By C. Ben Mitchell, Ph.D., CBC Board Member
Just when you think you have heard it all, someone pushes the envelope. According to three ethicists writing in the journal Ethics, Policy and the Environment, because geoengineering might be too risky a way to combat global climate change, we should alter the human species instead.
Here is the argument offered by Matthew Liao, Anders Sandberg, and Rebecca Roache. Climate change is the result of human corruption of the environment—so-called anthropogenic causes. Climate change affects food production, access to water, health, and the environment. Since, in their view, millions could suffer from the consequences of climate change something radical must be done. Recycling, tax-incentives, and large-scale manipulation of the environment are, according to the authors, either too negligible or too grand to be effective. Geoengineering, in particular, is disadvantageous because “in many cases, we lack the necessary scientific knowledge to devise and implement geoengineering without significant risk to ourselves and to future generations” (p. 4). So, in one breathtaking leap, the authors argue that we ought to consider “biomedical modification of humans to make them better at mitigating climate change.”
Continue Reading at CBC-Network.org
Author Profile
Latest entries
Sperm Donation2022.03.15Venus Rising with Edward Saulig: Reflections of a Sperm Donor
Bioethics2022.03.13Dr. C. Ben Mitchell: 2022 Ramsey Award Winner
#BigFertility2022.03.10Documentary Explores One Woman’s Journey through Egg Donation
Bioethics2022.03.09Questioning the “Science” of the Gender Industry