Bizarre stuff from The Atlantic, though it seems even Bill McKibben is panning him and when you can’t sell Bill McKibben on crazy, well, you’ve entered a whole new plane of crazy. Me? I welcome our new smaller climate optmized green cat-like overlords. – Anthony
How Engineering the Human Body Could Combat Climate Change
By Ross Andersen The Atlantic
From drugs to help you avoid eating meat to genetically engineered cat-like eyes to reduce the need for lighting, a wild interview about changes humans could make to themselves to battle climate change.
…
One human engineering strategy you mention is a kind of pharmacologically induced meat intolerance. You suggest that humans could be given meat alongside a medication that triggers extreme nausea, which would then cause a long-lasting aversion to meat eating. Why is it that you expect this could have such a dramatic impact on climate change?
Liao: There is a widely cited U.N. Food and Agricultural Organization report that estimates that 18% of the world’s greenhouse gas emissions and CO2 equivalents come from livestock farming, which is actually a much higher share than from transportation. More recently it’s been suggested that livestock farming accounts for as much as 51% of the world’s greenhouse gas emissions. And then there are estimates that as much as 9% of human emissions occur as a result of deforestation for the expansion of pastures for livestock. And that doesn’t even to take into account the emissions that arise from manure, or from the livestock directly. Since a large portion of these cows and other grazing animals are raised for consumption, it seems obvious that reducing the consumption of these meats could have considerable environmental benefits.
…
Your paper also discusses the use of human engineering to make humans smaller. Why would this be a powerful technique in the fight against climate change?
Liao: Well one of the things that we noticed is that human ecological footprints are partly correlated with size. Each kilogram of body mass requires a certain amount of food and nutrients and so, other things being equal, the larger person is the more food and energy they are going to soak up over the course of a lifetime. There are also other, less obvious ways in which larger people consume more energy than smaller people—for example a car uses more fuel per mile to carry a heavier person, more fabric is needed to clothe larger people, and heavier people wear out shoes, carpets and furniture at a quicker rate than lighter people, and so on.
And so size reduction could be one way to reduce a person’s ecological footprint. For instance if you reduce the average U.S. height by just 15cm, you could reduce body mass by 21% for men and 25% for women, with a corresponding reduction in metabolic rates by some 15% to 18%, because less tissue means lower energy and nutrient needs.
…
In your paper you suggest that some human engineering solutions may actually be liberty enhancing. How so?
Liao: That’s right. It’s been suggested that, given the seriousness of climate change, we ought to adopt something like China’s one child policy. There was a group of doctors in Britain who recently advocated a two-child maximum. But at the end of the day those are crude prescriptions—what we really care about is some kind of fixed allocation of greenhouse gas emissions per family. If that’s the case, given certain fixed allocations of greenhouse gas emissions, human engineering could give families the choice between two medium sized children, or three small sized children. From our perspective that would be more liberty enhancing than a policy that says “you can only have one or two children.” A family might want a really good basketball player, and so they could use human engineering to have one really large child.
“We figured that if everyone had cat eyes, you wouldn’t need so much lighting”
Read the whole bizarre thing here: How Engineering the Human Body Could Combat Climate Change
Kate at Small Dead Animals has a poll
It’s a great idea! Lets assume for a moment that all forward thinking people will jump on this. Only.. what about nutters like me who say nay-nay? I know, I know, just a bunch of backwards hicks and whatever all, but for the sake of argument just suppose for a moment that I don’t permit my kid to be drug therapied into a vegetarian, or allow the doctors to modify my developing child into a lightweight cat-eyed enviromentally friendly eco-human? It sort of leaves us with an ugly situation, doesn’t it? There’s me, with my uncooperative and enviromentally unfriendly attitude, and there’s the government with it’s guns, jails, fines, courts, and other assorted coercive mechanisms.
..hmm.. Tough call… Maybe I’m just being pessimistic, maybe it’s just that ‘precautionary principle’ I always hear people speak so highly of, but maybe, just maybe, we ought to rethink this one a little bit.
Sounds like UN Agenda 2. These folks are total raving lunatics.
WRT http://sciencenordic.com/ten-percent-us-can-stop-climate-change
I had to give my two cents.
karen.obrien@sosgeo.uio.no
“Dr. O’Brien
Having read this article, http://sciencenordic.com/ten-percent-us-can-stop-climate-change, and your comments:
Totalitarian Governance / Planet-Saving Stalinism to solve “problems” that are as much imagined as documented, and viewed through the split-second geological time-line reference that our scientific capabilities and self-awareness bias limit us to, is irrational.
The scientific basis for the case that Human activity is causing rapid and profound Climate Change as well as increases in Extreme Weather events is flimsy, at best, and if you want the rest of us to submit to the machinations of Elitist, Narcissist, Ivory-Tower Know it-all, wealth-redistributing, political-correctness-worshiping, ‘Specie-ists’ you will have to come up with a more solid foundation than that which is predicated on the excreta of a thoroughly corrupt “United” Nations.
Devote yourself to discovery – let us let a future generation, one that is better informed, draw conclusions.
Mr. Jones
Ordinary Citizen, USA
PS
“”Insurance companies can stop the aviation and shipping industries, indeed whole transport systems, and all other kinds of industry. You can’t put an oil tanker to sea without insurance. And insurance companies are concerned. They do not want to be financially responsible for climate change as it will cost very much to clean up,” says O’Brien.”
And YOU do not want to be responsible for erroneously advocating for such a development (“… stopping whole transport industries”) – have you even reflected for one moment on the widespread famine, disease and death that would ensue?”
kadaka;
Your link to the “slightly different” real story on red meat looked to be completely anti-steak, until I came to the single caveat they deigned to insert: “Dr Carrie Ruxton, from the Meat Advisory Panel (MAP), a British group of doctors and scientists funded by the industry, cast doubt on the findings and said the conclusions were based on a “theoretical” model” ”
Another model!! And no links to the actual study, or even where it was conducted, just a vague reference to the Ministry of Health.
“Since a large portion of these cows and other grazing animals are raised for consumption, it seems obvious that reducing the consumption of these meats could have considerable environmental benefits.”
A large portion of those cows are on pasture land which is not suitable for crops, so the cows are a way to make use of the useless grasses. To support a vegan civilization would require very energy-intensive methods to force unsuitable land to grow things which humans can eat. Anyone who thinks otherwise should live on grass for a year and let us know how that works for you.
It occurs to me that they actually think that a Collectivist survival instinct exercises more behavioral power than the Individual survival instinct.
I suppose it could be brought about through Drugs. Doesn’t everybody mindlessly gobble down their psychotropic medications?
Kool-Ade anyone? (‘Rev.’ Jones)
Liao has completely missed the obvious. You just mix some genes from Elysia Chlorotyca into the human genome and we will be able to stop working, stop eating, and process our own CO2 after we’ve eaten some algae.
So return the pasture to forest and increase the pop of GHG wild creatures-moose,deer, elk, buffalo, and all the tinier creatures. This type of article shows you what kind of loons we are actually dealing with!! Forget about rational debate
kadaka (KD Knoebel) says:
March 13, 2012 at 6:07 am
General craziness of the week, from Germany:
Merkel’s coalition government proposed a tax on online news aggregators. Really? Germany will be taxing the worldwide internet?
WUWT does some news aggregating. How much will Anthony have to cough up? How many of the many little blogs will have to pay the German tax if they post too many links to too many news stories?
At least they’re consistent. They’ve shown they don’t understand “renewable” technology, then nuclear technology. Now they’ve shown they don’t understand internet technology either. Three for three, they’re on a roll!
============
I realize this is off topic but thought I’d point out how easy it is to avoid the tax.
IP addresses include country or region of origin. Shutting a website Off to all of Germany is as simple as a change on the router firewall. If they can’t connect, there’s no need to pay the tax. If they do this, Merkel would isolate Germany from the world — a new Berlin Wall.
Horse pucky. On every point. Per the UN Population Database Low Band projection (the only one that’s ever accurate) pop. will peak at <8bn in just over a generation (~2040, +/- 5 yrs).
And it’s already happening spontaneously; be careful what you wish for!
http://www.fpri.org/ww/0505.200407.eberstadt.demography.html
The US is the only developed nation which is maintaining its replacement birth rate, and very few undeveloped ones are either (even the Islamic bloc’s rate is diving!). My explanation is that governance in the US is not yet as deluded and anti-human as it is in the EU, Russia, China, East Asia, etc.
Alan Watt says:
March 13, 2012 at 7:46 am
In 2005 a report was published in The Scotsman which claimed Josef Stalin supported an effort by scientist Ilya Ivanovich Ivanov to create human-chimpanzee hybrids for super-soldiers. (See here and here). This is considered shocking and everyone loves a chance to kick Stalin; it makes us feel morally superior. But I’ll bet we are funding Dr. Liao, and just what does that say about us?
==================
I wonder if it has to do with bigfoot Zana? The Russian scientists did some research on it and the offsprings by Zana and human were pretty strong.
http://www.bigfootencounters.com/articles/zana.htm
Some wonder if those bigfoot is really Neanderthal. We’d have to catch live one to be able to do genetic testing.
Sometimes, truth can be much stranger than fiction…
I already have eyes like an eagle.
I can spot these guys coming from a mile away.
More CO2 craziness!
http://sciencenordic.com/new-theory-co2-makes-you-fat
Brian H says:
March 13, 2012 at 8:27 am
The US is the only developed nation which is maintaining its replacement birth rate,… Thanks to the contribution of hispanics and african-americans you will have enough market to survive. No people, no market.
Peter Kovachev says:
March 13, 2012 at 6:56 am
Endgame: Vegetarian dwarfs. Passive, gentle and obedient by nature, trained to accept a strictly stratified society and a hierarchy of experts. Such are the beginnings of slavery and tyranny. ….
_______________________________
I just finished posting this in another thread but it belongs here because this is the group who is behind all this crud.
Richard C and Brian H, The “Left” “Right” argument is only used to confuse and deflect us because there really isn’t a Left or Right power base. What the “Left” thinks of as the “Right” is the group that is actually supporting them and orchestrating their actions. The reall philosophy is pragmatism not “Capitalism” or “Socialism” They do not care about any particular philosophy they only care about what is the best method to hand them absolute power.
From the book Tragedy and Hope 1966 by Bill Clinton’s mentor, Carroll Quigley. (Note Clinton was a Rhodes Scholar)
You can keep following the tangled strands of Quigley’s international Anglophile network back to the London School of Economics, Bill Clinton, Tony Blair and the Fabian Society.
Of special note is The Third Way philosophy from Professor Anthony Giddens, former director of the London School of Economics. The philosophy is heavily promoted by Tony Blair and Bill Clinton.
http://www.europeanvoice.com/article/imported/centre-left-s-young-turks-seek-neo-conservative-inspiration/51890.aspx
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/politics/298465.stm
http://www.workinfo.com/econhist/thirdway.htm
DirkH says:
March 13, 2012 at 8:23 am
Liao has completely missed the obvious. You just mix some genes from Elysia Chlorotyca into the human genome and we will be able to stop working, stop eating, and process our own CO2 after we’ve eaten some algae.
————————————————-
Unless they find a way to substitute chocolate for algae, it ain’t gonna fly, that dog’s not gonna hunt, etc.
Question – why are the preferred paths of our moral superiors so focused on eating our veges? I almost typed ‘eating our greens’, but realised that it might be taking the love of a lean rib too far. Anyway, treating us all as toddlers, except with no chocolate pudding at the end, does seem to be part of the strategy.
“Thomas says:
March 13, 2012 at 8:53 am
More CO2 craziness!”
What’s crazy is that the solution of incorporating CO2 into Climate Control (very doable, I suspect) is not mentioned here.
Common sense is an endangered trait.
Perhaps CO2 destroys the common-sense pathways in the Human Brain.
After the stupid, the absurd. After the absurd, the scary.
Meat Eating is essential for brain development in infants BTW. Darn I can not find my original source… Here are some others that have been watered down.
Here is more important info:
Sialic Acid [Sias] Is an Essential Nutrient for Brain Development and Cognition: http://www.annualreviews.org/doi/abs/10.1146/annurev.nutr.28.061807.155515
But of course we have to have the studies that warn against Sialic Acids.
At least they are nice enough to show the theories are unproven
Liao – Laughing its a** off?
“But at the end of the day those are crude prescriptions—what we really care about is some kind of fixed allocation of greenhouse gas emissions per family..”
——————————————-
Would this entail the installation of smart meters in body orifices? What would be done if emissions are over limit? Disgusting and frightening really.
Alan Watts,
They did genetic testing to compare human to apes… here’s what they found…
Dear Mr. Pye:
I agree with your conclusions [that humans are genetically engineered] and will give you a few hints, if you wish [speaking] as a “DNA Deep Throat.” First, look up the huge discontinuities between humans and the various apes for: (1) Whole mitochondrial DNA; (2) genes for the Rh Factor; (3) and human Y chromosomes, among others.
Regarding #3, I refer you to K.D. Smith’s 1987 study titled “Repeated DNA sequences of the human Y chromosome.” It says “Most human Y chromosome sequences thus far examined do not have homologues [same relative position or structure] on the Y chromosomes of other primates.” Human female X chromosomes do look somewhat apelike, but not the male’s Y.
This means that if humans are a crossbred species, the cross had to be between a female ape-like creature [i.e, “creature of Earth”] and a male being from elsewhere.
http://www.lloydpye.com/breakingnews_dnadeepthroat.htm
Perhaps, those Russian scientists were using wrong kind of apes (Neanderthal? Denisova?)…
How Engineering the Human Body Could Combat Climate Change or Modify humans’ to combat climate change – or Madness breaks out at the lab- run for your life!
April 1 2012
The threat of global climate change has prompted us to redesign many of our technologies to be more energy-efficient, 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.
“Less resource-intensive children”?? But it’s OK because it would all be voluntary (for now, that is):
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.
And if you believe that the eco-totalitarians will exercise restraint when it comes to their crusade to “save the planet”, then more fool you.
Congratulations to the authors of this paper for once again exposing the dangerous dictatorial instincts of extreme greens.
http://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2012/03/how-engineering-the-human-body-could-combat-climate-change/253981/
Gail Combs says:
March 13, 2012 at 9:34 am
Meat Eating is essential for brain development in infants BTW. Darn I can not find my original source… Here are some others that have been watered down.
===============
You forgot about widespread vitamin D deficiency no thanks to idiotic Sun Scare thing. Vitamin D gets converted into powerful steriod hormone that acts as DNA repair and regulator… Ever wonder why we are seeing more and more autism cases? All austitic kids have very low vitamin D level that most medical doctors are overlooking!
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17920208
Dr. Cannell noted that once autistic kids corrected their severe vitamin D deficiency, they started to function better!
“Also, as we envisage it, human engineering would be a voluntary activity – possibly supported by
incentives such as tax breaks or sponsored health care – rather than a coerced, mandatory
activity.”
Um….that doesn’t sound very voluntary.