What happens when you
turn scientists loose to solve the problems of humanity in a moral vacuum? You
get New York University ‘bioethicist’ Professor Matthew Liao.
Don’t take my word for
it:
What strikes me is how
perfectly reasonable a monster may appear when you don’t think too closely about
what it’s actually suggesting.
Liao genially proposes
re-engineering humanity to combat climate change.
Smaller people have
smaller carbon footprints, Liao says. So why not make people smaller? Sure, you’d have to do a whole lot of in vitro fertilization to pull it
off, but all it really requires is a lab and someone with the expertise to
select for the appropriate genetic material.
And, hey, why stop in
the womb when science gives you a whole buffet of available options to meddle
with? Small children, Liao tells us, could be given hormone treatments to
“close the growth plates” and stunt their growth. Even better, scientists could
genetically induce allergies to meat in humans to reduce the need for livestock.
The sheer hubris is off the charts. But since anything now goes, apparently,
why not introduce hormones like oxytocin and seratonin, and decrease testosterone
in order to maximize empathy?
That would sure eliminate those pesky
climate change deniers.
The Ethical
vs. the Possible
The only question Liao
appears to be concerned with is what is possible, not what is ethical, moral,
right or advisable.
Apparently the climate change bogeyman is
so horrific that even the thought of him justifies any sort of scientific
atrocity. But this is what you get when you suspend value judgments. You get Matthew
Liao’s personal preferences: his fears for the future, his fetishization of
science as savior, his amiable curiosity about the neat things technology could
enable him to play with if given a chance.
Or, as someone once said:
“Those who stand outside all judgements of value cannot have any ground for preferring one of their own impulses to another except the emotional strength of that impulse.”
— C.S. Lewis, The Abolition of Man
And ... It’s Probably All Moot Anyway
Meanwhile, with the
sort of ironic timing you couldn’t plan if you tried, Australian electrical
engineer Dr. David Evans announces that the climate model that underpins all climate science is incorrect.
“The model architecture was wrong,” says
Evans. “Carbon dioxide causes only minor warming. The climate is largely driven
by factors outside our control.”
The Perth Sunday Times reports:
“If Dr Evans is correct, then he has proven the theory on carbon dioxide wrong and blown a hole in climate alarmism. He will have explained why the doomsday predictions of climate scientists aren’t reflected in the actual temperatures.”
Oops.
Power
and Benevolence
Of course, the chances of getting
inquisitive folks like Matthew Liao to stand down are not great when they are already
gleefully fiddling with the lid of Pandora’s Box. Evans admits
that given the generally accepted myth that CO2 emissions are the primary cause
of global warming, persuading climate change proponents to rethink their position
will not be an easy sell. “The political obstacles are massive”, he says.
Hopefully not as massive as he thinks.
Let’s let Lewis have the last word:
“I am very doubtful whether history shows us one example of a man who, having stepped outside traditional morality and attained power, has used that power benevolently.”
— C.S. Lewis, The Abolition of Man
“When you see something that is technically sweet, you go ahead and do it and argue about what to do about it only after you've had your technical success. That is the way it was with the atomic bomb."
ReplyDelete― Robert Oppenheimer
This is what sociologists call “instrumental mentality”, the belief that things have their value only as they serve to advance some function. That “function” itself goes unjudged. Nobody asks, “Is this right?” only “Is this effective?”
ReplyDeleteIt’s a disease of the modern mind.
Another interesting word is “adiaphorization”, which means “the belief that something is ‘neither here nor there’ in regard to morality, but is just a neutral option”. Adiaphorization describes our common attitude to technology: we think it’s just a neutral thing, without its own moral standing or consequences, and the moral dimension only comes into how we USE it, not into what it actually is.