Meet the Mad Scientist Who wants to Fight Climate Change by Making Humans Smaller and Allergic to Meat.

Yes, it's a crazy world.

If WEF frontman Klaus Schwab is your archetypal Bond villain, S. Matthew Liao is your textbook classic evil nerd. The kind that should be locked away somewhere he can't hurt anybody.

If you think I'm being harsh, read on.

I first became aware of Laio, a 'bioethicist' at NYU, several years ago while researching the nonsensical Unified Cow Fart Theory of Global Warming put forward by people who think the ultimate in human nutrition is to eat like a rabbit.

During the course of that research, I came upon a 2012 paper Liao co-authored with UK professors Anders Sandberg and Rebecca Roache titled “Human Engineering and Climate Change.”

The paper begins by claiming "Anthropogenic climate change is arguably one of the biggest problems that confront us today."

I can't disagree with that. The nonsensical claim that the minsicule 0.28% of global greenhouse gases attributable to humans has caused runaway warming is being used to implement measures with potentially dire consequences for both the global economy and human wellbeing.

That is a big problem.

This feigned concern for the environment, by the way, is organized and funded by the same people who masterminded the campaign to pollute the entire human species with toxic gene therapies ('Lockstep' author and dark money 'philanthropy’ outfit Rockefeller Foundation, for example, recently announced they were pumping $1 billion dollars to advance climate bribes “solutions”). These are the same people heavily invested in industries that pollute both our bodies and the environment with all manner of toxic porqueria.

Climate change is not a science, but a religion. It is not comprised of known facts based on valid and reproducible experimentation, but a belief system resting entirely upon the highly fallible (and often fraudulent) practice of climate modelling. That modelling is used to issue doomsday forecasts, expressly designed to scare the population into compliance. Those who dare express skepticism of this nonsense are derided as "deniers," no matter how sound their arguments.

Of course, Liao, Sandberg and Roache don't see climate change as a problem for the same reasons I do. Liao really seems to believe Planet Earth is in danger of becoming Planet Hot Pot With Extra Chili if we don't "do something" yesterday, and his co-authors are happy to tag along for the ride.

A brief intro to this trio is in order.

S. Matthew Liao is a bioethicist at NYU Global School of Public Health. As you’re about to see, Liao has a rather twisted set of ethics, and I find it quite worrying to read he “provides students with an education grounded in a broad conception of bioethics encompassing both medical and environmental ethics.”

Anders Sandberg is a Swedish transhumanist and currently a senior research fellow at the Future of Humanity Institute at the University of Oxford which, along with Loma Linda University in the US, has produced most of the world’s peer-reviewed propaganda epidemiology erroneously claiming meat-free diets are better for you.

In 2018, Sandberg published a paper on arxiv.org entitled "Blueberry Earth", which finally answered the pressing question that has bothered great minds for centuries:

"What if the entire Earth was instantaneously replaced with an equal volume of closely packed, but uncompressed blueberries?"

Seriously.

Rebecca Roache, formerly of Oxford, is now a Senior Lecturer in Philosophy at Royal Holloway, University of London. According to Wikipedia, Roache “is particularly noted for her work on swearing, which has featured in various media, such as the BBC.”

If that’s not the resume of a trio with way too much time on their hands, I don’t know what is.

So now you know the intellectual caliber of this brains trust, let’s see how it proposes to solve the non-existent problem of anthropogenic global warming.

Noting that geoengineering is too risky (I think they just confirmed another conspiracy theory as fact), our heroic trio propose something every bit as dicey and stupid:

Biomedical human engineering.

According to Liao et al, this "involves biomedical modifications of humans so that they can mitigate and/or adapt to climate change." They further argue that this Frankensteinian idiocy "is potentially less risky" than geoengineering.

As staunch believers in the nonsensical Unified Cow Fart Theory of Global Warming, the first order of business for our intrepid trio would be to create “Pharmacological meat intolerance.”

Because "people often lack the motivation or willpower to give up eating red meat," they write, "a more realistic option might be to induce mild intolerance (akin, e.g., to milk intolerance) to these kinds of meat."

"While meat intolerance is normally uncommon," they continue, oblivious to the fact they've just confirmed meat is an ideal, evolutionary-correct food for humans, "in principle, it could be induced by stimulating the immune system against common bovine proteins."

"The immune system would then become primed to react to such proteins, and henceforth eating ‘eco-unfriendly’ food would induce unpleasant experiences," they continue.

"A potentially safe and practical way of delivering such intolerance may be to produce ‘meat’ patches – akin to nicotine patches," they write. "We can produce patches for those animals that contribute the most to greenhouse gas emissions and encourage people to use such patches."

Kids, this is why you need to avoid drugs, vegan propaganda, and mad scientists masquerading as university professors.

But our cray cray trio aren’t finished yet. Heck no.

Their next brilliant idea for saving the planet is “Making humans smaller.”

"[O]ther things being equal," they write, "the larger one is, the more food and energy one requires."

With their brains farting like the winner of a baked beans eating contest, they further claim "a car uses more fuel per mile to carry a heavier person than a lighter person; more fabric is needed to clothe larger than smaller people; heavier people wear out shoes, carpets, and furniture more quickly than lighter people, and so on."

So how do we make humans smaller so that their shoes won't wear out as quick?

Oh, that's easy.

"One way is through preimplantation genetic diagnosis" which "would simply involve rethinking the criteria for selecting which embryos to implant" during IVF.

!?

Another way "is to use hormone treatment either to affect somatotropin (growth hormone) levels or to trigger the closing of the epiphyseal plate (at the ends of bones) earlier than normal.”

Hormone treatments are used for growth reduction in excessively tall children so, argue Liao et al, why not use them to make normal height kids shorter? I mean, what could possibly go wrong by subjecting growing bodies to unnecessary hormone treatments?

But hey, why even wait for kids to get to that point? Why not target them before they've even popped out of mummy’s tummy?

"[A] more speculative and controversial way of reducing adult height is to reduce birth weight," write our unabashed Masters of the Looniverse.

"Drugs or nutrients that either reduce the expression of paternally imprinted genes, or increase the expression of maternally imprinted genes, could potentially regulate birth size."

But again, why even wait to target kids in the womb? Why not stop them being conceived in the first place?

Yep, it's time to roll out the overpopulation card.

Which brings us to a dilemma: How to lower birth rates when almost one half of the world’s population already lives in countries with below replacement fertility?

Oh, again, that's easy.

Make women smarter!

Hey, they said it, not me.

They write there is “strong evidence that birth-rates are negatively correlated with adequate access to education for women” and "[a]t least in the US, women with low cognitive ability are more likely to have children before age 18."

Even if that latter contention is true (it’s based on a single case-control study published in 2002), the median age for giving birth in the US is now 30.

They’re basically saying that the number of kids a women has is negatively correlated with her intelligence. If you’re a woman who wants to have multiple kids, then they assume you can’t be the sharpest tool in the shed.

But women are made to have children, and Feminism Inc. still hasn’t figured out how to sue Mother Nature for designating this role to females.

So in a world already saturated with hook-up culture, abortion and morning-after pills, how do Liao et al propose to stop women making the ‘dumb’ choice of ensuring the continued propagation of the human species?

Well, they don’t actually say. Not surprising, given their own intellectual output indicates they themselves have yet to discover an effective brain doping strategy. They do seem to be alluding to pharmaceutical means when they write “many parents are indeed happy to give their children cognitive enhancements," citing the widespread (and often misguided) use of Ritalin.

They’re basically saying making kids smarter will make them want to avoid or minimize childbearing when older.

In order to get people to go along with this bollocks, Liao et al suggest administering oxytocin in an attempt to increase people’s trust levels.

Interestingly, when discussing how to convince people into cooperating with this nonsense despite its obvious downsides, the authors note “people are routinely vaccinated to prevent themselves and those around them from acquiring infectious diseases, even though vaccinations can sometimes even lead to death.”

Thanks for confirming.

The authors wrote in their paper, “To be clear, we shall not argue that human engineering ought to be adopted; such a claim would require far more exposition and argument than we have space for here.”

The 2012 paper understandably caused controversy and aroused heated responses from both laymen and academics. When a Guardian writer asked shortly afterwards just what they were trying to achieve with their paper, all three authors and one of the journal’s editors were at pains to portray it as a philosophical “thought experiment” designed to stimulate discussion. When discussion of their patently absurd suggestions didn’t go the way they hoped, Sandberg and Roache accused critics of not having read the paper, which begs the question of just how critics knew of its numerous bizarre suggestions. For the record, I have read the paper in its entirety, and rather than find it an innocuous philosophical excursion, I find it disturbing that people could put forward such suggestions without any awareness of just how truly dystopian and dysfunctional they sound.

Sandberg even told the reporter that in his work “with global catastrophic risks at the Future of Humanity Institute, climate change is at the lower end of concern. Certainly a problem, but unlikely to wipe out humanity.”

So why the need for radically ridiculous suggestions to deal with a problem that’s been way overblown? Is this how academics entertain themselves when they’re bored?

As you’re about to learn, despite the apparently token disclaimer in the 2012 paper, Liao in fact remains a highly enthusiastic promoter of the human engineering angle - and he may have some powerful sympathizers.

From Poison Pricks to Toxic Ticks

In 2016, Liao spoke at the 2016 World Science Festival, once again insisting we eat too much meat and that human engineering held the potential to solve this non-problem. If you watch the following snippet through to the end, you’ll hear Liao say “There’s this thing called the Lone Star tick where if it bites you, you will become allergic to meat. So that’s something we can do through human engineering. We can possibly address really big world problems through human engineering.”

In 2017, he gave a TED Talk, which is a really popular forum for crazy ‘interesting’ people to get up on a stage and pretend they’re experts.

A snippet of the talk, for which YouTube comments are understandably turned off, can be viewed below.

Note the complete lack of shame or embarrassment as Liao recites the core principles of his insane 2012 paper. He can barely hide his glee, both at expressing his transhuman fantasies and being in the presence of people who don’t respond by telling him to check into an asylum. Note how when he mentions creating “mild intolerance to meat,” a handful of vetards in the transfixed audience begin applauding, and one even lets out a “wooo!”

The audience also laughs along when Liao suggests preemptively screening for smaller IVF babies.

They also applaud and chuckle approvingly when he suggests this carry on will allow parents the “liberty-enhancing option” of having “one large child, two medium-sized children, or three smaller children.” A liberty-enhancing option suggests an improvement over current restrictions, which isn’t the case.

Ah, lunatics. Where would we be without them?

While the video is basically a condensed rehash of his 2012 paper, there are a few new revelations. In an attempt to make “people” smarter (ever the PC sycophant, he doesn’t say “women” in front of the mixed-gender audience), he’s now embracing ritalin as a nootropic for kids, despite acknowledging in his 2012 paper it’s “for children with ADHD and certainly has side effects.”

He’s also suggesting modafinil for kids, the long-term use of which has not been studied in children.

Reckless is as stupid does.

Enter the Biggest Lunatics of All

It should come as no surprise to most readers that Liao’s demented “human engineering” suggestions have garnered favourable attention from the hypocritical parasite class that descends upon Davos every year to decide what’s best for the rest of us.

In December 2020, the WEF unveiled its bioengineering framework in a presentation called “3 Scenarios for How Bioengineering Could Change Our World in 10 Years.” Among the highlights were edible vaccines grown in plants and various forms of genetic manipulation.

That presentation was based off a WEF-sponsored academic paper titled Bioengineering Horizon Scan 2020.

For the WEF’s 2021 Davos Summit, reported BioHack, Liao et al’s 2012 paper was cited during discussion of the ‘Planetary Health Diet’, a globalist initiative to shift humankind towards plant-and insect-based diets.

Liao et al’s 2012 paper was also considered as a possible add-on to the Bioengineering Horizon Scan 2020 paper. However, perusal of the reference list shows no mention of the 2012 paper. It seems the Liao et al paper may have been too much of a hot potato for the WEF, which had to pull it’s original 2030 video that featured what may go down in history as the world’s worst PR line (“You’ll own nothing and you’ll be happy”).

It seems that just about every week, what was once considered a kooky conspiracy theory is confirmed as a genuine concern.