We could select shorter children
via PGD to create smaller children so that mankind will on the whole expend
less energy.
New York University professor of
bioethics S Matthew Liao argues that human engineering is a plausible way to tackle
energy resource challenges. According to Liao, modifying humans to simply use
less energy deserves consideration because it is less risky than other options
(such as geoengineering) in the long run. Even assuming that this premise is
true, are the implications and risks involved with this kind of human
engineering morally justifiable?
Liao justifies his proposition by
saying these policies should be optional: “a voluntary activity rather than a
coerced, mandatory activity”. Sure, this is entirely plausible assuming such
alteration of height entirely affects the mature human population – humans able
to give consent. However, this does not address the moral problem of parents
taking away the right to an open future from their children: a matter large
enough to present a convincing argument against “climate bioengineering”.
Indeed, parents selecting a shorter
stature for children in this way (via PGD) is obviously done without the
child’s consent: the children have no choice in this matter, therefore this
proposal can’t count as voluntary. Steve Clark of Oxford echoes this sentiment:
“as a society, we don’t give parents an unlimited right to make decisions on
behalf of their children”. Creating smaller children to combat global energy
scarcity is far from ethically justifiable.
1 comment:
Making people smaller in order to reduce carbon emissions? What happened to hydrogen fuel-cell cars, environmental friendly design, and alternative forms of energy? There are plenty of innovative ways to cut down on carbon dioxide emissions that have yet to be researched or implemented, so why turn to an idea like making children? I agree that bioengineering children to be shorter is not the solution we need, but I don’t think we even need to consider ethics to reach that conclusion.
In the first place, how much of a human’s carbon footprint is related to their height? Certainly, contributions from use of vehicles or consumption of plastic products are unlikely to be affected by a decrease in the height of the average person. Liao implies that the changes would come from decreased need for food and energy. However, most of the world’s industrialized nations, the major carbon dioxide emitters, are not sustenance based, by which I mean they do not encourage people to only consume enough resources to meet the bare minimum requisite for survival. So, one’s carbon footprint is more of a question of that person’s appetite rather than the minimum they need to get by, and it is entirely conceivable that a short person would eat more than a tall person. The real solution to reducing these emissions is widespread behavioral changes. Obviously, these would be difficult to implement and would have a major impact on the many industries (fast food, for instance, would likely lose many customers since a cheeseburger releases over 3 kg carbon dioxide). Regardless, it is simply irresponsible to suggest that instead of approaching it from this angle, we should employ a potentially dangerous, and currently hypothetical method such as reducing human size.
Additionally, current proposed techniques are vastly more effective than the controversial suggestion would be. Artificial trees, a type of geoengineering device which absorbs carbon dioxide from the air and stores it underground, are believed to be thousands of times more efficient than a regular tree, which itself is estimated to remove the carbon contributions of two humans per year. Assuming a shortened person eats half as much as an unmodified person, they would still only reduce the CO2 contribution by half an average tree’s effect. Liao suggests that geoengineering is risky, but that generally refers to more extreme methods such as using giant mirrors to reflect sunlight back into space. In short, global warming is an issue now so we should be using current, effective technologies rather than dancing around the issue by looking at fanciful and controversial solutions such as bioengineering.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/8223528.stm
http://www.wired.co.uk/news/archive/2012-03/13/bioengineering-humans-climate-change
http://www.coloradotrees.org/benefits.htm
http://www.azcentral.com/news/articles/2011/12/04/20111204geo-engineering-combat-warming.html
Post a Comment