Testosterone is killing Mother Earth...

Error message

A few months ago, The Atlantic published an interview with S. Matthew Liao, professor of philosophy and bioethics at New York University. Professor Liao, along with professors Anders Sandberg and Rebecca Roache of Oxford, has co-authored a paper to be published in Ethics, Policy & Environment. In that article, titled "Human Engineering and Climate Change," Liao suggests that it would be good for the environment if we took a pill to induce nausea when we eat meat. That, then, would create a long-term aversion to the taste of meat. These bioethicists also suggest that we have smaller babies...

...thereby lessening the carbon-impact of our species. This baby-shrinking could be done by genetic engineering and hormone therapy (i.e. less testosterone, more estrogen). Here's Liao in his own words:

Your paper also discusses the use of human engineering to make humans smaller. Why would this be a powerful technique in the fight against climate change?
Liao: Well one of the things that we noticed is that human ecological footprints are partly correlated with size. Each kilogram of body mass requires a certain amount of food and nutrients and so, other things being equal, the larger person is the more food and energy they are going to soak up over the course of a lifetime. There are also other, less obvious ways in which larger people consume more energy than smaller people---for example a car uses more fuel per mile to carry a heavier person, more fabric is needed to clothe larger people, and heavier people wear out shoes, carpets and furniture at a quicker rate than lighter people, and so on.
And so size reduction could be one way to reduce a person's ecological footprint. For instance if you reduce the average U.S. height by just 15cm, you could reduce body mass by 21% for men and 25% for women, with a corresponding reduction in metabolic rates by some 15% to 18%, because less tissue means lower energy and nutrient needs.

Now, you, like I, read Liao's statements and you think The Atlantic is a running some sort of parody. But it is no joke. When the Fatherhood of God is rejected for the motherhood of earth, ethics are turned upside down and obeisance to the creation is mandated. The Apostle Paul taught us about this:

For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes, His eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly seen, being understood through what has been made, so that they are without excuse. For even though they knew God, they did not honor Him as God or give thanks, but they became futile in their speculations, and their foolish heart was darkened. Professing to be wise, they became fools, and exchanged the glory of the incorruptible God for an image in the form of corruptible man and of birds and four-footed animals and crawling creatures. Therefore God gave them over in the lusts of their hearts to impurity, so that their bodies would be dishonored among them. For they exchanged the truth of God for a lie, and worshiped and served the creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed forever. Amen. (Romans 1:20-25).

Notice also, that when there is an attack on the Fatherhood of God over His good creation, there is an inevitable attack on the fatherhood of man, on all-things-masculine. Liao believes that our species will only survive if we become more feminine, exhibiting that characteristically feminine trait of empathy:

In the paper you also discuss the pharmacological enhancement of empathy and altruism, because empathy and altruism tend to be highly correlated with positive attitudes toward the environment. To me this one seems like it might be the most troubling. Isn't it more problematic to do biological tinkering to produce a belief, rather than simply engineering humans so that they are better equipped to implement their beliefs? 
Liao: Yes. It's certainly ethically problematic to insert beliefs into people, and so we want to be clear that's not something we're proposing. What we have in mind has more to do with weakness of will. For example, I might know that I ought to send a check to Oxfam, but because of a weakness of will I might never write that check. But if we increase my empathetic capacities with drugs, then maybe I might overcome my weakness of will and write that check.

Ironically, Liao's proposals, all supposedly in the interest of saving mankind, have babies made in the image of God as their first casualty. In an effort to stop the anthropogenic environmental impact on their goddess earth, our philosophers and bioethicists propose anthropogenic meddling on a cosmic scale.

Andrew Dionne is the pastor of Trinity Presbyterian Church (PCA) in Spartanburg, SC. He and his wife Sarah have six children. Read more from Andrew here.