There is always someone outraged

Stuff.co.nz

No matter what the issue, media always manages to find someone who is “outraged”. Todays outraged people are climate change fanciers who are “outraged” that some scientists think that changing the planet’s biosphere is silly, when it is easier to bioengineer human to cope with warming.

The ensuing shit fight amongst scientists is hilarious:

If it is so hard to change the climate to suit humans, why not alter humans to suit the changing climate, philosophers from Oxford and New York universities are asking.

They suggest humans could be modified to be smaller, dislike eating meat, have fewer children and be more willing to co-operate with social goals.

Behavioural changes might not be enough to prevent climate change even if they were widely adopted, and international agreements for measures such as emissions trading are proving elusive, say Matthew Liao of New York University and Anders Sandberg and Rebecca Roache of Oxford University.

So human engineering deserves serious consideration in the debate about how to solve climate change, they write in a coming paper for the academic journal Ethics, Policy & Environment.

A person’s ecological footprint is directly correlated to size, because larger people eat more than lighter people, their cars need more fuel to carry them and they wear out shoes, carpets and furniture sooner than lighter people, the authors write. They suggest hormone treatments could be used to suppress child growth, or embryos could be selected for smaller size.

Reducing consumption of red meat could have significant environmental benefits, the paper says, citing estimates that as much as 51 per cent of the world’s greenhouse gas emissions come from livestock farming. They say people who lack the motivation or willpower to give up eating meat could be helped by ”meat patches” on their skin to deliver hormones to stimulate their immune system against common bovine proteins.

”Eating ‘eco-unfriendly’ food would induce unpleasant experiences,” the authors say.

Better educated women have fewer children, so human engineering to improve cognition could reduce fertility as ”a positive side effect from the point of view of tackling climate change”, the paper argues.

Pharmacological treatments such as the ”love drug” oxytocin could encourage people to act as a group and boost their appreciation of other life forms and nature, the authors say.

The paper has sparked a storm in the blogosphere. The environmentalist Bill McKibben tweeted that the authors had proposed ”the worst climate-change solutions of all time”. They have also been denounced as Nazis and ecofascists.

The authors are bemused but unrepentant. If people were willing to consider ”really dangerous” geoengineering solutions such as using space mirrors to alter the Earth’s solar reflectivity, human engineering should also be on the table, Dr Liao said.

 


THANK YOU for being a subscriber. Because of you Whaleoil is going from strength to strength. It is a little known fact that Whaleoil subscribers are better in bed, good looking and highly intelligent. Sometimes all at once! Please Click Here Now to subscribe to an ad-free Whaleoil.

  • Mike Smith

    Are you outraged by their outrage?

  • rouppe

    They suggest humans could be modified to be smaller, dislike eating meat, have fewer children and be more willing to co-operate with social goals.

    Sounds like the goals of Pol Pot,or Kim Jong Il

    • nasska

      The really scary part is that they would be willing to subject the human race to something equivalent to world government to allow this to happen.   Only to the peasantry of course…..our “betters” such as Dr Liao & the NWO of the UN would have exemptions.

      George Orwell, on a bad day, would have beaten Nostradamus in fortunetelling.  The only mistake he made was in timing & then, only by about three decades.

    • Steve P
  • Vlad

    Any statistics on average height of Green Party voters?

  • Apolonia

    Humans adjust to the climate they live in all over the world today.

    • Adolf Fiinkensein

       That’s why you have black bastards on the one hand and honkies on the other.

  • Steve P

    Going by what’s excerpted here the paper’s authors are blithering idiots.

    “… humans could be modified to be smaller, dislike eating meat, have fewer children and be more willing to co-operate with social goals.”

    We humans have been domesticating ourselves for the last several thousand years since the development of agriculture, with precisely these effects. Hint: humans do not naturally live in groups of several million.

    “Reducing consumption of red meat could have significant environmental benefits…”

    If you really, really, really wanted to reduce humanity’s ecological impact, you would eliminate the aforementioned agriculture and revert humanity to its former game-based hunter-gatherer lifestyle.

    “Better educated women have fewer children, so human engineering to improve cognition could reduce fertility…”

    Cognition ≠ education… these authors have certainly demonstrated that; they may be educated but they are certainly not smart. If you are going to engineer people to improve cognition to reduce fertility, why not just engineer people to reduce fertility? 

    Or, if educated women have fewer children – and if fewer children is what you want – then why not, um, just educate women?

  • Drhill

    I for one accept our 7 foot amazon overlords………….what? They’re 4ft tall? Bugger!.

  • niggly

    Heh heh why don’t these dipstick authors suggest nations build thousands of large rocket ships housing hundreds or thousands of people whom are in a type of frozen state and maybe hundreds of years later they reach some habitable planets which can be colonised. (The money can come from Defence budgets as their won’t be anyone around to wage war)! That’ll solve Earth’s problems! Crazy idea eh, just as crazy as theirs!

  • Macca

    I like it. As long as I can determine the rules! 

    • niggly

      Oh yeah the rules, they are, of course, everyone goes except for:

      *Greenies, Greenpeace members (as they need to be the Earth’s guardians of course).
      *Handful of token Indigenous peoples (so they too can be the Earth’s guardians, and also to allow the Greenies and Greenpeace members have someone to preach to)!

      • Mike Smith

         You’ve only got one planet to live on. Best to keep it in good order.

  • JK

    The problem is that these people are serious in their thinking.
    Keep remembering what the political and social prerequisites were for Joseph Mengele and his ilk to thrive. Both the politicians willing to create that type of society and the medicos thriving to become the god that saved the world from all those miserable “untermenschen” (for their own good, of course) are currently very, very active.

  • AngryTory

    They suggest humans could be modified to be smaller, dislike eating meat, have fewer children and be more willing to co-operate with social goals.

    Forced conversions to liberal socialist homosexuality.  Why am I not surprised!

    • Kosh103

      Ummm dipshit what does any of what you quoted above have to do with being gay?

    •  “..Forced conversions..”.heh..!

      so..angry tory…the only thing between/stopping you becoming gay…

      ..is a bit of ‘force’..eh..?

      ..whoar..!

      ..that must make you quite nervous..scared even…

      ..being so close..

      ..eh…?

      ..is that all what makes you an ‘angry tory’…?

      ..there…angry tory..?

      [email protected]

      • Vlad

        How tall are you Phil?  I’m guessing you are an earlier experiment gone wrong.

  • Jimmie

    Why all the engineering crap – if you are feeling hitleresque just set population quotas.

    Divide the population into districts with a set number of people per district. 

    If the numbers go over – send in the goons and grab several thousand people and send them off to the death camps.

    Barbaric you may say, but what these idiots are proposing is nothing different but it is written up in an attempt to be acceptable to the general populace, the reality is they are proposing nothing different to what Hitler started.

  • Michael

    As a meat eating, beer swilling, 1.9m, former senior rugby playing prop, with an expanding family I say: Pass me the Big Mac and tell them to go and fuck themselves.

    • Valerie

       Crikey, that was witty.

  • jay cee

    nazism pure and simple, create an us and them where the “us” are superior to “them” then think of creaive ways to remove  them. in this case the “meat patches” would replace the yellow star of yore so we would all know who the enemies of the state were.

    • Kosh103

      Okkkkkkkkkkkk, step back and take a breath now.

  • Greg M

    OK so someone is outraged. It could have been much worse,

    Someone could have been “offended”…**gasp, shock, horror**

  • The criticisms of Liao’s paper
    reflect knee-jerk reactions to new ideas. First of all, we have already
    implemented size control actions through a food system that subjects the
    population to excess protein, calories, and various chemicals and toxins. We eat
    animals that have been fed genetically-modified foods, hormones and
    antibiotics. In contrast, for most of human existence, we ate simple, basic
    foods and we didn’t have them everyday. Sometimes we went without eating for
    days. Professors Popkin, Colin Campbell, Cameron, Burkitt and Rollo have noted
    that our emphasis on meat, processed foods and calories have led to faster
    aging and increased chronic diseases in middle and older ages. The problem is
    that we are blinded by our prejudice favoring taller and bigger people. This
    favoritism is a threat to human survival because 6 to 9 billion bigger humans
    consume so many more resources along with polluting the environment.

    A world population of bigger people
    need more metals, minerals, plastics, energy, water, food, and farmland. And
    these needs are quite large as described in the book: Human Body Size and the
    Laws of Scaling-Physiological, Performance, Growth, Longevity and Ecological
    Ramifications, Nova Science, NY, 2007.

For readers with an open mind, there’s
    plenty of research showing that shorter, lighter people have a number of
    physical advantages (faster reaction times, faster acceleration, stronger pound
    for pound, and greater endurance). Some of the greatest achievers of all time
    have been quite small: Mozart, Picasso, Michelangelo, Einstein, Alexander the
    Great, Alexander Pope, John Keats, Andrew Carnegie, Onassis, David Murdock,
    Bruce Lee, Jet Li, Jackie Chan, Churchill, President Madison, Maradona, Scott
    Hamilton, and Tara Lipinski.



    I have studied the ramifications of
    increasing body size for about 37 years and published over 40 papers and books
    on the benefits of smaller humans. If the subject interests you, go to website:
    http://www.humanbodysize.com and http://smallerhumans.blogspot.com/ Why smaller humans
    are in our future

    The criticisms of Liao’s paper reflect knee-jerk reactions to new ideas. First of all, we have already implemented size control actions through a food system that subjects the population to excess protein, calories, and various chemicals and toxins. We eat animals that have been fed genetically-modified foods, hormones and antibiotics. In contrast, for most of human existence, we ate simple, basic foods and we didn’t have them everyday. Sometimes we went without eating for days. Professors Popkin, Colin Campbell, Cameron, Burkitt and Rollo have noted that our emphasis on meat, processed foods and calories have led to faster aging and increased chronic diseases in middle and older ages. The problem is that we are blinded by our prejudice favoring taller and bigger people. This favoritism is a threat to human survival because 6 to 9 billion bigger humans consume so many more resources along with polluting the environment. 
    A world population of bigger people need more metals, minerals, plastics, energy, water, food, and farmland. And these needs are quite large as described in the book: Human Body Size and the Laws of Scaling-Physiological, Performance, Growth, Longevity and Ecological Ramifications, Nova Science, NY, 2007.

For readers with an open mind, there’s plenty of research showing that shorter, lighter people have a number of physical advantages (faster reaction times, faster acceleration, stronger pound for pound, and greater endurance). Some of the greatest achievers of all time have been quite small: Mozart, Picasso, Michelangelo, Einstein, Alexander the Great, Alexander Pope, John Keats, Andrew Carnegie, Onassis, David Murdock, Bruce Lee, Jet Li, Jackie Chan, Churchill, President Madison, Maradona, Scott Hamilton, and Tara Lipinski.


    I have studied the ramifications of increasing body size for about 37 years and published over 40 papers and books on the benefits of smaller humans. If the subject interests you, go to website: http://www.humanbodysize.com and http://smallerhumans.blogspot.com/ Why smaller humans are in our future
    M

     

     

33%