The solution to
global warming and environmental issues is not just increased
environmental awareness. No, the real solution is genetically
engineering children to help the environment.
Wait, what?
Yes, according to a
recently published paper, NYU and Oxford Bioethicists Matthew Liao,
Anders Sandberg and Rebecca Roache. The paper proposes human
engineering as a potential solution to climate change since existing
solutions are ineffective and alternative solutions, such as
geoengineering, are incredibly risky.
In the modern
world, most solutions to climate change fall under one of three
categories: market solutions, behavioral solutions, or
geoengineering. Social solutions involve increasing social awareness
of efforts such as recycling and reducing driving. Market solutions
rely on regulation and economic factors – such as carbon taxation –
to reduce effects on the environment. Geoengineering generally
involves much larger solutions ranging from reforestation to
space-based mirrors to seeding the ocean to increase carbon
absorption. Human engineering would involve biomedical modification
of humans to mitigate climate change.
The paper suggests
a few potential benefits for human engineering. The first is to
induce meat intolerance in humans. The reason for this is that cows
and grazing animals appear to have significant environmental effects,
so reducing meat consumption could reduce their numbers and thus
reduce these effects. Their second suggestion is simply to make
humans smaller. This would reduce the amount of food we consume and
also allow for a similar reduction in food consumption and its
accompanying environmental benefits. Their last suggestion is to
lower birth-rates through cognitive enhancement (genetic,
pharmaceutical, and education). While this may not seem to be the
most obvious solution, they suggest that such enhancements would
increase altruism and empathy, thus making a person more likely to
care for the environment. One last proposal is a child-per-family
quota based on size rather than on numbers. Such a policy, they
argue, would maintain personal freedom by allowing parents to make
decisions on how they wanted their children enhanced (Would you like
two small children or one basketball player)?
So, perhaps these
are not the most natural solutions to climate change, but they do
raise some interesting issues. There are countless arguments for and
against enhancement in general, and this proposal probably falls into
the bounds of enhancement and genetic engineering for the good of
society versus individuals. Additionally, the idea of human
engineering may be more realistic than extreme – and potentially
extremely dangerous – proposals in geoengineering. So while it may
seem absurd now, I think that it is an idea that deserves more
thought. Human engineering may seem crazy and unlikely, but perhaps
it may turn out to not be so bizarre and unrealistic in the long run.
1 comment:
The idea of genetically engineering ourselves to make us more sustainable is an interesting one – especially if we consider that this would basically be replaying past evolutionary processes, only speeded up to keep up with our rate of industrial innovation. In the past (the prehistoric past), humans evolved not with the explicit intention of living in a more sustainable way, but did end up reducing our “carbon footprint” per person. The problem, however, is that “ these changes haven’t reduced our impact on the Earth; they've merely enabled us to grow the population a thousand times over. The bioengineering that came about 10,000 years ago led to more people, not less consumption” (Slate). That is, we’ve already adapted in countless ways to taking up as little space and calories as possible compared with prehistoric times – we eat less meat, we are smaller, and we are better at getting the maximum number of grains and calorie-dense foods from a small patch of earth as possible. But, recently, this has just led to there being more of us, and more of us eating more.
The major problem is therefore still population growth, not how sustainable that population is (although that obviously could help slow climate change). This would be more of a behavioral change than an engineering one, and behavior can often be even harder to change. Should we instead pursue a genetic change that decrease the number of children a woman is allowed to have? Or should this only be achieved through policy initiatives, infringing on reproductive rights for the good of society? Or would cognitive enhancement work – encouraging more people to be more altruistic, which could lead to fewer children. Should we change the direction of our innovations in artificial fertilization methods, instead encouraging infertility in most women (think The Giver, The Handmaid’s Tale, or Brave New World, where some women are assigned the task of reproducing at a set rate to maintain a stable population, but less extreme)? Or should we hope for a changing social landscape, where having one or two children becomes the norm (world-wide)? The question of population control is a necessary one that must be directly dealt with, before we can explore other options that could make populations more efficient and sustainable.
http://www.slate.com/articles/health_and_science/science/2012/03/bioengineering_people_to_fight_global_warming_been_there_done_that_.html
Post a Comment