Bishop Hill Eco-eugenics
Mar 13, 2012 Climate: WG3 Climate: other The latest piece of insanity to emerge from the global warming movement is a paper by S. Matthew Liao, a professor at New York University. His idea is that we should be engineering the human race to be less resource intensive:
In this paper, we consider a new kind of solution to climate change, what we call human engineering, which involves biomedical modifications of humans so that they can mitigate and/or adapt to climate change. We argue that human engineering is potentially less risky than geoengineering and that it could help behavioural and market solutions succeed in mitigating climate change. We also consider some possible ethical concerns regarding human engineering such as its safety, the implications of human engineering for our children and for the society, and we argue that these concerns can be addressed. Our upshot is that human engineering deserves further consideration in the debate about climate change.
There is a long interview with Liao in the Atlantic, in which he argues that his ideas are liberty-enhancing, since the alternative is a compulsory limit to family sizes.
Bishop Hill
Klimazwiebel picks up on the story here.
Reader Comments (74)
There are so many wacko ideas to poke a stick at! How about this bit:
It is all about offering parents more choice, you see? What's wrong with that?
Let's not make a mistake about it. Climate scientists are directly or indirectly responsible for these mad ideas.
Never underestimate the ability of physicians to reinterpret the notion of 'harm'!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VcWn3b3h3sQ
At first, upon reading Liao et al.2012, I suspected some clever AGW skeptics from academia were 'gleicking' the CAGW crowd by publishing such absurdities. It was only after checking out the authors on wikipedia that I realized I had to take them as seriously as I take most academicians.
Bit of a grim moment for human civilization, IMHO. For instance, no calls for his job from on high. He appears to be proud of the attention, etc.
Further thoughts: http://wp.me/pnsGM-eU
Most objective, rational observers of this S. Matthew Liao would opt for a Madame Defarge solution, but we prefer the Procrustean classic: Fit him to his own sad bed by lopping him off at the knees. If this be brutal and sadistic, Dr. Liao, look in your own mirror.
@sHx & John Blake
"A family might want a really good basketball player, and so they could use human engineering to have one really large child"
Measure the lunacy of these fiends by their preference for re-engineering the human race over the banal triviality of lowering the height of a ******* basketball hoop.
How tall do you need to be to jump sharks these days? Game over (again).
In the interests of equality surely basketball should be banned, allowing as it does 'heightists' to claim unfair advantages in life over the rest of us - better pay, mass adulation etc etc. I am afraid the good professor, like many leftist 'thinkers' fails to follow the logic of his own reasoning, within the parameters of Marxism-Leninism. Surely it is a clear case of false consciousness for a proletarian pair to want to breed a creature who will be the lackey and plaything of the ruling classes, and at the same time be estranged from his own warm workingclass community?
If I get genetically modified into a midget, would I be eaten by my cat?
Is this the type of 'scientists' that our universities are producing? These are a real threat to humanity itself. I used to think that saving the planet for our grandchildren is a sick joke, but it seems that our grandchildren really need saving, not from global warming, but from the 'planet-savers' themselves such as these sick scientists who need their brains examined by a shrink. Imagine these 'scientists' reaching the pinnacle of power somewhere in the world................
I do rather get the impression that 'climate change' has been inserted to qualify for funding. Perhaps we should try to assemble the daftest proposal possible that includes a tenuous link to GW and see if we could get a grant for it. A pseudonymous applicant may be required, Sir Bashup Hall may be available...
When I first read about this, yesterday, I couldn't believe my eyes ... No, I said to myself, this must be a very early April Fools (sick) joke. Then I realized how wrong I was ... and I was speechless.
But I've now given the matter some further thought, and have come to the conclusion that the greatest threat to the future of the planet - not to mention the health and well-being of our grandchildren - may well lie in the halls of "academia".
How did our institutions of "higher learning" become such fertile grounds for the deadly seeds we've inherited - thanks to 20+ years of "cross-pollination" by the busy bees in the hives of the EU, NGOs and the UN?
I also wonder if this latest output from an "ethicist" - added to the disgrace of now former AGU "Ethics Committee" Chair, Peter <Mr. Expert on Integrity in Science> Gleick - is an indication that perhaps somewhere along the line, The Team, with the help of mindless acolytes, lesser lights and journolites™, have succeeded in redefining "ethics".
Josh
I think this might be worth a B horror movie poster. The Plague of the Vegetarian Midgets perhaps?
When the experimentation, its methodology and testing of hypotheses was paralyzed by statistics and computer modelling [excellent in computer modelling - for engineering, architecture but hopeless in nebulous suppositions, ie - AGW]
Additionally, the scientific method has been traduced by post normal philosophizing, whereby the conclusion is drawn before the experiments have been devised ..........gone is the actual testing and then; data collection and collation and results thereof are thoroughly tested - lets face it who needs those say the politicians - phone the stats boys.
Then, the preponderance of Humanities faculties and political science which started to dominate 'concrete and glass' campuses and when the supremacy of the idea of academic rigour did finally fly out of the window.
Henceforth, the consequent devaluation and dissolution, degradation of Western Science - see the RI.
Student and Youthful greenies/eco-loons don't understand this argument, they aren't capable of computing it, they were not given the skill set.
Even and heaven forfend, now in the Russell group.
Be careful what you wish for.
Athelstan, I think is wrong to say that 'the scientific method has been traduced by post normal philosophizing'. PNS is overstated by sceptics, as is the influence of its adherents. The precautionary principle was already influential by the time PNS had been formulated.
The shift of the role of the academy and its relationship with power reflects in turn a deeper political change. There aren't now the battles that once existed, such as between left and right, either in a material sense, such as the industrial disputes of the 70s and early 80s, or in terms of 'ideologies'. Politics then reduces to being merely the business of management of public affairs. This is what many people wanted it to be.
The 'evidenced-based-policy-making' genie is not an easy beast to get back in the bottle. But isn't it inevitable that when we demand that 'objectivity' and 'science' rule, the academy gets recruited, and we discover that objectivity and science aren't the straightforward concepts we hoped they were? That's not to devalue them at all, but on the contrary, to say that achieving them is much harder than simply saying them, as mere words.
Science, with its claim to objectivity, is the last remaining source of authority. That's why the roles of Universities has shifted. It's much easier for a politician to say, 'this research shows...' than it is for him to say 'I believe in...'.
If we shrunk climate "scientists" - we could put them back in their box ;-)
Luboš Motl has a punchy piece up on this in his inimicable style
http://motls.blogspot.com/2012/03/nyu-oxford-will-produce-shorter-humans.html
A commenter sagely remarks
'I hope intelligent people are careful with this. It seems authentic (this silly paper I mean) but it could be some kind of a hoax. I usually don't credit the climate(s)catastrophe crowd with enough introspection to develop satire but you never know.'
Having downloaded the pdf, skimmed read parts - the take-home message for me was support for the concept of per capita carbon allocation. Not a new one at all, and certainly one of the more sinister ideas that results from the child-as-unit-of-pollution school of neo-Malthusianism thought. And also one that stems partly from (of peak-oil fame) King Hubbert's "Technocracy". - a world where money does not exist, and is replaced instead by an allocation of energy. I read a great article, but can't find it right now, but found this one that appears apt:
http://www.canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/19380
It is a truly Kafkaesque paradox that there are people such as Liao - who display all the empathy of a sociopath - are actually paid -presumably by the public purse - to practice Ethics and Philosophy in Ivy-League university departments.
Aha... Think I have found it:
http://www.sovereignindependent.com/?p=1482
Only for those with a minor disposition for conspiracy theories need read! Liao, most likely sees himself as part of the "governing body"...
@ Ben Pile,
Interesting Ben sir,
[...] "Science, with its claim to objectivity, is the last remaining source of authority. That's why the roles of Universities has shifted. It's much easier for a politician to say, 'this research shows...' than it is for him to say 'I believe in...'. "
The more you know, the more you realise you don't know, Einstein pushed Newtonian physics into the unknown and in turn does Quantum theory, it pulls and yanks at the Einstein-ian Universe. Nothing is nailed on certain in the Universe, nothing.
Yet, opportunity and money is always knocking and science wooed.
When did NASA stop being a pure science adventure and become a Goddard institute of global warming advocacy? = money Ben and as we all know that is the route of all evil.
Government funded research and answers? Er, nope; "we have the answers now you lads go and prove it." Is how it works.
AGW is real, now prove it and so the statisticians in Penn State, UEA and NASA had a field day, computing technology and main frame servers went big iron capacity, bits went petabyte and power went through the roof and hey presto; "we can model the earth's climate!"
Certain departments in Universities cottoned on. Some stayed aloof but money talks and the [western ie USA,Germany/EU, and Britain] politicians closed down dissenting voices [CONSENSUS!!] and lets face it - people worry about paying the mortgage and the kids education fees - tis a slam dunk.
Agreed the campuses were [some at any rate] were always hot beds of 'radicalism' but usually in the humanities/sociology faculties, science stayed staid, until Carl Sagan and Jim Hansen and politicians smelled the possibilities of scientific authentication, [bonus] via established academic seats and for some very dubious political goals. The rest we can read and observe still going on now [British climate ACT].
The supposition [AGW] crumbles but that was never the real 'McCoy' by any stretch of the political imagination........ and what's that sound.......................its the hooves of the corporate bankers stampeding down to the 'waterhole'.
Speaking of basketball, I remember discussing with a friend some years ago the phenomenon of all these huge basketball players and remarking that one of these days someone will design a game where only really small people can play well and that five years after that there would be tons of two foot adults around. Sounds like the North Koreans are well on their way. But for God's sake don't tell Tom Friedman.
NASA was never a pure science adventure. Its projects were always situated historically or politically. It was formed to demonstrate the USA's prowess, in the context of a deepening cold war, a space race, and an arms race. Kennedy's much-alluded to Moon Landing speech speaks about a very political project.
But the fact that the scientific exercise was, in origin, political, should not bother us. In spite of the conflict that it grew out of, the era was largely optimistic. The most interesting thing about the climate debate, in my view, is that it emerges as that optimism fades, and deepens as it inverts completely. The political mood of the era is reflected in the scientific projects -- their focus shifts, from one surrounded by rhetoric about creating abundance, and liberating people, to one which austerity is emphasised and people are contained.
There was money for science, and for the academy long before AGW. Money doesn't explain anything.
This kind of Eco looniness goes well with the notorious "10-10 no pressure" video released a few years ago. I only first saw this "10-10" campaign video a few days ago and thought it had to be a very hostile parody of the nuttiness of Eco fanatics.... But apparently the eco loons thought this video would be a good representation of their movement:
http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=gbJTNN8oPTs
Why not have a friendly "no pressure" campaign for Eco-human-re-engineering???
Conspiracy theorists might be interested in joining up the following dots:
Background to S. Matthew Liao
............ was the Harold T. Shapiro Research Fellow in the University Center for Human Values at Princeton University in 2003-2004, and a Greenwall Research Fellow at Johns Hopkins University and a Visiting Researcher at the Kennedy Institute of Ethics at Georgetown University from 2004-2006. I obtained my doctorate in philosophy from Oxford University and graduated magna cum laude with an AB from Princeton University.
Princeton:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rockefeller_College
Examples of Rockefeller interests:
http://thecounterpunch.hubpages.com/hub/Club_of_Rome
http://hnn.us/articles/1796.html
Move along folks, nothing to see here!
Gas chambers for Chavs