Ridiculous philosophy by Matthew Liao, the director of the bioethics program and an associate professor in the Centre for Bioethics in the Department of Philosophy at New York University, suggests “hand-made humans to save the world”, as if God didn’t get us right the first time.
He says, “To combat climate change and global warming, we can either change the environment or change ourselves. Given the enormous risks associated with changing the environment, we should take seriously the idea that we may need to change ourselves.”
Ok, so if I believe this notion, then their are no risks or smaller risks associated with changing or altering humans? He doesn’t cover that topic. No surprise. Or does he mean that since others will be undergoing the awful science experiments, having no affect on him and his family- it’s ok, because our environment won’t be affected if all goes wrong – only the people altered. So, convince the people that it’s the right thing to do. I wonder if he and his associates will try and convince their children of the same ideals? Somehow I doubt it.
Also, on the topic of climate change- It is brought on by naturally occuring processes in the world, not by humans.
“Other planets are warming “[E]vidence that CO2 is not the principle driver of warming on this planet is provided by the simultaneous warming of other planets and moons in our solar system, despite the fact that they obviously have no anthropogenic emissions of greenhouse gases.”, stated by Ian C. McClintock, who serves on the Climate Change Task Force.
Mars, Triton, Pluto and Jupiter all show global warming, pointing to the Sun as the dominating influence in determining climate throughout the solar system.”
Humans were created to fit naturally in our environment, as we are. The idea that we need to change ourselves to “save the world” is the craziest thing I’ve heard in a while. Ok, well, one of the craziest things.
Liao understands the risks of geo-engineering , which includes chemtrails full of barium, strontium and aluminum, amongst other human and environmental toxins, that actually trap the heat on earth (already in progress today). So, his suggestion is a proposal that he considers another solution to the problem of climate change that has not been considered before and that is “potentially less risky” than geoengineering. Elsewhere he and his colleagues 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.”
Pharmacological Meat Intolerance
One of his ideas is “Pharmacological meat intolerance”. He goes on to say, “Human engineering could help here. Just as some people have a natural intolerance to milk or crayfish, it is possible artificially to induce intolerance to red meat by stimulating the immune system against common bovine proteins. The immune system would then become primed to react to them, and henceforth eating ”eco-unfriendly” food would induce unpleasant experiences. Even if the effects would not last a lifetime, the learning effect is likely to persist for a long time. A potentially safe and practical way of inducing such intolerance may be to produce ”meat” patches – akin to nicotine patches. People can then wear these patches before they eat to curb their enthusiasm for red meat. To ensure that these patches have the broadest appeal, we can produce patches that just target animals that contribute the most to greenhouse gas emissions.”
So, in other words, create artificial allergies with negative affects. There have already been studies and trials (unbeknownst to most people) where scientists have used GMO ticks to create meat intolerance in people. Could this explain the abnormal increase in people who cannot tolerate meat? Is this project already underway?
His ideas stems from the United Nation’s propaganda (in conjunction with the Agriculture Organisation), that livestock are “eco-unfriendly” and “cause more CO2 than vehicles”. These are notions being pushed on the populous in an attempt to further along the plan of Agenda 21 and sustainable development.
People are too tall
The second way Liao suggests to engineer humans to “save the world”, is to make them smaller. Yes. We are apparently too big. “One possibility is to use pre-implantation genetic diagnosis, which is now employed in fertility clinics as a means of screening out embryos with inherited genetic diseases. One might be able to use preimplantation genetic diagnosis to select shorter children.”, says Liao.
Well, there’s not much research that has been done on growth reduction hormones, but I think that you can conclude that they would only turn out as good as the growth hormones implemented for smaller children. Let’s take a look at some of the studies.
Consequences of Human Growth Hormone Study:
The injections speed the growth rate in 50 to 80 percent of nondeficient children over the short term.1-9 It is not clear, however, that final adult height is increased. There are indications that, for many children at least, the growth spurt simply occurs earlier. For those children who get no effect at all from the injections, the net result may be to aggravate feelings of shame and failure.10,11
Growth hormone also causes the liver to manufacture more insulin-like growth factor, or IGF-I, which plays a role in breast cell growth and lactation. It is not yet known whether children with more IGF-I circulating in their blood have a greater risk of cancer or a poorer prognosis should cancer develop.12,13 However, several lines of investigation suggest this possibility. Test-tube studies show that IGF-I encourages breast cancer cells to multiply, and it is even more potent in this regard than estrogens. Growth hormone may be one reason why women over 5’6″ have double the risk of developing breast cancer than women below 5’3″, particularly for premenopausal cancers.14-16 Tamoxifen, a drug used in the treatment of breast cancer, reduces IGF-I,13 an effect which may be partly responsible for its anticancer effect.
Growth hormone can also cause abnormal leanness,17 aggravate preexisting kidney disease,18 and stimulate the production of growth hormone antibodies.19
The ethical questions raised by the experiment would not have to be asked, had technology not grown to the point of allowing the wholesale use of the hormone.
More Information on the Study: http://www.pcrm.org/research/resch/reschethics/human-experiments-redrawing-the-ethical-boundaries
Liao goes on to say, “Also, one might consider hormone treatment either to affect growth hormone levels or to trigger the closing of the growth plate earlier than normal and gene imprinting – where only one parent’s copy of the genes is turned on and the other parent’s copy is turned off – has been found to affect birth size. So drugs or nutrients that either reduce the expression of paternally imprinted genes or increase the expression of maternally imprinted genes could potentially regulate birth size.”
See how well this worked in test labs: http://www.fasebj.org/cgi/content/meeting_abstract/23/1_MeetingAbstracts/807.7
Pharmacological induction of altruism and empathy
Another one of Liao’s crazy ideas to engineer humans is with pharmacological measures. Medication manipulation and brainwashing. He states, “For example, test subjects given the prosocial hormone oxytocin were more willing to share money with strangers and to behave in a more trustworthy way. Also, a noradrenaline reuptake inhibitor increased social engagement and co-operation with a reduction in self-focus. Furthermore, oxytocin appears to improve the capacity to read other people’s emotional state, which is a key capacity for empathy. This suggests that interventions affecting the sensitivity in these neural systems could increase the willingness to co-operate with social rules or goals.”
Another idea of his is to increase our resistance to heat and trpoical diseases and reduce our need for food and water.
“Human engineering could also be liberty enhancing. In response to climate change, some people have proposed we adopt something akin to China’s one-child policy. For example, a group of doctors in Britain has advocated a two-child maximum. But suppose that the relevant issue is some kind of fixed allocation of greenhouse gas emissions for each family. If so, given fixed allocations of greenhouse gas emissions, human engineering could give families the choice between having one large child, two medium-sized children or three small children. Human engineering seems more liberty enhancing than a policy that says you can have only one or two children.”, he says.
Again. Really? How would any of this provide anyone with a sense of “liberty”?
Liao then goes to state.” It may turn out that human engineering is not the best way of tackling climate change.”
I would say so, as well. I guess its a good idea to undergo a global experiment (or many) on such large scales first, to see what happens would be a good idea, because if it doesn’t work – well then, sorry about the luck (or bad luck) on those who had human experiments, gone bad.
When are we going to learn that we shouldn’t play god with nature? It never turns out good, and adopting communist ideals in order to force sterilization or for a government to regulate any other God-given right on anyone- in the bogus name of “saving the world” is reprehensible.
As I stated before, this is propaganda on a global scale, being pushed by the the US Government, United Nation’s New World Order and scientists on their payroll. I bet liao is now Bill Gates‘s best friend.
Wendy Blanks an independent researcher, journalist and activist. She is the Founder of TruWire Productions, LLC., and the Owner/Chief Editor for The Sleuth Journal. Wendy is also Co-Founder & COO for a Health IT Firm. Wendy also owns Organic Market Classifieds; a national platform to buy/sell organics. She has done investigative research in multiple fields and has a passion for sharing true news an various topics such as government corruption, natural health, civil/human rights, globalism and other important issues that plagues our society. Thankfully, we live in the age of information and sharing knowledge has become easier than ever. She has a deep desire to expose the truth in propagated and biased information that is spewed from corporate/mainstream media. True journalism has been dead for some time and it is her goal to revive it. The Sleuth Journal streamlines groups of like minded individuals and organizations with different expertise who are ‘awake’ and to create a massive knowledge base for a ‘conscious awakening’ of what is really going on in today’s oligarchy pyramid that we call ‘society’. So many people are zombies by media, television and other means of mass brainwashing and we need to reverse the effects and give people back their minds and in return, their power and will to change and challenge the system. Help support the cause by shopping at The Sleuth Journal online store at www.store.thesleuthjournal.com. Like The Sleuth Journal on Facebook. Follow The Sleuth Journal on Twitter. Join The Sleuth Journal group on Linkedin. Like Drone Patrol on Facebook. Join the Drone Patrol group on Linkedin and be sure to visit the site to view and report drone sightings.