The only thing more disturbing than this is Eric Pianka and company’s almost gleeful contemplation of seeing most or all of humanity wiped out by Ebola or some other pandemic. We’ve had enough personal contact with him to know that the distant glimmer of this sickness echoed by James Wolcott expressing his satisfaction with smug little humans being visited by mighty natural catastrophes (as he sits in his New York loft, stroking his ocicat) was a momentary stroke of unreason. But . . . human engineering in order to preserve Gaia? At The Atlantic:
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 LED’s, 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.
We think someone’s been reading too much cyberpunk. What could possibly go wrong? Go read the whole blueprint for dystopian nightmares.
What strikes us as most odd about this mentality is that the loathing of the human condition is undergirded by a profound narcissism.