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.