Could geoengineering ever start? Could it ever stop? Grist for “Destiny Studies” and “Continuity Ethics”

In the 21st century, humanity will fit comfortably on the Earth only with strenuous effort. Not only are we in charge of our collective future, but we must govern ourselves attentively to assure that this future will be a wholesome and sustainable one. A new academic domain of inquiry, “Destiny Studies,” and a related ethics, “Continuity Ethics,” are emerging from this reckoning. Here we explore geoengineering, a particularly vexing example of Destiny Studies, and specifically how geoengineering might get started and how it might stop. Starting will reflect whether the associated emergency is gradual or sudden, and starting may well be hobbled by a lack of scientific consensus about how the threat will evolve. Stopping will may be uncontroversial, if some unforeseen dire consequence of plunging ahead emerges. But stopping might be strongly resisted, if deployment has already led to more subtle capabilities, such as regional geoengineering that prevents the arrival of various tipping points. If geoengineering indeed becomes increasingly agile, why would humanity want to phase it out? Rather than geoengineering transitioning after 50 to 100 years to an epoch of extensive carbon dioxide removal (a favored scenario today), a future where geoengineering becomes addictive and permanently changes humanity’s relationship with nature seems plausible. As many intuit, deploying geoengineering resembles crossing the Rubicon. Evidently, Destiny Studies requires fresh thinking and informed cross-fertilization across academia.