According to Galchen, the need for weather modification has come out of human error. This human error has come from “decades of heedlessly dumping CO2 into the atmosphere…” (Galchen 56). Some people might argue that this “dumping of CO2″ is due to progress. Big factories, cars, airplanes, etc… are all forms of industrial progress that emit CO2 into the atmosphere. In this case, by attempting to change and modify the results of the CO2 emissions (larger hurricanes), we are attempting to fix industrial “progress” errors with other forms of “progress” (weather modification).
Is this morally right? Is it okay to fix one mistake with what is arguably another mistake? Galchen argues that it is okay to move forward with weather modification for the same reasons that it is okay to fund art. She refers to it as “scientific imagination” and refers to “the laws of our universe as we understand them” as artistic constraint (Galchen 63). However; there is a fundamental difference in the practice of art and the practice of weather modification that she ignores. Painting pictures and playing music is extremely unlikely to harm a person or cause loss of life: Messing with hurricanes will mess with lives.
Even if your intentions are good, exploring the unknown by means in which may cause more harm than good is not progress.