Institute for Ethics and Emerging Technologies

The IEET is a 501(c)3 non-profit, tax-exempt organization registered in the State of Connecticut in the United States. Please give as you are able, and help support our work for a brighter future.

Search the IEET
Subscribe and Contribute to:

Technoprogressive? BioConservative? Huh?
Quick overview of biopolitical points of view

whats new at ieet

We Were Wrong About Limiting Children’s Screen Time

NASA Was about to Eat Itself — Then Private Enterprise Stepped In

Robert Reich on Basic Income

How the Universe Could Annihilate Itself at the Speed of Light

Le syndrome 1984 ou Gattaca

How we can start winning the war against cancer

ieet books

Philosophical Ethics: Theory and Practice
John G Messerly


almostvoid on 'How the Universe Could Annihilate Itself at the Speed of Light' (Oct 26, 2016)

mjgeddes on 'Can we build AI without losing control over it?' (Oct 25, 2016)

rms on 'Can we build AI without losing control over it?' (Oct 24, 2016)

spud100 on 'For the unexpected innovations, look where you'd rather not' (Oct 22, 2016)

spud100 on 'Have you ever inspired the greatest villain in history? I did, apparently' (Oct 22, 2016)

RJP8915 on 'Brexit for Transhumanists: A Parable for Getting What You Wish For' (Oct 21, 2016)

instamatic on 'What democracy’s future shouldn’t be' (Oct 20, 2016)

Subscribe to IEET News Lists

Daily News Feed

Longevity Dividend List

Catastrophic Risks List

Biopolitics of Popular Culture List

Technoprogressive List

Trans-Spirit List


Enframing the Flesh: Heidegger, Transhumanism, and the Body as “Standing Reserve”

Moral Enhancement and Political Realism

Intelligent Technologies and Lost Life

Hottest Articles of the Last Month

Blockchain Fintech: Programmable Risk and Securities as a Service
Oct 22, 2016
(4579) Hits
(0) Comments

IEET Fellow Stefan Sorgner to discuss most recent monograph with theologian Prof. Friedrich Graf
Oct 3, 2016
(4317) Hits
(0) Comments

Space Exploration, Alien Life, and the Future of Humanity
Oct 4, 2016
(4100) Hits
(1) Comments

All the Incredible Things We Learned From Our First Trip to a Comet
Oct 6, 2016
(3120) Hits
(0) Comments

IEET > Security > Biosecurity > Life > Vision > Fellows > Jamais Cascio

Print Email permalink (0) Comments (3490) Hits •  subscribe Share on facebook Stumble This submit to reddit submit to digg

Shaping the Anthropocene: Cascio on Climate Change

Jamais Cascio
By Jamais Cascio
Ethical Technology

Posted: Feb 13, 2013

One of the unfortunate truths of the climate crisis we’re in is that when we finally stop making things worse, it won’t suddenly make things better. The carbon dioxide we’ve put into the atmosphere and the oceans will persist for hundreds, even thousands of years; temperatures will remain high; many ecosystems will be permanently disrupted; and species driven to extinction—well, they’ll still be extinct. The eventual return to a planetary equilibrium won’t happen on anything approaching a human timescale.

This isn’t a story we like to hear. The heroic narrative of fighting global warming implies that victory will mean getting back the Earth we know and love. But the reality of the situation is that significant damage has already been done; putting a stop to carbon emissions still leaves us with a planetary mess.

It’s useful to consider the alternatives we’ll have when the time comes to start the cleanup. It may seem premature to be talking about what to do after we’ve put an end to using the atmosphere and ocean as a carbon dump, but it’s often useful to consider one’s eventual destination even when still trying to figure out the map. When that time comes, we’ll face a choice between trying to accelerate the return to the equilibrium the world has known for millennia, trying to adapt ourselves and our environment to the new normal, or simply adapting ourselves and letting the new environmental conditions evolve on their own. It’s a sobering set of options.

Accelerating the return to equilibrium would mean, at a minimum, direct intervention to reduce atmospheric and oceanic carbon loads; it would also likely require some effort to moderate temperatures at a planetary scale (aka geoengineering). A true return to equilibrium would come to depend on programs such as Stewart Brand and Ryan Phelan’s proposal to revive extinct species, and would necessitate extraordinary research into the nature of re-creating ecosystems, including everything from pollinating insects to soil microbes. It would be a massive undertaking and, to be clear, would not result in a return to pre-Anthropocene (or even pre-Industrial Age) conditions—too many species have been lost, and too many ecosystem changes are irreversible. Call this the “(Re)Terraforming” future—using every tool at our disposal to make the Earth Earth-like again.

None of these scenarios should sound especially appealing. We left the appealing scenarios behind decades ago.

Less ambitious (in comparison, at least) would be to attempt large-scale adaptation of environmental and human systems to high-temperature conditions. This would mean reimagining the nature of cities and buildings, a transformation of the typical diet and—most profoundly—the genetic manipulation of many plants and animals to better withstand higher temperatures and persistent drought. Any reintroduction of extinct or near-extinct plants and animals would demand close scrutiny of ecological requirements and genetic options; it’s likely we’d see large-scale experiments in the creation of novel, even unprecedented, ecosystems. We could call this one the “Anthropoforming” future—using our tools to make the Anthropocene easier to survive.

Finally, there’s the hands-off approach, sometimes called “re-wilding.” Human adaptation would take place in ways that parallel the previous scenario, but natural ecosystems are left to themselves. Certainly, permitting the return of the wild by pulling back the boundaries of civilization has some visceral appeal. It’s letting nature take over again, and puts explicit limits on the human footprint. What often goes unsaid, however, is that the new wild would bear little resemblance to what had been there previously; with the impacts of changing temperatures and corresponding ecosystem disruption, we’re more likely to see the quick dominance of opportunistic, invasive species. We’d call this the “Hands-Off” future, although re-wilding through abandonment might also be thought of as the “rats and kudzu” future.

Thinking now about these options would let us focus our research accordingly. Do we undertake extensive study of how ecosystems operate, and what can be done to create them? Do we attempt a planet-wide genome map as the first step in adaptive modification? Or do we focus our attention on human adaptation to a world with greatly constrained resources and minimally diverse ecosystems?

None of these scenarios should sound especially appealing. We left the appealing scenarios behind decades ago. But these three do sketch out the possibilities that await us. Getting control of global carbon emissions isn’t the end of the story—it’s just the beginning of the next chapter.

Jamais Cascio is a Senior Fellow of the IEET, and a professional futurist. He writes the popular blog Open the Future.
Print Email permalink (0) Comments (3491) Hits •  subscribe Share on facebook Stumble This submit to reddit submit to digg


YOUR COMMENT (IEET's comment policy)

Login or Register to post a comment.

Next entry: 3D printing and tissue engineering

Previous entry: The end of ID and credit card safety? Must e-commerce be destroyed?


RSSIEET Blog | email list | newsletter |
The IEET is a 501(c)3 non-profit, tax-exempt organization registered in the State of Connecticut in the United States.

East Coast Contact: Executive Director, Dr. James J. Hughes,
56 Daleville School Rd., Willington CT 06279 USA 
Email: director @     phone: 860-428-1837

West Coast Contact: Managing Director, Hank Pellissier
425 Moraga Avenue, Piedmont, CA 94611
Email: hank @