According to an article on brisbanetimes, human-induced climate change is one of the biggest problems we face today. Millions of people face impeding danger, so some scientists are proposing we look into geoengineering, or a large-scale manipulation of the earth. This includes spraying sulfate aerosols into the stratosphere to alter the reflectivity of the planet or fertilizing the ocean with iron to spur blooms of carbon-sucking plankton.
The author, Matthew Liao, is the director of the bioethics program and an associate professor in the Centre for Bioethics in the Department of Philosophy at New York University.
I propose that we consider another solution to the problem of climate change that has not been considered before and that is potentially less risky than geoengineering. Elsewhere my colleagues and I have called this solution ”human engineering”. It involves the biomedical modification of humans to make us better at mitigating, and adapting to the effects of, climate change.
human engineering is intended to be a voluntary activity – possibly supported by incentives such as tax breaks or sponsored healthcare – rather than a coerced, mandatory activity. My colleagues and I are positively against any form of coercion of the sort that the Nazis perpetrated in the past (segregation, sterilisation and genocide).
Yes you’ve read this correctly, he is proposing voluntary human engineering through bribes, such as tax breaks and healthcare. You can’t make this stuff up.
Next, he compares people who won’t take geoengineering seriously to those who currently don’t take recycling seriously.
Also, this proposal is intended for those who believe that climate change is a real problem, and who, as a result, are willing to take seriously geoengineering. Someone who doesn’t believe that climate change is a real problem is likely to think that encouraging people to recycle more is an overreaction to climate change.
He later goes in-depth in describing four feasible solutions to implement in the near future that will appeal to the masses. They are Pharmacological meat intolerance, making humans smaller, lowering birth rates through cognitive enhancement and Pharmacological induction of altruism and empathy.
Pharmacological Meat Intolerance
Liao explains that humans have a taste for red meat, so they could artificially induce a resistance to red meat for those who want to stop eating meat but don’t have the willpower to do so. Skin patches, much like those worn by those trying to quit smoking cigarettes, could be worn by citizens wanting to give up meat.
Making Humans Smaller
One solution offered is preimplantation genetic diagnosis to select shorter children. Another is to consider hormone levels to trigger the closing of the growth plate earlier than normal.
Drugs and nutrients can either reduce the expression of paternally imprinted genes or increase the expression of maternally imprinted genes: this could regulate birth size.
Lowering Birth Rates Through Cognitive Enhancement
According to the author:
Another possible human engineering solution is to use cognition enhancements, such as Ritalin and Modafinil, to achieve lower birth rates.
Even if the direct cognitive effect on fertility is minor, cognition enhancements may help increase the ability of people to educate themselves, which would then affect fertility and, indirectly, climate change.
Pharmacological Induction Of Altruism And Empathy
This is the best proposal, as the author promotes the collective, claims individualism is bad and altruism is the way to solve climate change. When the author says, “in which individuals do to cooperate for the common good” he actually means to say “obey” the masters.
He goes on to explain:
Pharmacological induction of altruism and empathy may help here. There is evidence that altruism and empathy have biological underpinnings. For example, test subjects given the prosocial hormone oxytocin were more willing to share money with strangers and to behave in a more trustworthy way. Also, a noradrenaline reuptake inhibitor increased social engagement and co-operation with a reduction in self-focus. Furthermore, oxytocin appears to improve the capacity to read other people’s emotional state, which is a key capacity for empathy. This suggests that interventions affecting the sensitivity in these neural systems could increase the willingness to co-operate with social rules or goals.
This article is a clear attack on humanity as we know it. For those who do not know, this attack has been underway for many years through vaccinations, food manipulation, fluoride in our water and more. Many of these changes discussed above are possible without consent or bribery, as the author proposes. It is simple to add chemicals to the water supply or steroids to our cattle, for example and achieve altruistic viewpoints and increased sterilization.
These types of articles also create a clear defiance needed to fight back against the climate change agenda, which is taking aim at humanity rather than striking at the root of core issues with our system of commerce and debt enslavement. All-in-all, this is one of the most frightening article read in awhile and should serve as a wake up call to those who trust science in relation to improving our lives.