(Opinion) Climate change is a paramount concern today, with bodies like the World Economic Forum (WEF) continually exploring solutions.
However, some of these proposed solutions raise ethical questions and concerns about the role of human intervention in nature.
Recently, S. Matthew Liao, an American philosopher specializing in bioethics and normative ethics linked to the WEF, put forth a potentially game-changing perspective on combating climate change.
The prevailing narrative, heavily endorsed by certain politicians and media, portrays climate change primarily as a result of human actions.
However, numerous climate scientists contend it arises from a combination of human activities and natural processes.
Nevertheless, Liao’s proposition centers not on the causes but on the solutions.
He taps into the issue of meat consumption.
“Given the climate challenges we face, it’s evident that humans can potentially utilize technology in innovative ways,” he suggests.
Enter genetic engineering: a solution, according to Liao, where human genes could be altered to decrease our tolerance for meat, hence reducing its consumption.
On the surface, it appears to be a novel method to align human behavior with environmental needs.
But herein lies the dilemma: When does innovation become overreach?
By potentially altering the genetic makeup of humans to solve an environmental issue, we enter a gray area of ethics and consent.
While the intent might be noble, the method, undoubtedly, is controversial.
This sort of genetic intervention isn’t merely a dietary recommendation; it’s an enforced change, a permanent alteration to human physiology.
This proposition inadvertently raises the broader concern of autonomy.
Are individuals ready to have their genetic makeup altered for the perceived greater good?
The crux of the matter is whether such decisions would be made collectively, involving all stakeholders, or by a select group, bypassing the many in favor of the few.
This concern isn’t limited to dietary habits.
It extends to other contemporary issues like the use of cash, digital IDs, vaccination passports, and even the rising adoption of facial recognition cameras.
The idea of 15-minute cities, too, has its critics and proponents.
In conclusion, solutions will emerge from every corner as we grapple with what is perceived as a climate crisis.
It’s paramount to ensure that we don’t inadvertently trample upon the essence of human agency and freedom in our quest to address environmental challenges.
After all, what good is a saved planet if its inhabitants lose the essence of what makes them human?