The Environmental Case to Alter Human Genes

Jacob pulled the electric tricycle into Emma’s driveway. The little vehicle only awkwardly allowed his tall frame of 4-feet, 5-inches, which towered 5 inches over her, enough room to lean in for a kiss.

“What beautiful green cat-eyes you have,” he offered.

According to a paper published in Ethics, Policy & Environment the scenario above may not be too far-fetched. It could be our future.

Averting climate change (alias global warming) may take more than tinkering and upgrading our tools according to  S. Matthew Liao. It may require genetically engineering humans to a smaller body size thus decreasing our need for food, and injecting cat genes into our DNA to give us night vision so we can switch off those LED and ice cream-cone-bulbs.

Among the non-genetic lifestyle modifications he envisions, is the development of a drug that would trigger mild nausea upon the ingestion of meat.  Such a drug would create an aversion to meat for those lacking the willpower to do so without help.

In his paper Liao also discusses the pharmacological enhancement of empathy and altruism to encourage positive attitudes toward the environment, but he admits it is ethically “problematic” to insert beliefs into people.  One wonders why he would be so timid to chemically alter people’s minds if climate change is at stake.

As Mr. Liao’s paper was published in Ethics, Policy & Environment, it brings to mind the activities of Peter Gleick, a member of the American Geophysical Union’s Task Force on Scientific Ethics.  Gleick has admitted to fraudulently obtaining documents  from the Heartland Institute and evidence suggests he fabricated a document and passed it as Heartland’s in order to discredit their skepticism of climate change.

Let there be no doubt of the plentiful existence of those who believe in Alinsky’s “the end justifies the means.”

Have a fulfilling and profitable day,

WC (Bill) Augustine

Check out my book!
www.atlasrising.tateauthor.com