Search
Close this search box.

Search Results for: Matthew Liao

NYU/WEF ‘Bioethicist’ Matthew Liao touts ‘human engineering’: Humans should be genetically modified to induce an intolerance to meat to solve ‘climate change’

S. Matthew Liao, a "bioethicist" with ties to the WEF: Humans should be genetically modified to induce an intolerance to meat, in order to solve "climate change". "It turns out that we can use human engineering to help us address climate change… People eat too much meat,… pic.twitter.com/iCTgb0Siht — Wide Awake Media (@wideawake_media) September 15, 2023 S. Matthew Liao, a “bioethicist” with ties to the WEF: Humans should be genetically modified to induce an intolerance to meat, in order to solve “climate change”. “It turns out that we can use human engineering to help us address climate change… People eat too much meat, right? And if they were to cut down on their consumption of meat, it would actually really help the planet. But people are not willing to give up meat… We can use human engineering to make it the case that we’re intolerant to certain kinds of meat. That’s something that we can do through human engineering.”

Human Engineering: Meet NYU Professor Matthew Liao, who yearns to bio-engineer smaller, drug-ready humans

By TONY THOMAS People unwilling to act on the climate-crisis narrative should be assisted with drugs that improve and promote conformity, according to eminent bio-ethicist Professor Matthew Liao, of New York University, who also wants to see parents dosing their children with hormones and diets to keep them shorter and less of a burden on the planet. He wants such people to be given  the ‘love drug/cuddle chemical’ oxytocin. This would increase their trust and empathy and make them more ready to change to emission-saving lifestyles. As his peer-reviewed study puts it, “Pharmacologically induced altruism and empathy could increase the likelihood that we adopt the necessary behavioral and market solutions for curbing climate change.” He emphasises there would be no coercion. The drugs would merely help those who want to be climate-friendly behaviour but lack the willpower Once sufficiently drugged, parents would be less likely to reject notions of “human engineering” techniques that will be needed to create Humans 2.0. These amended species will be 15cm shorter than now, hence more energy efficient and less resource-demanding. His study,  Human Engineering and Climate Change, is in  Ethics, Policy and the Environment.[1] Some US reaction to Liao has been adverse. Investor’s  Business Daily used the headline, “Global Warming Fever Drove This Professor Completely Mad”.[2] It said that warmists are “bummed they can’t find enough naive people to buy into their story”. The looniest tune yet played is Liao’s, it said. Liao’s study theorises that shorter humans could be achieved through embryo selection during IVF, plus drug and nutrient treatments to reduce birth weights. (High birth weight correlates with future height; low weights obviously correlate with risk to the baby).[3]  Anti-growth hormones could be fed to toddlers by climate-caring parents to create earlier closing of their bubs’ epiphyseal (growth) plates. Oh, and he also wants ecocidal meat eaters bio-altered to induce unpleasant reactions if they put pleasure ahead of planet and tuck into a T-bone.[4] His paper, although now five years old and sometimes mistaken for a sceptic hoax, features today on his personal website. It merited him a gig at a recent Leftist-stacked Festival of Dangerous Ideas at Sydney Opera House, where he spoke  in front of  a banner, “Engineering humans to stop climate change”. His compere was the respectful Simon Longstaff, boss of Sydney’s  Ethics Centre , who introduced his guest as a “really great speaker…He is on the up, this guy. He is on the up!” Editor-in-Chief of the Journal of Moral Philosophy, Liao is chair of bioethics and director of the Center for Bioethics at New York University’s philosophy department — ranked world No 1 for philosophy, Longstaff said. Liao was earlier deputy director in the Program on the Ethics of the New Biosciences in the philosophy faculty at Oxford University. Longstaff said it was ranked world No 2. The mind boggles at what must go on those university philosophy/bioethics units ranked from third to 100? Liao began his Opera House talk with a visiting speaker’s typical home-town warm-up, in this instance about Sydney being such a beautiful city. After that, warming to his topic, he fretted that the city “might go underwater” because of rising seas. Many environmental problems, such as climate change, need collective action, he continued, but humans remain stubbornly individualistic, which why drugs that increase empathy and altruism might bestow the benefits of societal cooperation and engagement. Test subjects given oxytocin hormones were more willing to share money with strangers, behave in more trustworthy ways, and better read other people’s emotions, he said. He continued,  “Making children smaller may be unappealing, but so is the prospect of having our children grow up in a world blighted by the environmental consequences of our choices and lifestyles… “To combat climate change we can either change the environment or change ourselves.  Given the enormous risks associated  with changing the environment, we should take  seriously that we need to change ourselves.” Liao insists his human engineering  is all voluntary, but should be incentivised by tax breaks and health-cost discounts. What he failed to explain is how toddlers could volunteer to restrict their adult height to say, 5ft (152cm). Liao asked, “Is it ethical for parents to make choices that would have  irreversible effects on their children’s lives? Not all human engineering involving children is necessarily controversial. For example, many parents are happy to give their children [anti attention-deficit disorder] drugs, such as Ritalin, to concentrate better in school. “Making children small is more controversial so proceed with care. But parents  are permitted to give hormones so a daughter likely to be 6ft 6in (198cm) could instead be 6ft (183cm). On what ground should we forbid parents who want to give hormone treatments so that children become 5ft tall rather than 5ft 5in tall? If climate change would  effect millions of children including one’s own children,  then these children may also later appreciate and consent to the parents decisions.” Liao’s paper says tall people create energy waste by their food intake, extra fuel for their cars, more fabric for clothes, and more wear and tear on shoes, carpets and furniture.[5] “Think of their lifetime carbon footprint, it is quite a lot,” he told interviewers during his Australian sojourn (he must have arrived by row-boat). To curb planet-hurting population growth, a  UK doctors’ group had recommended that Britons confine themselves to two children. Liao instead suggested each British family be given emissions targets and within that, be incentivised to have either two normal-height children or multiple smaller ones.[6] “We think we now have optimal height, and that  we should not do anything to mess with our height, but the reality (can be) much more fluid,” he said, noting that everyone was much shorter in the 19th century with no harm done. He said height is seen by many as a social advantage but that was not a reason to scratch the shortness-creating idea.  As his paper says, bungee jumping, tattoos and running marathons are also minority tastes but legitimate activities. Ever-hopeful, Liao believes that once a few people started shortening their children, others might be similarly inspired, especially if given tax breaks. He conceded that poorer people are already shorter on average, and should not be encouraged to further shrink their offspring. He told his audience that many people wanted to give up eating meat but enjoyed the taste too much.  To assist, their immune systems could be  primed to react to meat “and induce some sort of unpleasant experience, very mild. (Laughter). Even if the effect was not for a lifetime, the learning effect could persist a long  time.” A safe way to induce such intolerance could involve a “meat patch”, akin to a  nicotine patch, that people could wear before going out to eat, he said. Liao concedes that the present “tackling” of climate change by changing behaviour (less travel, LED bulbs etc) and by top-down emissions schemes are inadequate. This has led to drastic and risky geoengineering proposals like   mirrors in space and seeding oceans with iron filings. Better and safer to use existing bio-medical techniques to alter humans instead, he says. Liao dropped political correctness to remark that US women “of lower cognitive ability” bred faster under 18 years. If they could be cognitively enhanced with Ritalin or Modafinil, which some parents already give their children to improve concentration at school, these women might have lower birth rates. He also pre-empted Pauline Hanson by saying various public health measures are similarly taken, despite risks. He said, “People routinely vaccinate  to prevent acquiring diseases even though vaccinations have sometimes side effects and can even lead to deaths.”[7] He agreed that bio-engineering against obesity would be climate-effective, “but  I focus on height because the issue of obesity is very politically sensitive,  raising a lot of issues and, on top, some discriminatory aspects –  talk about obesity, you know…a tricky situation.”  So Liao put this planet-saving measure aside because of potential backlash from “obesity identity” activists. Anti-height measures, however, are politically safe because tall people are already advantaged. Liao wants each person to become carbon neutral, otherwise we should spend more money on space exploration – presumably so mankind find a new home on some other planet. “Scientists tell us we are close to the point of no return,” he said, apparently unaware of the hundreds of failed tipping point predictions. Question time produced one ripper from an elderly lady, Margaret, who seemed a warmist sympathiser: “What percent of the  population would need to adopt any of these measures before they became effective  in altering the rate at which we are going through climate change?” Liao, hitherto a picture of confidence, fumbled and stalled, saying it was empirical and had no idea in lieu of further and needed research: “So right now I am just sorting out ideas … we would need to figure out these further questions.” I can tell him now: if the 7.5 billion people on the planet all shrank by 15cm, it wouldn’t lower global temperatures one jot. The   climate-catastrophe evidence Liao cites for his Humans 2.0 makeover is the notoriously-flawed UK Stern Report (Stern is now calling for US$90 trillion funding for climate change) and the melting-Himalayan-glacier 2007  IPCC report run by then-IPCC chair and Rajendra Pachauri. [8]This report was so howler-laced that the InterAcademy Council ordered a forensic audit. The report found “significant shortcomings in each major step of IPCC’s assessment process”. Tony Thomas’s book of essays, That’s Debatable – 60 Years in Print, is available here.

Climate Depot Round Up: Flashback 2012: Meet Man Who Wants to Engineer a Master Climate Race?! NYU Prof. Matthew Liao: Humans genetically engineered to combat global warming — ‘Pharmacological enhancement’

Update: Another warmist proposes ‘genetically altering’ humans – ‘What if we put aside the ethical issues’ and allowed ‘genetic researchers to make us more resistant to the effects of climate change?’ – ‘Greener Ideal’ website article ‘Surviving Climate Change – By Genetically Altering You’ – By Jordan Green – February 25, 2014 # Flashback: Meet Man Who Wants to Engineer a Master Climate Race?! NYU Prof. Matthew Liao: Humans genetically engineered to combat global warming — ‘Pharmacological enhancement’ NYU Prof. S. Matthew Liao of Center for Bioethics promotes ‘solution of human engineering. It involves the biomedical modification of humans to make them better at mitigating climate change’ – ‘We shall argue that human engineering potentially offers an effective means of tackling climate change…the possibility of making humans smaller. Human ecological footprints are partly correlated with our size…a more speculative and controversial way of reducing adult height is to reduce birth weight…Pharmacological enhancement of altruism and empathy…could increase the likelihood that we adopt the necessary behavioural & market solutions for curbing climate change’ Fmr. Harvard U. Physicist Dr. Lubos Motl Compares NYU Prof. Matthew Liao to Nazis: ‘It only differs from the most perverse medical plans during Nazi era by one detail’ — ‘Mr Liao and his thugs want to exterminate mankind as we know it’ Liao’s ‘human engineering’ co-author Anders Sandberg: ‘People seem to assume we are some kind of totalitarian climate doomsters who advocate biotechnological control over people’ – Co-author Rebecca Roache: ‘Our normally unflappable bioethicist colleagues were shocked by the idea of human engineering, so the wider public was bound to find it ghastly’ Be Afraid, Very Afraid! Prof. Liao wants to drug the public to make them more compliant with his ideology. ‘Pharmacological enhancement’: ‘Test subjects given the posocial hormone oxytocin were more willing to share money with strangers…Also, a noradrenaline reuptake inhibitor increased social engagement and cooperation’ NYU Bioethicist S. Matthew Liao again suggests ‘voluntarily’ medicating the public and shrinking humans to make them care more about global warming – Liao: ‘The stuff that we looked at are things we currently already can do. So they are not meant to be very farfetched scenarios. They are meant to be realistic. — ‘Screen for embryos that are expected to be shorter. Another possibility is you can get hormone treatments…We can use that technology to have smaller children’  Master Climate Race: NYU Bioethicist S. Matthew Liao: ‘If you can give something like oxytocin to people, then maybe they’ll be more willing to cooperate, to care more about the environment’ Liao ‘also said taking drugs like Ritalin to enhance cognition may help with the global population problem, since there’s a link between cognitive ability and lower birthrate.’ Analysis of NYU Prof Liao: ‘He has absolutely no idea that he is either immoral or out of his mind. He is clearly both’ [email protected] – ‘Liao’s effort to change history, whatever the motivation or lack of underlying knowledge, cannot be abided…It is simply the publication of an academic paper that presages the death of science, and indeed the death of reason, in the West’ NYU Bioethicist Prof. Liao on Eating meat: Seeks to ‘Make ourselves allergic to those proteins…unpleasant reaction…The way we can do that is to create some sort of meat patch’ – ‘Kind of like a nicotine patch where you put it on before you go to dinner go out to restaurant and this will curb your enthusiasm for eating meat’ Liao ‘also said taking drugs like Ritalin to enhance cognition may help with the global population problem, since there’s a link between cognitive ability and lower birthrate.’ Prof. Liao upset about ‘a torrent of outrage and abuse was being directed towards him online…terms such as ‘eugenics’, ‘Nazis’ and ‘eco fascists’ were quickly being bandied around’ – ‘Human engineering’: ‘The modifications discussed included: giving people drugs to make them have an adverse reaction to eating meat; making humans smaller via gene imprinting and “preimplantation genetic diagnosis”; lowering birth-rates through “cognitive enhancement”; genetically engineering eyesight to work better in the dark to help reduce the need for lighting; and the “pharmacological enhancement of altruism and empathy’ Warmist Bill McKibben rejects ‘Bioethics’ Prof. Liao’s master race: ‘Worst climate change solutions of all time — I’m with @climatedepot on this one’ Analysis of Prof. Liao: ‘Why pull punches when it comes to saving Mother Earth: If men are bad for the planet, why not suggest getting rid of the bearers of Y chromosomes?’ – Flashback 1984: Futurist Graham Molliter in article on how to feed an allegedly overpopulating world envisioned ‘an outer-limits scenario: using genetic engineering to produce smaller people–who need less food’ Read now: Prof. Liao’s personal blog: Liao brags that ‘Drudge Report also has a link to the interview’ on his new paper On Liao’s blog, he asks for volunteers for ‘open peer commentaries’ on his Brave New World paper on ‘human engineering’ (accepts blog comments)

NYU Bioethicist S. Matthew Liao again suggests ‘voluntarily’ medicating the public and shrinking humans to make them care more about global warming

  Watch October 19, 2012 video interview of Laio here. Background on Prof. Laio: Meet the Man Who Wants to Engineer a Master Climate Race?! NY University Prof. Matthew Liao: Humans should be genetically engineered to combat global warming — [email protected] NYU Bioethicist Prof. Liao on Eating meat: Seeks to ‘Make ourselves allergic to those proteins…unpleasant reaction…The way we can do that is to create some sort of meat patch’ — ‘Kind of like a nicotine patch where you put it on before you go to dinner go out to restaurant and this will curb your enthusiasm for eating meat’ Be Afraid, Very Afraid! Prof. Liao wants to drug the public to make them more compliant with his ideology. ‘Pharmacological enhancement’: ‘Test subjects given the posocial hormone oxytocin were more willing to share money with strangers…Also, a noradrenaline reuptake inhibitor increased social engagement and cooperation’ Master Climate Race: NYU Bioethicist S. Matthew Liao: ‘If you can give something like oxytocin to people, then maybe they’ll be more willing to cooperate, to care more about the environment’ Liao ‘also said taking drugs like Ritalin to enhance cognition may help with the global population problem, since there’s a link between cognitive ability and lower birthrate.’ Liao’s ‘human engineering’ co-author Anders Sandberg: ‘People seem to assume we are some kind of totalitarian climate doomsters who advocate biotechnological control over people’ — Co-author Rebecca Roache: ‘Our normally unflappable bioethicist colleagues were shocked by the idea of human engineering, so the wider public was bound to find it ghastly’ Prof. Liao upset about ‘a torrent of outrage and abuse was being directed towards him online…terms such as ‘eugenics’, ‘Nazis’ and ‘eco fascists’ were quickly being bandied around’ — ‘Human engineering’: ‘The modifications discussed included: giving people drugs to make them have an adverse reaction to eating meat; making humans smaller via gene imprinting and “preimplantation genetic diagnosis”; lowering birth-rates through “cognitive enhancement”; genetically engineering eyesight to work better in the dark to help reduce the need for lighting; and the “pharmacological enhancement of altruism and empathy’ Warmist Bill McKibben rejects ‘Bioethics’ Prof. Liao’s master race: ‘Worst climate change solutions of all time — I’m with @climatedepot on this one’ Analysis of Prof. Liao: ‘Why pull punches when it comes to saving Mother Earth: If men are bad for the planet, why not suggest getting rid of the bearers of Y chromosomes?’ Flashback 1984: Futurist Graham Molliter in article on how to feed an allegedly overpopulating world envisioned ‘an outer-limits scenario: using genetic engineering to produce smaller people–who need less food’ Read now: Prof. Liao’s personal blog: Liao brags that ‘Drudge Report also has a link to the interview’ on his new paper On Liao’s blog, he asks for volunteers for ‘open peer commentaries’ on his Brave New World paper on ‘human engineering’ (accepts blog comments) NYU Prof. S. Matthew Liao of Center for Bioethics promotes ‘solution of human engineering. It involves the biomedical modification of humans to make them better at mitigating climate change’ — ‘We shall argue that human engineering potentially offers an effective means of tackling climate change…the possibility of making humans smaller. Human ecological footprints are partly correlated with our size…a more speculative and controversial way of reducing adult height is to reduce birth weight…Pharmacological enhancement of altruism and empathy…could increase the likelihood that we adopt the necessary behavioral & market solutions for curbing climate change’ Former Harvard U. Physicist Dr. Lubos Motl Compares NYU Prof. Matthew Liao to the Nazis: ‘It only differs from the most perverse medical plans during Nazi era by one detail’ — Motl: ‘I am totally disgusted by this stuff and by the fact that NYU & Oxford harbor scumbags…It only differs from the most perverse medical plans during the Nazi era by one detail: the Nazis at least wanted to create a race that had some qualities according to some rather sane criteria (well, in some cases, at least). Instead, Mr Liao and his thugs want to exterminate the mankind as we know it and create a sea of short stinky junk losers similar to themselves’  

For more results click below