Mr. A. sent this one, and I share it with you because they highlight the deve,oping "memes" by which Mr. Global (to borrow former Assistant Secretary of Housing and Urban Development Catherine Austin Fitts' term) plans to sell two agendas with one convenient (unargued, unproven, and untested) selling gimick:
How Engineering the Human Body Could Combat Climate Change
While the title says it all, the first two paragraphs give a glimpse into the galloping nonsense that inhabits the vacant spaces of many scientismists' minds:
The threat of global climate change has prompted us to redesign many of our technologies to be more energy-efficient. From lightweight hybrid cars to long-lasting LED's, engineers have made well-known products smaller and less wasteful. But tinkering with our tools will only get us so far, because however smart our technologies become, the human body has its own ecological footprint, and there are more of them than ever before. So, some scholars are asking, what if we could engineer human beings
to be more energy efficient? A new paper
to be published in Ethics, Policy & Environment
proposes a series of biomedical modifications that could help humans, themselves, consume less.
Some of the proposed modifications are simple and noninvasive. For instance, many people wish to give up meat for ecological reasons, but lack the willpower to do so on their own. The paper suggests that such individuals could take a pill that would trigger mild nausea upon the ingestion of meat, which would then lead to a lasting aversion to meat-eating. Other techniques are bound to be more controversial. For instance, the paper suggests that parents could make use of genetic engineering or hormone therapy in order to birth smaller, less resource-intensive children.
Critiques of the whole global warming model have pointed out that the debate began to go awry when it was shown that the data itself had been fudged in order to support Mr. Global's meme. When "global warming" could no longer be sold without prompting critique or criticism, the meme had to be changed to the much more tautological and useful idea of "climate change", and idea which was so comprehensive in its prophetic predictability that whether the data supported "warming" or "cooling", the prophets could rake in the dough for their studies, and Mr. Global could propose his draconian measures of power and control whichever the case really was or may be. The problem for the global warming-man-is-responsible crowd was that the other planets in the solar system appear to be undergoing "climate change", and therefore, we are looking at a physics phenomenon that is not well understood, and certainly one that cannot at first glance be blamed on mankind or its activity. And of course, the regulators who determine who gets to consume what and in what amounts, will be the bought-and-paid-for scientismist.
But wherever one stands on the issue of "climate change", what intrigues me is the technique in evidence, a favorite of Mr Global: when agendas are to be pushed, render debate even more problematical by combining them: we need to tinker with the human genome itself in order to combat "cimate change," One can imagine other such absurd combinations: we need mandatory vaccinations to combat the spread of diseases that affect the human metabolism that in turn affect the energetic environment which therefore affects climate change and so on. You get the picture. It's "transhumanism" meets "environment." It's a grab bag of tricks and techniques. And in this case, the high octane speculation isn't being done here.
See you on the flip side...