Human Engineering & Climate Change

[Soldier of the One]

Although I am not an expert on 'transhumanism' and such, I found this (bizarre) article in The Atlantic arguing in favor of 'human [genetic] engineering' in order to prevent/reduce climate change.

It is pretty obvious that taking good care of the environment is a value in and of itself. The proposals in this article, however, I found deeply troubling. Some examples of proposed human engineering:

- Cat-like eyes to see in the dark

- Designing a pill to induce mild nausea upon meat consumption

- Bio-engineering smaller children (!)

- A 1-child policy like that of China for here in the West

- Chemically-induced altruism

Here's the link: http://www.theatlantic.com/technology/a ... ge/253981/

What do you all think?

[Anise]

So obviously humans cannot be trusted to act responsibly for the benefit of the planet and must be altered? It makes as much sense to me as the claim that men have no self-control over their libidos and therefore women must wear denim frumpers with white tennis shoes.

[Three and Done]

What do I think? It's patently ridiculous.

[Soldier of the One]

It IS of course patently ridiculous. I thought it was horrid but wanted to see if others shared that opinion.

The scary part is that this patently ridiculous idea is being trumpeted by Real Scientists.

[ladypuglover]

It seems they want to play "God" and it can only blow up in their faces. Haven't they ever watched the SyFy channel?!!!11?!

[Three and Done]

We can't even agree that stem cell research is necessary and ethical, let alone bio-engineering. If the prevention and treatment of disease is "shouted down" in the manner it has been (and will continue to be, thanks to the anti-choice crowd), genetic engineering has not a snowball's chance in hell of ever being considered (even for truly important reasons).

[BayLee_10]

To be honest, at first I thought this was a joke that had been misinterpreted until I clicked on the article. In all seriousness I have no idea what will make this planet sustainable into the future, but I hope these ideas are way down the pipeline implementation-wise. The idea of engineering humans is not new. Two examples that come quickly to mind are Stalin's gorilla/human soldiers, and Hitler's althletic blue-eyed blonds. In the same set of topics, we have the Conservative Christian Right wanted to sustain all life, regardless, and get rid of birth control, and the article about a scientist with the option of manufacturing vegan hobbits who can see in the dark. Interesting times we live in. Not to mention scary.

[Esther]

Well, of course global warming is real and climate change is a fact. But these "measures" of dealing with those changes sound like science fiction for 10-year olds. The least ridiculous is that of a one-child-policy, which I personally oppose (and I think most people would) but which at least has been used someplace with some measure of success. The others? Crazy.

[tankgirl]

While Cat eyes would be awesome, it is beyond just silly, I mean so much can go wrong and it is going way too far to actually be practical, but if they have time, I would like a tail too, I mean why not. :lol: Oh and that is not penis envy, it's Pussy envy! (Sorry I had too!)

I think the only practical one is the limiting children, but it would be very difficult and I don't think it is totally ethical, the issue is you have some who will fight back and you end up with possible issues. China's system is far from perfect, we should not blindly follow it until fixes xan be made.

[Conuly]

Oh, I don't know. It'd be kinda fun to have better low-light vision and maybe better color vision if we went that way.

IF we ever got to the point where we could do that sort of engineering safely and consistently, I'd look upon it as just another personal choice. Some people dye their hair, some people alter their genome so that their offspring can have freedom from pimples. Whatever.

That's assuming it's not imposed from on high, naturally.

[Spider Burps]

Has anyone else ever read "A Modest Proposal"? If not, you've just read climate change's version of it. :lol: Now, if only they could genetically engineer those smaller, less-resource intensive children to taste like lamb... All of the world's problems would be solved!

[BayLee_10]

Has anyone else ever read "A Modest Proposal"? If not, you've just read climate change's version of it. :lol: Now, if only they could genetically engineer those smaller, less-resource intensive children to taste like lamb... All of the world's problems would be solved!

My favorite!

[reds]

I think that if the climate changes enough then evolution will kick in again and if we were meant to survive we will. We will adapt as a species and so will our food supply. But we will all die in an asteroid collision first and wont have to worry about it.

[Soldier of the One]

Haven't read it. What's 'A Modest Proposal'?

Well, apart from the absurdity of the article, there are a few things to consider:

1) What the heck is the impact of releasing altered genes into the human genome like that. Craziness.

2) Who controls what? Schemes like that are bound to turn totalitarian.

3) There are many, many other ways that we could fight climate change that leave human dignity intact. This discussion distracts from the central question at hand: who are the real polluters?

[Spider Burps]

Haven't read it. What's 'A Modest Proposal'?

It's a satirical essay written by a guy in the 1700s. One of his "solutions" for solving poverty and hunger was for the poor to sell their children as food to the rich. It's pretty funny and caused a bit of an outrage when people took him seriously.

http://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/1080

[Soldier of the One]

That sounds interesting, thanks Spider Burps!

[StacyW]

That's a fascinating interview. I hadn't realized that livestock farming is a bigger contributor to greenhouse gasses than transportation. I really doubt that people would volunteer to select for smaller children, given the advantage taller than average people have in life. It was interesting how Liao distinguished between selection and modification. But overall it was disturbing.

As for my desired genetic modification, I would like to experience a dog's sense of smell. And you can get infrared goggles, so do you really need to have cat eyes?

[Soldier of the One]

If you REALLY want to cut greenhouse gasses, why don't we all get engineered to have wings? That way, we can fly anywhere and we won't need to rely on cars/public transport anymore! :D

[She Who Laughs]

Well, of course global warming is real and climate change is a fact. But these "measures" of dealing with those changes sound like science fiction for 10-year olds. The least ridiculous is that of a one-child-policy, which I personally oppose (and I think most people would) but which at least has been used someplace with some measure of success. The others? Crazy.

China's one-child policy may have helped keep population under control, but I don't consider anything a success when they force women to have abortions, sometimes without anesthetic, and when they make an example of those who successfully have a second pregnancy by doing everything they can to destroy the family so others won't try it. I have a close friend who married a chinese woman and they live in China. Since he is an American, the one-child policy does not affect them but she has had a family member and a friend die after being forced to undergo an abortion - both were very late-term abortions. The two women died from infections. Another family she knew successfully had a second child but the government made an example out of them by bringing in bulldozers and destroying their house while they were away. The government also pays people to inform on their neighbors if they suspect someone in their community is pregnant with a second child. That is not success in my mind and I would never want to live in a country that treated its citizens that way.

[shesinsane]

Although I am not an expert on 'transhumanism' and such, I found this (bizarre) article in The Atlantic arguing in favor of 'human [genetic] engineering' in order to prevent/reduce climate change.

It is pretty obvious that taking good care of the environment is a value in and of itself. The proposals in this article, however, I found deeply troubling. Some examples of proposed human engineering:

- Cat-like eyes to see in the dark- Designing a pill to induce mild nausea upon meat consumption

- Bio-engineering smaller children (!)

- A 1-child policy like that of China for here in the West

- Chemically-induced altruism

Here's the link: http://www.theatlantic.com/technology/a ... ge/253981/

What do you all think?

About a decade ago there was a tv series called Dark Angel about a group of super soldier children that were created in a lab. Feline DNA was used to give them the ability to see in the dark (with the side effect that they would sometimes go into heat).

The tv show was science fiction, and that's what this looks like to me.

[Conuly]

The tv show was science fiction, and that's what this looks like to me.

At the moment, definitely.

But in the 1950s human ears on mice, cloning, crops designed to be resistant to pesticides, laptop computers, the internet - all these things were "science fiction" and now we're doing them for real.

We know why humans have poor low-light vision - we don't have a tapetum lucidum. We know why we can't see into the ultraviolet - we only have three types of higher-intensity light receptors instead of four.

If we can add an ear to a rat's back, I'm sure that given enough time, effort, money, and mad science we can introduce tetrachromatic vision to humans.

[browngrl]

I doubt most of those modifications would do much (although cat like night vision sounds pretty cool to me). However, what about this type of genetic modification: insert the genes for photosynthesis into skin cells so that people would only need sunlight/O2/water to survive and famine would be much much more rare.

[Conuly]

I doubt most of those modifications would do much (although cat like night vision sounds pretty cool to me). However, what about this type of genetic modification: insert the genes for photosynthesis into skin cells so that people would only need sunlight/O2/water to survive and famine would be much much more rare.

Wouldn't we still need to obtain nutrients in the usual way?

[Artemis]

:D There are already quite a lot of ways of chemically inducing altruism.

Unfortunately, most of them are illegal. :D

[bananacat]

If someone could give me cat vision, I'd be the first to sign up. That would be totally awesome. The others are a bit questionable, especially when it involves kids, but theoretically I don't think any of them are so bad if we can make sure that only informed, consenting adults get them. Of course in practicality it's very hard to ensure something like that, but that's another issue.