Could Geoengineering “Respect Nature?” Paul W. Taylor’s Ethics, the Principle of Non-Interference, and Argument for a Limited, Reversible Geoengineering
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The Tollgate Principles require that geoengineering projects respect “norms of environmental ethics [including] . . . respect for nature,” clearly recalling the work of the Paul Taylor. Taylor’s environmental ethics have previously been argued by Christopher Preston to “presume” against geoengineering; based on Taylor’s support of a principle of “non-interference.” However, this reading overlooks Taylor’s own exempting conditions to non-interference, particularly the “Principle of Restitutive Justice.” I argue that under certain strict conditions—particularly “self-obviation”—some geoengineering interventions may meet Taylor’s standards. If true, this shows that the inclusion of “respect for nature” in the Tollgate Principles does not rule-out geoengineering a priori.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it