphere and the trapping of excessive heat causes the extreme change in the earth’s climate.

The ascertained fact of climate change caused by man pushed scientist and researchers to look for viable solution to prevent the continuing increase in global temperature, and avoid its catastrophic effects. Geoengineering is one of the solutions tendered. It contests that through this technology the change in earth’s climate may be hauled down. 

Geoengineering primarily deals with the man’s enhancement of nature to mitigate the progress of climate change. It is the deliberate large-scale intervention in the Earth’s natural systems to counteract climate change.[4] As mentioned above, the primary cause of change in climate is due to the heat trapped by the excessive greenhouse gases on Earth’s atmosphere. Geoengineering attempts to address the problem of excessive greenhouse gases deposit on the Earth’s atmosphere.  This technology proposes two ways through which this goal can be realized, namely  Solar Radiation Management (SRM) or Solar Geoengineering and Carbon Dioxide Removal (CDR) or Carbon Geoengineering.

Solar Radiation Management (SRM) or Solar Geoengineering is the pumping of sulfates into the atmosphere. The pumped sulfates can then serve as the earth’s shield from the heat of the Sun. The layers of sulfates on Earth’s atmosphere can prevent the entry of excessive heat coming from the Sun. Solar Geoengineering is based on the investigations on the effects of the 1991 eruption of Mt. Pinatubo. The eruption released 20 million tons of sulfur that were dispersed around the globe’s atmosphere.  This phenomenon shield the Earth from the heat of the Sun. It caused the drop of global temperature to less than one(1) Fahrenheit for one whole year. This phenomenon is seen as antidote to the climate change, to the warming of earth’s surface. Scientists, led by David Keith, propose the simulation of the same event in a global scale, aimed to shield the earth from the harmful rays of the Sun. Nicola Jones describes the processes as follows:

A fleet of ten Gulf stream jets could be used to annually inject 25,000 tons of sulfur — as finely dispersed sulfuric acid, for example — into the lower stratosphere. That would be ramped up to a million tons of sulfur per year by 2070, in order to counter about half of the world’s warming from greenhouse gases. The idea is to combine such a scheme with emissions cuts, and keep it running for about twice as long as it takes for CO2 concentrations in the atmosphere to level out. [5]

Through the solar engineering, the entry of the Sun’s rays would be mitigated. Keith projects that the Earth would warm-up to one degree Celsius, instead of two degrees at the end of the century. 



Carbon Dioxide Removal (CDR) or Carbon Geoengineering, as the archetypal definition of geoengineering, is designed to interfere to Earth’s climatic system at present, particularly dealing with the reduction of greenhouse gases. It would realize such end by removing, capturing and storing carbon dioxide from the Earth’s atmosphere to underground and underwater repositories. The CDR technology can be fulfilled either through land-based method, or ocean-based method. The land-based method involves carbon filtration systems directed to the ground storage.  The ocean-based method employs the use of substances such as iron, nitrogen and phosphorus to fertilize the ocean surface. The fertilization of ocean surface will encourage the growth of algae that would feed on carbon dioxide in the ocean and eventually in the atmosphere.[6] Through the reduction and eventual removal of Carbon Dioxide and other dangerous greenhouse gases, the heat coming from the Sun can freely bounce back to the outer space. Thus, such process can drastically alleviate the warming of the globe, albeit it would take a lot of time and resources before the process’ effects can be felt. 

Geoengineering promises a fix to the worsening climate change, through Solar Radiation Management (SRM) or Solar Geoengineering and Carbon Dioxide Removal (CDR) or Carbon Geoengineering. Both aims to reduce the amount global temperature either by limiting the entry of searing heat of the sun, or by removing the suffocating carbon dioxide deposit on Earth’s atmosphere. However, both mitigating measures face ethical questions as they are on the verge of full-blown development.

These Geoengineering technologies may be good in their known intent and motives; that is the mitigation of climate change. However, the means they intend to use to reach such end istainted with ethical questions that stand against the advancement of these technologies and their subsequent application.  

The extent of research done in SRM and CDR is questioned. The extent of research would indicate the extent of knowledge about them, particularly their consequences, should they be applied. Plenty of questions are raised on the SRM. How small would the sulfuric particles be? Would they be so small that they might be inhaled human? Would these particles not add-up to the air pollutants that at present pester various mega-cities around the globe?  Who would determine the world’s ‘thermostat’? Would such issue on the world’s ‘thermostat’ not ignite conflicts between powerful nations? Does geoengineering would real address the root causes of the problem of climate change, or would it simply cure the symptoms of a greater problem?

Through these barrage of questions, one would realize that it is not only the means that geoengineering would employ that is questionable. Even the end and the very problem it would like to address prove to be problematic and irrelevant to the real situation of man. Why should one focus on alleviating the symptoms instead of curing directly a curable disease? Why should one focus on mitigating the effects of climate change when one should pay attention on its primary cause? Why is there excessive carbon deposit in the atmosphere and other greenhouse gases? Why is there too much and too rapid industrialization? Why is there so much greed and consumerism in world politics andeconomy? How does man view and understand the earth where he lived in, in relation with him? Why is there rampant disregard on man’s integral connection with the entire cosmos?Geoengineeringis manifestations of man’s avoidance of the real problem that is at hand; rapid ethically-unscrutinized technological progress.

Research and knowledge about geoengineering is limited at present. As discussed above the extent of information know about this technology is limited, particular on the consequences of the release of sulfate aerosols in the Earth’s atmosphere. Though research and studies continue, they have to be done in a pre-cautionary manner, guided by the ethical approach paripassu. Geoengineering may be the solution to the changing global climate, but let it not be a technological fix that would only beget another problem in the near future.

Geoengineering, should it be implemented, would only encourage the continuation and progress of ill practices that contribute to the increase of greenhouse gases deposit on Earth’s atmosphere; the generation of energy through burning of fossil fuels and operations of coal plants, unlimited mining and drilling of resources. After all, why should man trim-down his carbon emission if he can be shielded from the heat of the Sun? Trimming-down one’s carbon emission has a great detrimental repercussion in the economic order, as major industries are dependent on fossil fuels and coals. Geoengineering can possibly tolerate the ill practices of man in relation to climate change as it guarantees man with a protection from the harmful heat of the Sun. This technology can only serve as a fertile ground to further grow consumerism and economic greed.

Though man is the center of every development and technology, he must not be viewed separately from the entire cosmos. Man is a part of the cosmos. However, he is not the be all and end all of the created reality. Thus, development in this world must not only geared towards man’s well being but should also include that of the environment and of the future generations. Man’s anthropocentric worldview had brought this world to its present dismal state, with climate change as one of its consequences. In dealing with climate change, plans should consider the environmental impacts that man’s technology would be introducing, and the consequences it stores for the generations that are to come. Plans have to be environmental and intergenerational.   

The climate change is a real problem that man faces today. Geoengineering poses as a prospective solution to this pressing problem. But a closer look to the present state of research in this technology, it can only prove itself, for now, as a technological fix that can beget another problem. Tracing the root cause of climate change and addressing such can be a more viable solution in dealing with it; rapid unethical technological progress propelled by man’s greed and consumerist mindset. Climate change has to be addressed holistically, involving the environmental component in an intergenerational plan. This can be a long and slow process, compared to the instant fix that geonengineering offers. But this plan can prove to be more effective and viable at it address the very root cause of the problem; man’s anthropocentric attitude towards this world. 





[1]What Are Climate and Climate Change? Accessed from https://www.nasa.gov/audience/forstudents/5-8/features/what-is-climate-change-58.html#.VYZWqWSqqko on June 21, 2015.
[2]What Are Climate and Climate Change? Accessed from https://www.nasa.gov/audience/forstudents/5-8/features/what-is-climate-change-58.html#.VYZWqWSqqko on June 21, 2015.
[3]Climate Change: Basic Information Accessed from http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/basics/ on June 21, 2015.
[4]What Is Geoengineering? Accessed from http://www.geoengineering.ox.ac.uk/what-is-geoengineering/what-is-geoengineering/ on June 21, 2015.
[5]Nicola Jones, Solar Geoengineering: Weighing Costs of Blocking the Sun’s Rays, accessed from http://e360.yale.edu/feature/solar_geoengineering_weighing_costs_of_blocking_the_suns_rays/2727/ on June 21, 2015.
[6] Phil Anderson, CarbonDioxideRemoval, accessed from http://www.thecarbontree.com/geoengineering-part-4-carbon-dioxide-removal/ on June 21, 2015.


HEAD TRANSPLANT

On June 11, 2015 Sergio Canavero of the Turin Advanced Neuromodulation Group in Italy will announce a project at the annual conference of the American Academy of Neurological and Orthopaedic Surgeons (AANOS) in Annapolis, Maryland. As the keynote speaker of the said conference, he will unveil his project which he had initially announced in 2013. That will be the first human head transplant. He will present before medical practioners what will be the world's first attempt to transplant a human head from one’s original body to another.  Canavero published recently the summary of techniques he will be employing to realize such pioneering medical endeavor. Though still in its initial stage, Canavero’s prospect of human head transplant faces ethical questions as to the morality of transplanting a human head to another human body.

To St. Thomas Aquinas, man is composed of his body and soul. Human being is consist of a soul and a body. Thus the body is an integral part of the whole human being consisting of body and soul. A human being ceases to be such when he loses this body, for it is this body that his soul informs. The soul is so ingrained in this body so much so that Aquinas would even say that the soul is united to the body as its form, it must necessarily be in the whole body, and in each part thereof (ST I. Q76. A8). Sedquia anima uniturcorporiut forma, necesseest quod sit in toto, et in qualibet parte corporis. The soul being in every part of the body, and to the whole, enables the existence of a human being. Thus a particular human is because of a particular human soul that informs a particular body, becoming a human body. In the absence of a human soul, the human body ceases to be such and instead becomes a collection of bodies (organs). Thus vital to the integrity of the human being is the unity between his body and soul, more so the unity of the body.

The proposed human head transplant may posit issues on the integrity of the body and soul of a human being. The transferring of a human head to another human body trunk infers the decapitation of the head from its original trunk. Though one’s head may still be considered as one’s part of his body, a substantial portion of this body will be lost in the process of human head transplantation. This substantial portion of one’s body contributes a lot to the very identity of a human being; to his gender, race, metabolism, way of thinking etc. The dismembering of the human head from its proper human body causes the disintegration of the human body, of the human being; of the human soul from the particular human body it informs. Such disintegration has myriads of implications on the identity and functionality of human soul in relation with the ‘new’ human body trunk with which it is substantiality attached. Will the human being be the same human being before the human head transplantation, before being dismembered from its original body? Will he behave and think the same with its ‘new’ body? 

According to studies some people who have received face or limb transplants mourn the loss of their old body part or feel that their self image is conflicted (Helen Thomson, 6 things you're dying to ask about head transplants). The body trunk composed a substantial part of a human being. Removal of such would imply a removal of a substantial part of a human being. That can have a devastating effect on the psyche of the person such as the feeling of incompleteness (because of the loss part of the person) and alienation from the body (which does not originally belongs to the person) with which the head is attached. David Robson says that human beings tend to view the mind as an aloof, disembodied entity but it is becoming increasingly clear that the whole body is involved in the thinking process (David Robson, Your clever body: Thinking from head to toe).The thinking process, too, then can be affected by the human head transplantation as one will have a new body that is totally former to him and his way of thinking. This shows that a person’s trunk is a unique part of the human person that functions and contributes to the holistic well-being of the person. One may possess a new and healthy body, but it is undeniable that such is not his, that such is not the very body his soul informs.

These feelings and difficulties that a person who would undergo a head transplantation can be traced back from the disintegration of the unity between a substantial part of his body (trunk) and his soul; a substantial part that contributes to his identity and ways of thinking and living. The severing/cutting of the head from the trunk or decapitation causes the disintegration of the body. Such is clear example of amputation in a larger scale. The ethical principle of beneficence and non-maleficence or do no harm are in tension in this case. Will the head transplant contribute to the well-being of the person involve? It may. However, the devastating effects of having a different body, alien from you may posits otherwise. Base on a case mentioned above, persons who had undergone face transplant had psychological difficulty in accepting such change in their physique and the loss of a substantial part of the body. Will the surgery harm the person? It may not. However, the untested surgery with human persons and the uncertainties in the techniques proposed by Canavero posits otherwise. The life of the person engage with head transplant may be placed in danger by the untested surgery. Should the surgery be successful the psychological problems the person may face in having a new and alien body may postulate another problem.The ethical principles of beneficence and non-maleficence may be in tension in this case, in line with the integrity of the human body and soul. And they are tilting more to the negative as the life of the person involve in being placed in a risk not proportionate with the benefits he may gain.  

The human head transplantation may be promising as a potential beneficial surgery for those who are ill. The procedure may save the lives of many body recipients who would otherwise die.Many families suffering the loss of a loved one may take comfort in knowing that the body of their loved one made it possible for one dying person to live. But on the onset of its conceptualization various ethical questions are already raised pertaining to it; Who would be the body donors? Who would be the body recipients? How would the body procurement proceed? Who would decide who can donate or receive a body? How high is the probability of a successful transplants? How does it addresses the possibility of body rejection?  

There are surely a lot of ethical question regarding the possibility and implications of a human head transplantation. But for now this paper satisfies itself with the question on the disunity of the human soul with the substantial part of the human body. 

The Catechism of the Catholic Church teaches that those from the living are morally good so long as the dangers incurred by donor the donor are proportionate to the good sought for the recipient and those from the dead are noble and meritorious so long as valid consent has been given (No. 2296). The Ethical and Religious Directives for Catholic Health Care Services (ERDs) has similar teaching on organ donations from the living, specifying however that the donation will not sacrifice or seriously impair and essential functioning of the donor. It offers some important specifics on such procedures from the dead, e.g., only competent medical authorities ought to determine that a person has died, to avoid conflicts of interest the physician determining death ought not be a member of the transplant team (Directives, 62. 64).

ETHICAL DIMENSION OF NANOTECHNOLOGY

For centuries, man thought that the atom and its proton, neutron and electron are the minutest particles in the universe, but not until nanotechnology emerges. Nanotechnology boast the discovery of particles smaller than the atom and its parts. These are the so-called nanoparticles. Nanoparticles range in size from about one hundred(100)nanometer (nm) down to about one(1) nm. One(1) nm is one billionth of a meter. They are typically the size of small molecules, and far too small to see with a microscope.[1] Thus, nanotechnology deals with the smallest molecular particles; the nanoparticles.

The discovery of, and studies and experimentation on the nanoparticles enable the scientist to alter the particles’ arrangement. The alteration of nanoparticles arrangement, different from their natural configuration, results tochange in certain characteristics of the particles. And consequently these altered particles would also behave differently in a given environment, compared to their previous reactions, with their previous arrangement and configuration. For example, the nanoparticles of a piece of paper. With the help of laboratory equipment and the knowledge and skills of a ‘nanotechnician’, the nanoparticles in that piece of paper can be rearranged, altered into the arrangement of iron steel’s nanoparticles. In that way, the piece of paper can behave like a piece of steel; waterproof, fireproof, and with increased strength against resistance compared to an ordinary piece of paper. Some scientists had studied and done such re-arrangement of nanoparticles surface.[2]Their studies enabled them to produce new catalysts, new coatings, new computers, stronger and lighter building materials, sensors that detect individual substances in tiny amounts. To date, there are now various products in the market that use nanotechnology; from tennis ball to bulletproof vest.[3]With these, nanotechnology holds a lot of potentials in the present, more so in the near future; potentials that can contribute to the flourishing of human lives.

However, as nanotechnology progresses, ethical questions are raised about this novel technology. Whether on the integrity of the present available products that use nanotechnology in their innovation, or on the emerging potential products, ethical issues are placed forward, challenging the ethics behind the development of nanotechnology. Base on the products that may be developed through this technology, moralists ask diverse questions, as diverse as the products that this technology can develop. The question on the toxicity of nanoparticles in products that use this technology in their production and operation had attracted most of the attentions of its critics, particularly those products that are health related and health-risked, e.g. drug delivery, sunscreens, inhalable particles fro asbestos. As the toxicity of nanoparticles may endanger the health of a human person, it is also undeniable that it will also affect the natural environment as it introduces ‘new’ particles. There are also questions on the possible invasion of one’s privacy through miniaturize surveillance equipment. Questions on the meaning of human life are raised in relation to the possibility of enhancing human performance, physically and mentally. Inquiries are being discussed on the military armaments and weaponries, as this technology can contribute a lot on the development of chemical weapons and weapons of mass destructions. The issue of global distributive justice had also been advanced, as to whom the technology would be made available; Would it be available to the develop countries alone who can very much afford it, or would the developing countries who badly need such innovation be allowed to use it?[4]Indeed, there are many questions at the advent of this technology, as there are products that it begins to offer to the humankind.

As nanotechnology develops, understanding itsethical dimensions also progresses via questions and enquires raised pertaining to it. More and more, its ethical dimension holds preeminence vis-à-vis its potentials that are actualized, for such dimension would indicate its developments’ permissibility and acceptability by man.

Nanotechnology offers a technology that is based on the alteration of the nanoparticles natural arrangement and consequently its surface in consonance with the predetermined end, which is envisioned by man to attend to his needs. That seems to be fine as technology pertains to the improvement brought about by man for the satisfaction of his necessities.[5] It reforms nature to promote the good life; man’s flourishing. It is the rearrangement of the world’s furniture to maintain a decent lifestyle.[6] However, up to what extent can man re-arrange the world’s furniture to maintain a decent lifestyle?The development of nanotechnology can progress better if it take into serious consideration its ethical dimension in view of its social value. That is on how it can make man’s life better. However, man has to be understood not as few people who can afford such technology, but rather the entire humanity as a society, as a community. This technology, for it to be morally acceptable had to put in its center the welfare of the entire human race and not on the advancement of individual person. Putting aside egotistic motives can contribute t the furtherance of the research on this technology, taking the right track in view of the develop of human communities. 

As ethicists and moralists promotes the observance of precautionary principle in the development of nanotechnology, paripassu, perhaps the above question is an existential question that should accompany the development of nanotechnology or any alteration of nature or enhancement of that sort; up to what extent can man re-arrange the world’s furniture to maintain a decent lifestyle?Man should observe great caution in dealing with technology for in his attempt to reform nature, he might deform himself.




[1]Different substances and their properties accessed from http://www.bbc.co.uk/schools/gcsebitesize/science/add_aqa_pre_2011/atomic/differentsubrev4.shtml on June 16, 2015. 

[2] A. Ku¨hnle et al, Growth of Unidirectional Molecular Rows of Cysteine on Au(110)-1x2) Driven by Adsorbate-Induced Surface Rearrangements, in PHYSICAL REVIEW LETTERS, VOLUME 93, NUMBER 8, SEPTEMBER 2004. 

[3]The 9 Best Nanotechnology-Powered Products accessed from http://discovermagazine.com
/galleries/zen-photo/n/nanotech-products on June 16, 2015. 

[4] Ethics of Nanotechnology, International Encyclopedia of Ethics, ed. Hugh LaFollette, Wiley, 2013.

[5] John Weckert, Social Values and Nanotechnology. 

[6]Ibid.