"Bioethics" Meets Climate Science
From the vaunted academic community that brought us post-natal abortions, here's the latest batch of Earth-friendly ideas in the world of "bioethics". Dr. S. Matthew Liao is a professor of philosophy and bioethics at New York University. You need only to read the questions from the interviewer to get a taste of the utter depravity of what he's proposing in the cause of, what else, "saving" the "planet".
One human engineering strategy you mention is a kind of pharmacologically induced meat intolerance. You suggest that humans could be given meat alongside a medication that triggers extreme nausea, which would then cause a long-lasting aversion to meat eating.
How about this idea:
Your paper also discusses the use of human engineering to make humans smaller. ... What are the various ways humans could be engineered to be smaller?
Liao: Well one of the things that we noticed is that human ecological footprints are partly correlated with size. Each kilogram of body mass requires a certain amount of food and nutrients and so, other things being equal, the larger person is the more food and energy they are going to soak up over the course of a lifetime. There are also other, less obvious ways in which larger people consume more energy than smaller people---for example a car uses more fuel per mile to carry a heavier person, more fabric is needed to clothe larger people, and heavier people wear out shoes, carpets and furniture at a quicker rate than lighter people, and so on.
It is little comfort that the author assures us he's only recommending these as voluntary measures. There's no way governments would abuse something like, say, chemical-induced behavior modification:
In the paper you also discuss the pharmacological enhancement of empathy and altruism, because empathy and altruism tend to be highly correlated with positive attitudes toward the environment. To me this one seems like it might be the most troubling. Isn't it more problematic to do biological tinkering to produce a belief, rather than simply engineering humans so that they are better equipped to implement their beliefs?
Liao: Yes. It's certainly ethically problematic to insert beliefs into people, and so we want to be clear that's not something we're proposing. What we have in mind has more to do with weakness of will. For example, I might know that I ought to send a check to Oxfam, but because of a weakness of will I might never write that check. But if we increase my empathetic capacities with drugs, then maybe I might overcome my weakness of will and write that check.
Of course, this is no threat to freedom. Quite to the contrary.
In your paper you suggest that some human engineering solutions may actually be liberty enhancing. How so?
Liao: It's been suggested that, given the seriousness of climate change, we ought to adopt something like China's one child policy. ... But at the end of the day those are crude prescriptions---what we really care about is some kind of fixed allocation of greenhouse gas emissions per family. ... human engineering could give families the choice between two medium sized children, or three small sized children. From our perspective that would be more liberty enhancing than a policy that says "you can only have one or two children."
They weren't just publishing any lousy thing that came to mind, but only the safest and most well-thought out ideas. Among the rejected proposals:
Your paper focuses on human engineering techniques that are relatively safe. Did your research lead you to any interesting techniques that were unsafe?
Liao: Actually, yes, although unfortunately the science is not there yet---we looked into cat eyes, the technique of giving humans cat eyes or of making their eyes more catlike. The reason is, cat eyes see nearly as well as human eyes during the day, but much better at night. We figured that if everyone had cat eyes, you wouldn't need so much lighting, and so you could reduce global energy usage considerably.
And of course, they were not willing to do anything risky with Mother, thank heavens.
With respect to geoengineering, the worry is that it's just too risky---many of the technologies involved have never been attempted on such a large scale, and so you have to worry that by implementing these techniques we could endanger ourselves or future generations.
Yes, too risky. We don't want any unintended consequences.
- Comment (15)
- · Quote
- · UnfollowFollow (3)
Comments:
Jun '10
Re: "Bioethics" Meets Climate Science
I read this a bit ago. All I can conclude is that this thought process is nothing more than self-hatred.
Dec '10
Re: "Bioethics" Meets Climate Science
Just a hop, skip, and a jump away from simply getting rid of those troublesome bitter clingers who refuse to get with the program. I hear they eat a lot of fried food and barbeque, neither of which is good for the environment. And it will all sound so reasonable right up to suggesting the final solution.
Jun '10
Re: "Bioethics" Meets Climate Science
Liao: ...What we have in mind has more to do with weakness of will. For example, I might know that I ought to send a check to Oxfam, but because of a weakness of will I might never write that check. But if we increase my empathetic capacities with drugs, then maybe I might overcome my weakness of will and write that check.
"That a dictator could, if he so desired make use of these drugs for political purposes is obvious. He could ensure himself against political unrest by changing the chemistry of his subjects' brains and so making them content with their servile condition." - Aldous Huxley, Chemical Persuasion, an essay from Brave New World Revisited 1958
Apr '11
Re: "Bioethics" Meets Climate Science
And here we see the re-emergence of Eugenics the science of making the human race better. We have moved beyond crude breeding and racial theories, only to adopt equally warped environmental theories to guide our tinkering.
As a Biologist I must say while I am highly skeptical of the prospects of cat eyes, I think that greater pharmacological control is very likely, and should be watched closely. People love taking drugs to solve their problems and our ability to manufacture mood altering drugs has really exploded in recent years. With progressive tendencies to view lack of sufficient empathy as a disease I would be seriously worried.
Jul '11
Re: "Bioethics" Meets Climate Science
The only real issue I have with this is that it is being published as science. Science Fiction writers have been suggesting, writing about and exploring these concepts for decades. The sad part is that the sci-fi writers seem to have put more thought into it.
Mar '11
Re: "Bioethics" Meets Climate Science
Miranda:
"O wonder!
How many goodly creatures are there here!
How beauteous mankind is! O brave new world
That has such people in't!"
Prospero:
"'Tis new to thee."
Using science to create generations of Eloi
Jan '11
Re: "Bioethics" Meets Climate Science
I think A Fish Called Wanda said it best:
Wanda: But you think you're an intellectual, don't you, ape?
Otto: Apes don't read philosophy.
Wanda: Yes, they do, Otto. They just don't understand it.
Oct '10
Re: "Bioethics" Meets Climate Science
"Your paper also discusses the use of human engineering to make humans smaller..."
Mmmmm...if humans are reduced to, say, half their present size with a proportional reduction in brain capacity, each mini--mized person still has one vote. With half a brain.
Their plan becomes clearer.
Apr '11
Re: "Bioethics" Meets Climate Science
Smaller brains doesn't mean dumber humans. Our intelligence has to do with the development of our frontal cortex more than with its size exactly.
Sep '10
Re: "Bioethics" Meets Climate Science
I'm thinking about getting metal legs. It's a risky operation, but it'll be worth it.
Apr '11
Re: "Bioethics" Meets Climate Science
Liao: Actually, yes, although unfortunately the science is not there yet
That "unfortunately" is a little chilling, isn't it?
May '10
Re: "Bioethics" Meets Climate Science
Obviously the Delaney Clause's "one molecule" theory only applies to stuff that actually does make the world better, like medicines.
Apr '11
Re: "Bioethics" Meets Climate Science
Mark Belling Fan
I'm thinking about getting metal legs. It's a risky operation, but it'll be worth it. · 3 hours ago
I don't know making cyborgs would seems kind of cool. The problem I have with all of these things is not that people want to find away to give humans better eyes (cats do have better eyes than us), but the motivations for doing this. If your guiding principles for the applicaiton of Biological and Medical technologies is a zealous environmentalism you will get really predictably terrible results.
Improving humanity is a good goal, maybe the best goal you can have. Their goal is to get rid of humans as they are to save the "environment" whatever that actually is.
Apr '11
Re: "Bioethics" Meets Climate Science
Smaller, yeah that's a good idea. What about if they made us sleepier, too? If we all slept 19 hours a day we wouldn't be driving around so much. There would be less time for raping the earth. How about shortening our lifespan, too. If you were dead after 40 years you wouldn't have as much time to ruin the planet. Oh, to heck with all these half measures. Let's turn ourselves into plants, then we will absorb rather than emit CO2.
Oct '10
Re: "Bioethics" Meets Climate Science
I was just goofing, Valiuth, and while I'm sure you're right about the frontal cortex, there is definite correlation and, many scientist say, causation, in the relationship of brain size to intelligence. Broadly speaking.