Building earth-friendly people ... altering humans may be a safer option than trying to alter the planet.
Human-induced climate change is one of the biggest problems that we face today. Millions could suffer hunger, water shortages, diseases and coastal flooding because of climate change. The latest science suggests that we may be near or even beyond the point of no return.
Some scientists and policy makers are therefore proposing that we take seriously the idea of geoengineering - that is, large-scale manipulations of the earth, such as spraying sulfate aerosols into the stratosphere to alter the reflectivity of the planet or fertilising the ocean with iron to spur blooms of carbon-sucking plankton. However, geoengineering seems too risky. Many of the technologies involved have never been employed on such a large scale, which means that we could be endangering ourselves or future generations. Indeed, spraying sulfate aerosols could destroy the ozone layer and iron fertilisation could promote toxic planktons and destroy all forms of marine life.
One might be able to use preimplantation genetic diagnosis to select shorter children.
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.
Illustration: iStock
Before I explain the proposal, let me make clear that 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).
Advertisement
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.
Finally, the main claim here is a modest one, namely, human engineering should be considered alongside other solutions such as geoengineering. The claim is not that human engineering ought to be adopted as a matter of public policy. This is an attempt to encourage ''outside the box'' thinking vis-a-vis a seemingly intractable problem.
The rest is here:
Hand-made humans may hold the key to saving the world
Recommendation and review posted by G. Smith
