Genetic Engineering and Global Warming
Finally, in the field of transhumanism comes the new claim that it is ethical to change the genetic makeup in humans to battle climate change.
In a forthcoming paper in the British journal, “Ethics, Policy and the Environment”, New York University’s professor of philosophy and bioethics Matthew Liao argues that global warming is “one of the biggest problems that confront us today”.
Going on the assumption that so-called man-made global warming is “settled science”, Liao argues that changes in human behavior or an increase in greenhouse gas taxes might not be sufficient to reverse the global temperature increase. He writes that we need a new solution to global warming, one involving both medical and genetic engineering.
Liao proposes a series of biomedical modifications that could help humans consume less and adapt more easily to less populated parts of the planet.
Suggesting that meat production accounts for as much as 51% of the world’s greenhouse gas emissions, Liao proposes designing a drug that would trigger mild nausea if a meat-lover ate meat.
When asked about the ethics of administering “anti-meat” drugs to people, Liao said that it would be ethical since it is not a matter of implanting beliefs in people, but fixing a “weakness of will”.
Also, citing the statistic that a child born in the United Kingdom will generate 160 times more greenhouse gas than a child born in Ethiopia, he suggests using genetic engineering to give birth to smaller children who would be less “resource-intensive”.
His goal is to have a fixed allocation of greenhouse gas emissions for every household. Genetic engineering could then give families the choice between two medium sized children, or three small sized children. Liao believes that this is a much better idea than China’s “two-child” policy.
According to Liao, “A family might want a really good basketball player, and so they could use human engineering to have one large child [instead of two smaller children].”
In the paper, neither Liao nor his co-authors, Anders Sandberg and Rebecca Roache of Oxford University, approve of any coercive human engineering efforts; they believe that that the modifications would be voluntary rather than government mandated.
When asked about the ethics of parents making these kinds of irreversible choices for their children, Liao said that changing the genetic makeup of a child is ethical because the reason for the change would be to prevent global warming, which is ultimately for the child’s own good.
Liao is also hoping scientists go even farther in genetic engineering. In one example, he would like to see humans with cat’s eyes. According to his reasoning, a cat sees nearly as well as humans during the day, but much better at night. Therefore, if everyone had cat eyes, you wouldn’t need so much lighting, and global energy usage could be reduced.
Liao says that since we are already interfering with human nature, by giving women epidurals when they’re giving birth, for example, his ideas are ethical, taken in the context of global warming.
Liao has said that his paper has met with great enthusiasm in some quarters. He said, “I recently gave a talk covering these [ideas] at Yale and there was a man in the audience who worked for a pharmaceuticals company; he seemed to think there might be a huge market for modifications like this.”
History has shown time and time again that people will push a program if there is enough money involved and voluntary programs become mandatory if it suits a State’s agenda.
Paul writes in Colossians that all things were created by God and for Him. As individuals we are made in God’s image and therefore should be subject to His plan. To alter the very thing that makes us human, our DNA, is delving into issues reserved for our Creator.
6:32 pm
Man refuses to acknowledge God as Creator and then tries to take His place….How far will God allow man to go in his attempts to “improve” upon God’s creation?
4:55 am
It is increasingly apparent that the “Bio-Engineers” will submit any sort of silliness to get an NIH (National Institute of Health) or a UN grant for the most amazingly stupid areas of study.
Their Ph.D. Committees should re-review their thesis defense and see how they could sneak by.
11:49 pm
I totally disagree with Matthew Liao’s statement that global warming is “one of the biggest problems that confront us today”. there is no proven scientific fact that global warming even exists. I look upon the concept of genetic engineering as just another step in the implementation of the United Nation’s Agenda 21.
12:29 am
It is interesting to think of how devious their track has been, and is, to transhumanism and beyond. First, they were going to explore and define the human genome to identify genes associated with disease(s) in order to cure them – thus they lured people into thinking this was a good thing (which it is potentially). Next, they promise that this research will be able to prevent disease(s) (again, potentially a good thing if it stopped there). However, now we see they are tampering with, changing, the human genome to help prevent greenhouse gas buildup. Lastly, they reveal that they will change man’s DNA to “improve” him (to have a cat’s night vision as in the article, though they plan much more way beyond this). So, we see the progression from exploring and defining our genetic makeup to cure and prevent disease, to changing it and introducing other species DNA into man’s – the progression from treating/preventing disease(s) to transhumanism and eventually to posthumanism.
Keep looking up!
Scott
2:46 pm
Some years ago there was book which discussed the “advancements” science and scientists would make in the near future (today).
One of the “advancements” mentioned was for astronauts who would be spending most of their lives in space.
The thinking was that due to the weightless environment the astronauts would need their hands for gripping more than their feet for walking. So, scientists would genetically engineer the astronauts to have four arms with hands instead of two arms and two legs. What arrogance, too weird, was my thinking at that time.
Yet here we are today, with “scientists” declaring that their “ideas are ethical, taken in the context of…” whatever social problem they can’t fix because they choose to ignore God and His Word.
“Because they hated knowledge and did not choose the fear of the LORD, they would have none of my counsel and despised my every rebuke. Therefore they shall eat the fruit of their own way, and be filled to the full with their own fancies.” (Prov. 1:29-31)
As the Holy Spirit works through God’s people as they pray, it makes me wonder just what all He is restraining. Thank You, Lord, for the Holy Ghost!
9:55 pm
It’s one thing for mankind to aid those who are in pain such as the way doctors are able to provide relief to some women as they are about to give birth; but, to jump from this position to that of tampering with irreversible decisions involving the changing of the genetics of a child – and then, to call it “ethical” because it will supposedly lower the world’s greenhouse gas emissions is an outlandish leap!
First of all, global warming is not caused by human beings – but this topic is for another time, in another article.
Second of all, tampering with DNA – whether voluntary or government mandated – is not our right no matter the reason. I’m reminded of Paul’s letter to the Romans, “On the contrary, who are you—mere man that you are—to talk back to God? Can an object that was molded say to the one who molded it, ‘Why did you make me like this?’” (Romans 9:20).
Thirdly, I’m sure the pharmaceutical companies are ecstatic over this idea — it means more money for them; and frankly, this is their bottom line.
Finally, wasn’t DNA tampering the very thing which was happening in the days of Jared and Noah – hence, the very reason for which God had to destroy the whole earth with a flood? Yes, this is exactly what was happening! God’s creation was being wiped out due to DNA tampering. In other words, those who had been created in His image were no longer reproducing “after its kind.” Had it not been for God’s love for His creation, no man (or animal) would have survived. This brings me to Ray Kurzweil’s Singularity-themed organizations and the 2045 Initiative (http://2045.com/).
I used to wonder what Jesus could possibly mean by His statement as recorded in Matthew and Mark, “If those days had not been cut short, no one would survive, but for the sake of the elect those days will be shortened.” While I could be wrong, I am beginning to form the opinion that “those days” refers to the days in which we find ourselves now living – the days of posthumanism (http://www.posthumanism.com/) or rather, transhumanism and the enhancement of mankind.