Abstract: Climate engineering is subject to the “playing God” critique, which charges that humans should not undertake to control nature in ways that seem to overstep the proper scope of human agency. This argument is easily discredited, and in fact the opposite—that we should “play God”—may be equally valid in some circumstances. To revive the playing God critique, I argue that it functions not on a logical but on a symbolic and emotional level to highlight nostalgia for functional dualisms in the face of the bewildering problem of climate change. It also raises significant questions about the virtue of those who might engineer the climate. These two concerns point to questions about the proper role of human agency. I use the scholarship of Aldo Leopold and H. Richard Niebuhr to argue for a model of human agency based on contextual awareness and responsive, communal responsibility. I conclude with some implications of this view for decision-makers engaging the topic of climate engineering.
Keywords: playing God, geoengineering, virtue, Aldo Leopold, H. Richard Niebuhr, humility, modesty, responsibility, context, human agency
Full article available to subscribers only. Click here for access.
More in this issue
Fall 2017 (31.3) • Review
Power Shift: On the New Global Order by Richard Falk
Richard Falk’s most recent book is full of interesting insights and displays an impressive degree of rhetorical power. Collectively, these essays demonstrate, rather convincingly, ...
![](https://cdn.carnegiecouncil.org/media/eia/_900x525_crop_center-center_none_ns/MLK.jpg?v=1721237966)
Fall 2017 (31.3) • Essay
Ethics and the Foundation of Global Justice
Can the idea of justice be global in scope? In this essay, Amartya Sen challenges the dominant theories of justice in contemporary political philosophy, asserting ...
Fall 2017 (31.3) • Review
Briefly Noted
A brief book review of Susan P. Murphy's Responsibility in an Interconnected World: International Assistance, Duty, and Action.