Subject:  Viridian Note 00024:  Kelly's Koan

Key concepts:  moral conundrum, Viridian principles, 
scientific evidence, California guru figures 

Attention Conservation Notice: The unique Kevin Kelly 
breathes most freely in an atmosphere of pure, clear 
oxymoron.

Links:  http://www.well.com/user/kk/OutOfControl/
http://www.hotwired.com/staff/kevin

Entries in the "Big Mike" Viridian Design Contest:
http://www.pinknoiz.com/viridian/logos.html
http://www.spaceways.de/BigMike/Mike.html
http://weber.u.washington.edu/~r1ddl3r/bigmike.html
http://powerbase-alpha.com/bigmike
http://rampages.onramp.net/~jzero/
http://www.well.com/conf/mirrorshades
http://www.57thstreet.com/viridian/
http://www.ioc.net/~bini/bigmike.htm
http://www.pcnet.com/~thallad/mike.htm
http://www.golden.net/~eli/viridian/

Here is a koan from kevin@wired.com^* (Kevin Kelly), 
author and editor:

Bruce, here is a wicked idea I can't get out of my head.

Suppose we are wrong about the polarity of the climate 
shock.  Suppose there is not a global warming age coming, 
but a global ice age.

Suppose science determines that the only solution to avert 
the next ice age is to deforest the planet.  To burn as 
much as the fossil fuels as we can, to heat up the planet 
in any way we can.   Of course this is hypothetical; my 
question though is for the Viridians. 

(((Very well!  The Pope-Emperor stands ready to issue 
definitive bulls on all Viridian moral questions.)))

If environmental science showed that there was indeed an 
ice age coming, and that our best course of action was to 
deforest as much land as possible, could the Viridians get 
behind this project? 

(((The short answer is yes.

(((The long answer deconstructs your trick question.  It's 
absurd to posit that the best way of fighting glaciers is 
by killing forests. You could cover glaciers with a thin 
layer of sun-absorbing soot, for instance.  You could 
supply increased planetary heat much more cheaply, 
directly and effectively than with saws and bulldozers in 
forests.  But if I accept your absurd premise, and if 
scholars agree that the only alternative is either miles 
of glacial ice on top of the forests, or cutting the 
forests down first to retard the ice, then of course we 
cut down the forests.  Absolutely.)))

If science runs counter to the emotional tenor of the 
Viridian laws, who wins?

(((Science.)))

Or in other words, is the Viridian allegiance to 
principles, or to evidence?

(((The allegiance is to evidence.)))

Could you imagine yourself ever getting the troops rallied 
up to cut down trees in the park because the scientists 
said so?

(((I very much doubt I'll ever find myself rallying 
troops; I lack a field lieutenant's proper frame of mind.  
But the enthusiastic destruction of forests doesn't 
require any act of imagination.  It's happening now in 
real life.  It's not a hypothesis, it's as direct and real 
as smoke and sawdust.  With today's absurd set-up, I'm 
ordering forests cut down every time I order a hamburger.  
The chopping and the burning isn't remotely perceived as a 
moral problem of the kind that you posit here.  And even 
if it were, a moral conundrum and forty-five cents will 
get you a cup of coffee. The problem's not created with 
flags, philosophy, scientific authority or moral 
exhortation.  It's created in everyday actions in everyday 
life, through the crazy market demands of a foul, 
primitive, unsustainable technological base. 

(((I'm glad we've had a chance to clear this up.)))

Kevin Kelly (kevin@wired.com^*)