People have offered many suggestions for dealing with climate change. There have been international political agreements, and there have been attempts at market based solutions. Some have suggested the problem lies closer to home, that recycling or driving a hybrid are ways to help. And then there is one you probably have not heard yet: Make the next generation of children shorter so they consume less. This is one of the options discussed in a new academic paper which has set off a storm of criticism. In “Human Engineering and Climate Change,’’ a group of three scholars consider ways of using science to alter the human body in order to divert the Earth from its march to slow boil -- to drought, coastal flooding, extreme weather and all the rest. A good number of the possibilities they put forward are indeed horrific, and the whole conversation surrounding it has a dystopian, totalitarian feel.
BostonGlobe.comSubscriber Log-in
Contact us for help
-
Phone
617-929-2233
Daily 8 a.m.-7 p.m.
-
Chat
Daily 7 a.m.-7 p.m.
Comments
This comment has been removed.
Bravo to the Globe for showing us the outer fringes of the global warming discussion. But this column should have been in next Sunday's paper, for April Fool's Day. I had to read it twice, and still can't decide: is this a joke?
A truly liberal perspective would be to take the view that, if humanity cannot or will not act to do what they can (e.g. limit population growth, ensure the most efficient use and preservation of resources) to secure their own survival, they should be allowed to expire. There are plenty of other species, especially non-eukaryotic, that will fill the biotic void.
What in the world are you talking about? I can't think of anything in the concept of "liberalism" that would justify the extinction of humanity. No ethically defensible philosophy would. Why would you say such a thing?
Definition of LIBERAL 1 a: of, relating to, or based on the liberal arts b (archaic): of or befitting a man of free birth 2 a: marked by generosity : openhanded b: given or provided in a generous and openhanded way c: ample, full 3 (obsolete): lacking moral restraint : licentious 4: not literal or strict : loose 5: broad-minded; especially: not bound by authoritarianism, orthodoxy, or traditional forms 6 a: of, favoring, or based upon the principles of liberalism. b (capitalized): of or constituting a political party advocating or associated with the principles of political liberalism; especially: of or constituting a political party in the United Kingdom associated with ideals of individual especially economic freedom, greater individual participation in government, and constitutional, political, and administrative reforms designed to secure these objectives ******* Who said anything about philosophy, Lowellite? Besides, why must a philosophy be anthropocentric? Ma gavte la nata.
You sound like you were writing about a neighborhood street fair. The cute little bites about how some people are so outlandish in their ideas mocks the problem. People are so brilliant that they can't see something directly in their face. HELP THE PLANET, DO SOMETHING NOW!!!!!
Never mind smaller bodies. How about fewer of them? It is unconscionable that we have allowed our species to overrun the planet. We "manage" wildlife populations (only because we have exterminated the predators that do it naturally), we spay and neuter our pets, but any suggestion that human reproduction is not an unlimited and inviolable right is met with supreme umbrage. As JLErwin3 suggests, if we don't rein it in, Mother Nature will do it for us, and we won't like it.