Results 1 to 3 of 3
#1 Climate Scientists Call For Bioengineering Humans To Combat Global Warming
03-15-2012, 01:05 PMFrom drugs to help you avoid eating meat to genetically engineered cat-like eyes to reduce the need for lighting, a wild interview about changes humans could make to themselves to battle climate change.
- Join Date
- May 2008
- Locked in a Dungeon, being tortured and LOVING IT!
The threat of global climate change has prompted us to redesign many of our technologies to be more energy-efficient. From lightweight hybrid cars to long-lasting LEDís, engineers have made well-known products smaller and less wasteful. But tinkering with our tools will only get us so far, because however smart our technologies become, the human body has its own ecological footprint, and there are more of them than ever before. So, some scholars are asking, what if we could engineer human beings to be more energy efficient? A new paper to be published in Ethics, Policy & Environment proposes a series of biomedical modifications that could help humans, themselves, consume less.
Some of the proposed modifications are simple and noninvasive. For instance, many people wish to give up meat for ecological reasons, but lack the willpower to do so on their own. The paper suggests that such individuals could take a pill that would trigger mild nausea upon the ingestion of meat, which would then lead to a lasting aversion to meat-eating. Other techniques are bound to be more controversial. For instance, the paper suggests that parents could make use of genetic engineering or hormone therapy in order to birth smaller, less resource-intensive children.
The lead author of the paper, S. Matthew Liao, is a professor of philosophy and bioethics at New York University. Liao is keen to point out that the paper is not meant to advocate for any particular human modifications, or even human engineering generally; rather, it is only meant to introduce human engineering as one possible, partial solution to climate change. He also emphasized the voluntary nature of the proposed modifications. Neither Liao or his co-authors, Anders Sandberg and Rebecca Roache of Oxford, approve of any coercive human engineering; they favor modifications borne of individual choices, not technocratic mandates. What follows is my conversation with Liao about why he thinks human engineering could be the most ethical and effective solution to global climate change.
Yet these same fruits instantly throw them selves into a hissy over Bio-engineered produce, or hormone enhanced Meat.
Rest In Peace America
July 4, 1776 - January 20, 2009
03-15-2012, 02:03 PMYet these same fruits instantly throw them selves into a hissy over Bio-engineered produce, or hormone enhanced Meat.
Then proceed to the historical evidence that natural climate change is an ongoing process that has been occuring for millions of years, then add the factual evidence that man has managed to adapt naturally to these changes in climate for at least the past 40,000 years, and you have a non-problem.
However.......Since the human genome has been sucessfully decoded, and genetic engineering became possible, as highlighted in the paper above, can you imagine if genetic engineers proposed the following........all of which are theoretically possible......
.........It is theoretically possible to isolate and eliminate the genetic code that produces homosexuality, and through a simple retroviral vaccine.........eliminate future homosexuals......since homosexuals cannot naturally reproduce, would not prospective parents flock to such a vaccine......
.........It is theoretically possible to identify and alter the genetic signature for African racial characteristics, and alter them to create a uniform and universal "race".......no more race-bating, because there would be no more "minorities"........a utopian world, right.......what all liberals espouse......
These are just a few of the "possibilities" that can result from genetic engineering.....I suspect that the author of the paper cited above (whose speciality is "bioethics" ) wouldn't be too keen on these possibilities......just depends on "whose ox is being gored", but once that door is opened, all kinds of eugenic research becomes possible.......
The ethical question then becomes......
.......do we really want to open that door.......there will be no going back......
Last edited by TVDOC; 03-15-2012 at 02:15 PM.
03-15-2012, 03:26 PM
Imagine the implications of genetically engineering higher intelligence and aptitudes. Yes, every kid would be a genius, and intellect would be equally distributed, but then who would do the scut work? How would jobs be allocated? Would there have to be quotas of aptitudes in certain career fields? Who would establish what the quotas would be? Do parents get a choice, or do they have to take what they are ordered to take? Supposing that every parent wanted their child to be a doctor, how do you decide which ones are going to have to raise plumbers, janitors, used car salesmen, pole dancers or politicians? If your parents didn't spring for the genetic mods, are you not permitted to pursue the career that you choose, or do you have to take a back seat to those with programmed aptitudes?
These guys don't seem to understand that Gattaca wasn't a happy future.--Odysseus
Sic Hacer Pace, Para Bellum.
Before you can do things for people, you must be the kind of man who can get things done. But to get things done, you must love the doing, not the people!
|« Previous Thread | Next Thread »|