Election 2016: Mitt Isn’t Ready to Call It Quits
**Posted by Phineas
You see, to save the Earth and propitiate Gaea, we must re-engineer humanity itself!
Your paper also discusses the use of human engineering to make humans smaller. Why would this be a powerful technique in the fight against climate change?
Liao (1): Well one of the things that we noticed is that human ecological footprints are partly correlated with size. Each kilogram of body mass requires a certain amount of food and nutrients and so, other things being equal, the larger person is the more food and energy they are going to soak up over the course of a lifetime. There are also other, less obvious ways in which larger people consume more energy than smaller people—for example a car uses more fuel per mile to carry a heavier person, more fabric is needed to clothe larger people, and heavier people wear out shoes, carpets and furniture at a quicker rate than lighter people, and so on.
And so size reduction could be one way to reduce a person’s ecological footprint. For instance if you reduce the average U.S. height by just 15cm, you could reduce body mass by 21% for men and 25% for women, with a corresponding reduction in metabolic rates by some 15% to 18%, because less tissue means lower energy and nutrient needs.
Yes, to fight dangerous man-caused climate change (a problem that does not exist), we must all become Keebler Elves.
And that ain’t all, folks! Mr. Liao also discusses creating medicines to make us allergic to red meat, so we won’t… “produce as much methane.”
It’s to save the Earth, you see. And, naturally, this will require world government! Lead, of course, by our intellectual betters, who will still get to fly around to conferences in big CO2-belching jets.
Just lie back and think of Gaea. It will all be over, soon.
via WUWT, where you can read other jaw-dropping highlights.
(1) Dr. Liao is a professor of Philosophy and Bioethics at New York University. If that rings a bell, it’s because we’ve encountered bioethicists before. I’m beginning to think their use of the word “ethics” is particularly Orwellian.
(Crossposted at Public Secrets)