It is nearly impossible to read the headlines these days without asking if the reality we find ourselves living in is the real world or some crazy mad scientist’s fantasy land.
From the world’s first genetically modified designer babies, to accusations of genetically enhanced athletes competing in the Olympics, the world as we know it has been thrown into a science lab and shaken until blurred.
Now Director of the Masters Program in Bioethics at New York University Matthew Liao has published an article entitled, “Hand-Made Humans May Hold the Key to Saving the World” asserting that, in order to combat manmade climate change, we should consider “building Earth-friendly people” using “human engineering.”
Liao claims a series of scientific interventions — from pharmaceutical-induced meat intolerance to “preimplantation genetic diagnosis” for creating smaller children to cognitive enhancements that would cause women to stop getting pregnant — are not only “feasible” in the “near future,” but would have “broad appeal”. In the paper, he actually puts forth the idea of parents giving hormones to their children in order to stunt their growth, along with adopting policies where people have to decide whether or not they want “one large child, two medium-sized children, or three small children”.
While such “improvements” would supposedly be voluntary, Liao goes on to suggest selling his idea by praying on people living through a global economic depression, offering tax incentives and free healthcare in exchange for willing biomedical modification.
The reason humans need to be scientifically edited, Liao argues, is that geoengineering science “seems too risky” for the planet. Turning people into science experiments, however, is apparently 100 percent reliable.
Such scare tactics are sadly nothing new. One favorite on the New World Order menu is the continual inundation through pop culture and mainstream media of this idea that humanity is at fault for global warming and something must be done to save the Earth from us carbon-producing humans. Elitist environmental think tank Club of Rome bragged that they invented the concept of global warming to unite man under a world government because humanity is the enemy. Further proof manmade global warming was actually manmade itself came when the Climategate scandal broke in 2009, and the world was apprised of the fact that anthropogenic global warming was nothing more than a manipulated, multibillion-dollar fraud for further world control through cap-and-trade and carbon tax initiatives. Because the Earth was not legitimately getting warmer (without blatant data switching), the phrase “climate change” replaced “global warming.” It was a brilliant semantic move considering that the climate, good or bad and like everything else in nature, is assured to change regardless.
Just weeks ago, Reuters reported that 100 million people will die by 2030 if we do not do something fast about manmade global warming. Citing a report issued by so-called “humanitarian organization” DARA, Reuters goes on to note that climate change is not only killing millions but it is costing the world $1.2 trillion in global GDP each year. What Reuters fails to mention, however, is that DARA’s partners include the European Council on Foreign Relations, the United Nations International Strategy for Disaster Reduction, and ALNAP, a humanitarian action network whose members include the World Health Organization and FAO among others.
While these groups all have humanitarian aims on the surface to some extent, they have also been tied to the idea that the world’s resources are running out, and the only way to stop it is via population reduction. In other words, they sell people on the idea of eugenics, but disguise it under the thin veil of environmentalism.
Liao’s summation warns, “given the enormous risks associated with changing the environment, we should take seriously the idea that we may need to change ourselves.” The professor is speaking in literal terms here. The scariest part is that this latest attack on free humanity is not the wild rantings of some lunatic scrawled on a public bathroom wall. It is a genuine proposal from the director of a bioethics graduate program at a major university which will likely churn out more students into the world who think humans are a blight on the planet that must be altered simply in order to live.