For being open to strange concepts

In Ross Andersen’s March 2012 article on the possibility to engineer the human body to have a smaller carbon footprint there is discussion of pills and hormonal treatments that would fundamentally change how humans eat and the body types that consume the food. An objective approach is taken throughout, considering the merits of each concept without demonstrated judgment. This objectivity leaves how such ideas may be perceived up to debate.  While the debate opening objectivity of the article is representative of a journalistic integrity occasionally lacking in modern journalism, it made me question if the ideas argued in this article, and other radical solutions for global climate change, ever truly find a space in which there merits may be discussed.

The first reading that came to mind during this thought was the chapter read in Superfreakonomics on the climate change solutions being developed by the Washington based company Intellectual Ventures. Throughout the chapter, far flung ideas, ranging from hoses spraying carbon dioxide into the atmosphere to regulate temperatures, to ocean traveling cloud generators were discussed. While presented as logical, yet strange solutions, the class in which the ideas were discussed shed solely negative light on each, not a single person felt the urge to defend any of the concepts and ideas presented throughout the chapter.

In some cases, there were valid reasons for the class’ dismissal of the ideas. The carbon dioxide pump, despite the low cost and quick implementation that make it beneficial, would make Vitamin D supplements necessary, because less sunlight would be available. However, too many of the arguments followed the following logic: how can we solve a problem by doing more of the thing that caused it?

This is a closed minded way of looking at solutions to any problem. The process in which a solution solves a problem does not cause a problem in itself unless there are externalities to its solution. In the case of the carbon dioxide pump, the dearth in Vitamin D that it would cause is a legitimate externality that would make its utilization less than ideal. Plainly stating that a solution is not ideal, because it functions similarly to processes that caused problems is not a logical argument if the solution works.

In the case of these articles, serious moral dilemmas probably outweigh any benefit that they could bring to the environment. Modifying children’s size before they are born adds further moral ambiguity to the question of the child’s right not to be born that already exists. A pill stopping people from eating meat may result in the cancellation of cultural traditions. But even these most strange arguments deserve a forum in which they may be discussed objectively. The result could be a panacea to climate change.