Matthew Liao - Engineer Humans to Stop Climate Change (Ideas at the House)

Well, good morning, everybody. My name is Simon Longstaff, I'm the executive director at St James Ethics Centre and had the privilege of working with Ann Mossop as the co-curator for the Festival of Dangerous Ideas, to which I welcome you this morning. There are a couple of general housekeeping things, if you've got your mobile phone with you, please turn it off or put it on silent. And if you're keeping it on because you are going to be doing some tweeting, then please do so - we'd love to have it, there's a wonderful stream that's been emerging from FODI over this weekend - and you can use the hashtag #fodi as your tweeting reference point. A little bit later on in the session, there'll be an opportunity for you to ask questions, which you've just been encouraged to do, or maybe make a brief comment. I really would put the accent on 'questions' - short, tight questions - so that everybody has a chance to do that. So you might be formulating them with that in mind. And you'll see that there are microphones to do that, and that'll be later on, which are just over there on this side both on the balcony and below, so you'll need to move there when it comes to the point. But that's all to come. For the time being, we've got a really great speaker addressing what I think is a fascinating question. We've heard from various people, from scientists to economists, politicians, that one of the most pressing challenges of our time and for those who come after us will be the issue of how to deal with the problem of climate change induced by human activity. There are lots of people who are thinking outside the box now about how to address this issue, and, typically, what they want to do is to change the nature of the world. To geo-engineer or to do something else. What we have got today is a man who has really thought outside the box, who, as you know, is going to suggest that we might need to change ourselves and not just in terms of our attitudes but in much more radical ways than that. So we've got philosopher Matthew Liao who's the director of the bioethics program and an associate professor in the Centre for Bioethics in the department of philosophy at New York University, which, I've just found out, is ranked as the number one program for philosophy in the world. Prior to taking up his current role, Matt was deputy director for the Program on the Ethics of the New Biosciences at Oxford University, which is number two. So he's on the up, this guy, he's on the up. Would you please join with me in welcoming Matt Liao? (APPLAUSE) Hello. Thank you all for coming. So, what a beautiful city Sydney is. It's my first time here in Australia, first time in Sydney, and I'm gonna talk about how Sydney might actually be under water if climate change becomes bad enough and what we need to be thinking about to combat climate change. So, human-induced climate change is one of the biggest problems that we face today. It's been estimated that millions suffer hunger, water shortages, diseases and coastal flooding as a result of global warming. Indeed Australia has been designated as one of the countries most vulnerable to climate change. The population tends to live on the coastal line and there are bushfires, et cetera, et cetera. The risks of the worst impacts of climate change can be lowered if greenhouse gas levels in the atmosphere can be reduced and stabilised. Now, to cut greenhouse gas emissions, there have been various solutions that have been offered ranging from low-tech behavioural solutions such as encouraging people to drive more...drive LESS and recycle more, to market solutions such as carbon taxation, emissions tradings and other ways of incentivising the industry to adopt cleaner power, heat and transport technologies, to this geo-engineering, which is this large-scale manipulation of the earth, such as spraying sulfate aerosol into the ozone layer in order to increase the reflectivity of the planet or fertilising the ocean bed with iron so that it can increase its carbon-, zinc-absorbing capacities. Now, each of these solutions has merits and demerits. So, take behavioural solutions, for example, the benefit is that these are solutions that we can do pretty easily, at least physically, but the problem is that many people lack the motivation to alter their behaviour in required ways. And there's another problem, which is that even if widely adopted, behavioural changes alone may not be enough to mitigate the effects of climate change. Or take market solution - it could reduce the conflict that currently exists for companies between making profit and minimising undesirable environmental impact, but the problem is that effective market solutions such as international emissions tradings require workable international agreements and they seem, so far, really difficult to orchestrate. So, for example, experts believe that the Kyoto Protocol has produced virtually no reductions in emissions in the world. And, also, it's been estimated that to restore our climate to a hospitable state requires us to cut our carbon emissions globally by at least 70%. And given the elasticity of demands for petrol and gas, there are issues about whether market solutions such as carbon taxation are gonna be enough to reduce greenhouse gases of this magnitude. And, finally, take geo-engineering - while the advantage is that they could be significant enough to mitigate the effects of climate change, but the problem is that many of the technologies, they haven't been tried. And so, for example, spraying sulfate aerosol into the air, they've been trying it on a very small scale but not on a very large scale, not on the scale that's enough to alter the reflectivity of the planet. And the worry is that we just have one planet, so if we spray sulfate aerosol into the ozone layer and destroy the ozone layer, that's it for humanity. Or if we fertilise the ocean with iron, we could end up destroying marine life. So what I want to do in this talk is I want to explore another kind of solution, a whole class of solution that I think we just haven't considered before, and I call this human engineering. And what it involves is biomedical modification of human beings to make them better at mitigating and adapting to the effects of climate change. Now, before I explain what this proposal is, let me just make clear that human engineering, as I conceive it, is meant to be a voluntary activity possibly supported by taxes or sponsored health care rather than a coerced activity, so nobody's been coerced in adopting any of these solutions. I'm positively against any form of coercion of the sort that Nazis have perpetrated in the past. And, also, this proposal is intended for those who believe that climate change is a real problem and who, as a result, are willing to take, for example, geo-engineering seriously. Some people who don't believe that climate change is a real problem are likely to think that even encouraging people to drive less is an over-reaction to the problem - the NON-problem - of climate change. And, finally, my central claim is really a modest one. What I want to suggest is that human engineering should be considered alongside the other solutions. The claim is not that we should adopt this as a matter of public policy. This is an attempt to encourage outside-the-box thinking vis-a-vis a seemingly intractable problem. So, what are some of these human engineering solutions? So, one possibility is what I call pharmacological meat intolerance. The UN Food and Agricultural Organization estimates that 18% of the world's greenhouse gas emissions come from livestock farming, which is much higher than transport, from cars. And more recently, it's been suggested that livestock farming, in fact, accounts for at least 51% of the world's greenhouse gas emissions. But even by the more conservative estimates, close to 9% of human CO2 emissions are due to deforestation for expansion of pastures, 65% of nitrous oxide is due to manure and 30% of methane comes directly or indirectly from livestock. Some experts estimate that each of the world's 1.5 billion cows alone emit 100-500 litres of methane a day. Now, since a large portion of these cows are meant for consumption, reducing the consumption of these kinds of red meat could have significant environmental benefits. So, indeed, even a minor reduction, 21%-24% of red meat consumption could achieve the same reduction in emissions as the total localisation of food production, i.e., having zero food miles. Now, some people will simply refuse to give up eating red meat, but there are other people who may be willing to give up red meat but they lack the motivation or willpower to do so. After all, many people find the taste of red meat simply irresistible. So, I was in Canberra two days ago and having dinner with a friend, and he told me that if it wasn't for the fact that eating meat is, you know, bad for you health wise, he would eat meat all the time. And this might explain why many vegetarian restaurants offer vegetarian dishes that tastes like meat. So I think human engineering could help here. Just as some people have natural intolerance to milk or crayfish - I'm intolerant to milk, for example - it's possible artificially to induce mild intolerance to red meat by stimulating the immune system against common bovine proteins. The immune system would then be primed to react to them and then when you eat eco-unfriendly food this would induce some sort of unpleasant experience. -Very mild. -(LAUGHTER) Even if the effects wouldn't last a lifetime, the learning effect is likely to persist for a long time. Now, a potentially safe way of inducing such intolerance may be to produce something like a meat patch akin to nicotine patches. -(LAUGHTER) -People can then wear these patches before they go out to eat, you know, in order to curb their enthusiasm for eating red meat. And to ensure that these patches have the broadest appeal, we can just produce patches that target animals that contribute the most to greenhouse gas emissions. So you don't even have to be a vegetarian, like a full vegetarian, to wear these type of meat patches. What's another example? One other possibility is that we can make humans smaller. Human ecological footprints are partly correlated with our size. We require a certain amount of food and nutrients to maintain each kilogram of body mass. The larger one is, the more food and energy one requires. Larger people also consume more energy in less obvious ways. So, for example, a car uses more fuel per mile to carry a heavier person than a lighter person. More fabric is needed to clothe larger people rather than smaller people. Heavier people wear out shoes, carpets and furniture... -(LAUGHTER) -..more quickly than lighter people. Add all that up, imagine a lifetime global carbon footprint, it's quite a lot. Now, a way to reduce this ecological footprint would be to reduce size. Now, since the weight increases with a cube of length, even a small reduction in height could produce a significant effect in size. Now, we can also talk about average weight as well as a way of reducing size, but I'll focus on height. So reducing the average height in the US by just 15cm, for example, would mean a mass reduction of 23% for men and 25% for women, with a corresponding reduction of the metabolic weight of 15%-18%. That's really significant. Now, how could height reduction be achieved? Well, one possibility is to use something like pre-implantation genetic diagnosis. This is something that's currently already used in fertility clinics as a means of screening out embryos with certain inherited diseases, so one might be able to use pre-implantation genetic diagnosis to select shorter children. This would not involve modifying or altering the genetic material of embryos in any way, it would just involve rethinking our criteria for which embryos to implant. Another possibility, and more dangerous possibility, is to consider hormone treatment either to affect the growth hormone levels or to trigger the closing of the growth plates earlier than normal. Hormone treatments are actually already currently used for growth reduction in excessively tall children. And finally, there's actually, more speculatively, there's a strong correlation between birth size and adult height, so gene imprinting, where one parent's copy of the genes is turned on and the other parent's copy of the gene is turned off, has been found to affect birth size. So 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. OK, another possibility. We can lower birth rates through cognitive enhancement. So, a group of doctors in the UK pointed out that each UK birth will be responsible for 160 times more greenhouse gas emissions than a new birth in Ethiopia and so they say that as a way to mitigate climate change, Britons should consider having no more than two children per family. And they didn't say how lower birth rates should be achieved beyond suggesting that people should have this information and they should have access to contraceptives. But there's strong evidence that birth rates are negatively correlated with adequate access to education for women. Now, while the primary reason for promoting education is to improve human rights and wellbeing, fertility reduction may be a positive side effect from the point of view of tackling climate change. Now, in fact, there seems to be a link between cognition itself and lowered birth rates. So, at least in the US, for example, women with lower cognitive ability are more likely to have children before age 18. So, another possibility - another possible human engineering solution - is to use cognitive enhancements, such as Ritalin and modafinil, to achieve lower birth rates. As with education, there are many other more compelling reasons to improve cognition, but the fertility effect may be a desirable side effect as a means of tackling climate change. Finally, one other thing to put on the table, we might consider using pharmacological means to increase our altruistic and empathetic tendencies. Many environmental problems are collective action problems in which individuals do not cooperate for the common good, but if people were more generally willing to act as a group, we may be able to enjoy the sorts of benefits that arise only when many people get together and act together. And it turns out that there's evidence that altruism and empathy have biological underpinnings. So, for example, test subjects given the pro-social hormone oxytocin, sort of intranasal injections, were more willing to share money with strangers and to behave in a more trustworthy way. Noradrenaline reuptake inhibitors increased social engagement and cooperation with a reduced reduction in self-focus during a mixed-motive game. And oxytocin appears to improve the capacity to read other people's emotional states. This is a key capacity for empathy. So this suggests that interventions affecting the sensitivity in these neural systems could increase the willingness to cooperate with social rules and goals. Now, again, I'm not proposing that we coerce someone to take up these pharmacological means. The picture is something like this. There might be someone who wants to do the right thing but owing to a weakness of will cannot get himself to do the right thing. Having the option to use pharmacological means to increase altruism and empathy may allow this person voluntarily to overcome his weakness of will and enable him to do the right thing. So, these examples are supposed to illustrate what I mean by human engineering. Others like them might include things like increasing our resistance to heat and tropical diseases and reducing our need for food and water. OK, so now I want to explain why we should take these proposals seriously. It should be clear that human engineering is less risky than geo-engineering. In addition to the fact that the technologies that I just talked about... ..much of it, such as pre-implantation genetic diagnosis and oxytocin, is already safely available for other uses, human engineering applies at the level of individual human beings. So this means that we can better manage such risks rather than the risks imposed by something like geo-engineering which takes place on a much larger global scale. Human engineering could also make behavioural solutions more likely to succeed. So, for example, pharmacologically induced altruism and empathy could increase the likelihood that we adopt the necessary behavioural and market solutions to combat climate change. Or the meat patches might make the behavioural solution of giving up red meat much easier for those who want to do so but who find it difficult. Now, moreover, I think human engineering could in some respects be more liberty enhancing. So in response to climate change, as I said, some people have proposed that we adopt something akin to China's one-child policy. So as we have seen, a group of doctors in Britain have advocated a two-child maximum. But I suppose the relevant issue here is some kind of fixed allocation of greenhouse gas emissions per family. Now, if so, then given certain fixed allocations of greenhouse gas emissions, human engineering could give families the choice between having one large child, two medium-sized children or three smaller child. (LAUGHTER) Human engineering seems much more liberty enhancing than a policy that says that you can only have one or two children maximum. -Right? -(LAUGHTER) Furthermore, human engineering solutions might be win-win solutions in a sense that desirable effects are likely to result from implementing them regardless of their effects on the climate. So cognitive enhancements, for example, if effective at reducing birth rates, could enable China to limit or dispense with its controversial one-child policy. Or even if the effects of cognitive enhancement on birth rates is disappointing, the improved cognition in itself is of great value. Or just take the meat intolerance, right, if this method is effective, it could reduce the need to tax undesirable behaviour such as consuming goods that are most damaging to the environment. And everybody wants lower taxes, right? But even if its effect on greenhouse gases is disappointing, the health benefits of eating less red meat and the reduction in suffering of animals farmed for consumption are themselves positive goods. OK, so by now you're going to have a lot of objections and I'm going to try to go over some of them. So, as with all biomedical treatments, including those routinely prescribed by medical professionals, human engineering carries risks. So if people are going to be persuaded to undergo human engineering, the risks associated with it must be minimised. But this risk should also be balanced against the risks associated with taking inadequate action to combat climate change. If behavioural and market solutions alone are not sufficient to mitigate the effects of climate change, then even if human engineering were riskier than these other solutions, we might need to consider it. But at the same time, it's also important not to exaggerate the risks involved in human engineering. And this is a very real possibility because people are generally less tolerant of risks arising from novel, unfamiliar technologies than they are of risks arising from familiar sources. So to counter this effect, it's worth remembering that much of the technologies that I've been talking about - pre-implantation genetic diagnosis and oxytocin - is already safely available for other uses. But also, in non-climate contexts, our society has been willing to make biomedical interventions on a population-wide scale. So, for example, fluoride is deliberately added to water with the aim of fortifying us against tooth decay even though doing so is not without risks. Similarly, people are routinely vaccinated to prevent themselves and those around them from acquiring infectious diseases even though vaccinations sometimes have side effects and can even lead to death. Furthermore, a number of the human engineering solutions could be beneficial in other ways. So while human engineering involves risks, it can also carry great benefits over and above the contribution it makes to tackling climate change. So, with respect to safety, I think it seems like we should judge human engineering solutions on a case-by-case basis and not rule them out to court. Another objection - in the biomedical enhancement debate, some people have argued that the problem with human enhancement is that it represents a Promethean aspiration to remake our nature, including human nature, to serve our purposes and satisfy our desires. Given that human engineering is using biomedical means for the sake of climate change, some people might worry that this problem would carry over. Indeed, a number of environmentalists believe that it's precisely our interference with nature that has given rise to climate change. These environmentalists might therefore object to human engineering on the grounds that it too is interfering with nature. So, a few remarks here. First, the idea that it's impermissible to interfere with nature is surely too strong. So, routine vaccinations and giving women epidurals during childbirth, for example, involve interfering with nature but these technologies are generally welcomed. Also, not every human engineering solution involves interfering with human nature if by 'interference' one means making modifications to human beings. Remember that using the pre-implantation genetic diagnosis, that only involves selection rather than modification. In addition, human engineering, by mitigating climate change, could reduce our interference with nature at large and, indeed, if they turn out to be truly successful, they could bring about a net reduction in human interference with nature. And finally, some people object to human enhancement because they're worried that people want to use it for self-interest reasons. But here we're talking about using human engineering for ethical reasons, right? Mitigating climate change can promote the wellbeing of many people, including one's children. So, given this, those people who object to human enhancement, because they seem to be self-interestedly motivated, it seems like they could also endorse the consideration of human engineering. OK, another objection. So, while many of the solutions I have talked about would involve adults choosing to modify themselves - consenting adults choosing to modify themselves, some would involve children. Is it ethical for parents to make choices that may irreversibly affect their children's lives? This is a really important question. Now, the first thing I want to say is that not all human engineering solutions that would involve children are necessarily controversial. For example, there's evidence that many parents are happy to give their children drugs such as Ritalin, children who are otherwise medically healthy, so that they can do better in school. Secondly, take human engineering solutions such as making children smaller. This is certainly more controversial, and this is certainly quite controversial, so we should proceed with care. But it's important to remember that parents currently already are permitted to give hormone treatments to their children who are otherwise perfectly healthy. So that, for example, a daughter who is predicted to be 6 feet 5 inches tall could instead be 6 feet tall. So given this, on what grounds then should we forbid other parents who want to give hormone treatments to their children so that their children could be 5 feet tall instead of 5 feet 5 inches tall? Now, it might be thought that in the case of the former, the daughters would later appreciate and consent to the parents' decision. But if climate change would seriously affect the wellbeings of millions of people, including one's children, then these children may also later appreciate and consent to the parents' decisions. Here it's worth remembering how fluid human traits like heights are. A hundred years ago, we were all on the average much shorter and there was nothing wrong medically with the people a hundred years ago. So we should be wary of the idea that there is some sort of optimal height, namely the average height in our society today, since this may just reflect a kind of status quo bias. Another objection that you might have. Human engineering might be fine for individuals but it might turn out to be really bad for the society as a whole. So, again, take the example of making people smaller. Some might worry that using human engineering to make people smaller would mean that the most disadvantaged members of societies would bear the brunt and the effort of preserving the environment. And the most disadvantaged members of the society already tend to be smaller than non-disadvantaged members of the society, so if one were to use financial incentives to encourage people to be smaller, then these most disadvantaged members of the society might not have the option to refuse these incentives. It might therefore disproportionately bear the burdens of alleviating climate change. Here I just want to say that suppose that you think that there's a sufficient level of height below which it would be disabling for anyone to be, one might make sure, one might have a policy that makes sure that those people who are expected to be below this level are not given the incentives to take advantage of such human engineering. This may then ensure that everyone has sufficient height. OK, so is this the best use of our resources? Well, it may turn out that human engineering is not the best way of tackling climate change. But to concede this now would be to ignore the widely acknowledged fact that we currently do not know which solutions to climate change will be the most effective. Discovering the extent to which human engineering, or any of the other solutions, is worth pursuing is an empirical question and one that we're much more likely to meet in a timely manner if we maintain an open mind about which solutions will be best. And finally, just one more objection and then I'll conclude. The most obvious objection is that it's a preposterous idea. Who in their right mind would choose to make their children smaller? Well, a couple of things to say here. First, examining intuitively absurd or apparently drastic ideas can be an important learning experience. History is replete with examples of issues or ideas which, whilst widely supported or even invaluable now, were ridiculed and dismissed when they were first proposed - the theory of germs, telephone, flight. Someone once thought that the world needed only five personal computers. (AUDIENCE TITTERS) Second, the suggestion that we make our children smaller for the sake of the planet is the most controversial solution described in my proposal and the reason that many people respond negatively to this idea seems to be that they doubt that many people could be persuaded to implement it. I think there's something right about this belief. In our society, being tall is viewed as being advantageous. Studies show that women find taller men more attractive than shorter men and that taller people enjoy greater career success. But the fact that a particular human engineering solution may not appeal to some people is not a reason to avoid making such a solution available to others. And, also, what may be unappealing today may not be so tomorrow. So, for example, people's attitudes towards vegetarianism have changed as a result of vegetarianism's ethical status. Vegetarians used to be called tree huggers. You don't hear that term around very much. At least not in New York. Thirdly, we should be on our guard against status quo bias. People are disposed to favour their current solution over a new one. Making our children smaller may be unappealing but so is the prospect of having our children grow up in a world blighted by the environmental consequences of our choices and lifestyles. And finally, we should note that while it's tempting to focus on the most provocative examples of the human engineering solutions I've discussed, which also happens to be the least appealing, it's not the case that human engineering is synonymous with lack of appeal. So, when I've given this talk in other places, people were quite attracted to the idea of meat patches. They felt that they could be persuaded to adopt something like this. And, in fact, there was this person from the pharmaceutical company -and he was very interested in... -(LAUGHTER) So you may see that in a television ad near you. OK, so I hope to have given a flavour of what human engineering solutions to climate change might involve. No doubt much more can be said and I hope you'll ask questions. To combat climate change, we can either change the environment or change ourselves. Given the enormous risks associated with changing the environment, it seems that we should take seriously the idea that we may need to change ourselves. Thank you very much. (APPLAUSE) Just before you sit down... -OK. -Big. -Not so big. -(LAUGHS) I've got all this guilt I'm now carrying at the damage I'm doing. Better shed another few kilograms. -Please grab a seat. -Thank you. Well, I'm hoping after hearing that, there must be one or two questions or comments that you would want to make in relation to Matthew, so if you do, just take yourself across to the microphone there. One person's arrived down there, there's another one just above it in the gallery. Again, the accent's on questions - pithy, well framed, not long speeches. That's for up here. I'm just going to ask one first of all, though, as people make their way there. We've got plenty of people lining up. This will be a quick one. You were really saying that you don't want to go down with compulsion, but given the public interest case that you've made for addressing this, why aren't you wanting to put oxytocin in the water? Mmm. That's a really good question. Because you kind of have to use oxytocin contextually. I think you couldn't just give it, sort of, to everybody. -You put fluoride in though. -Yeah. Well, I mean, there's evidence that, you know, the problem with oxytocin is that if you just use it indiscriminately then you might be nice to everybody, which is a good thing, but you might also be more vulnerable or more gullible. You might be, sort of, too trusting and end up trusting the wrong people. And so you really... I mean, that's definitely a factor, yeah. OK, so you have a pragmatic objection rather than a principled objection. -That's right. That's right. -OK. Well, that's worth noting. So, we'll start off over here. The lights are on. Yes. Now, if you'll just give your name so Matt knows who he's speaking with -and then away you go. -Sure. -Well, my name's Matt as well. -SIMON: Oh! -MATT: Good name. -Yeah, it's a good name. -I was just wondering... -(AUDIENCE CHUCKLES) SIMON: Well, it's not THAT good. (LAUGHTER) OK, so I was just wondering, I know you said at the end that just because making children smaller isn't necessarily appealing to everyone doesn't mean -we shouldn't allow it. -MATT: Right. I was just wondering, with that technology, though, and, as you've said, there are advantages to being tall, the trend is that we have been getting taller, if that technology is available does it risk that we will also be selecting taller children and the average height will keep getting larger? And if so, I know you're against coercion but what sort of limitations would you have on that? Oh, that's a great question. So, in the human enhancement debate, people have been talking about designer babies and whether we should have taller children, more attractive children, and that's really, sort of... some people think that, you know, this is just interfering with human nature and we should have none of it, other people think that it should be up to people to decide. I tend to be on the side of leaving it to parents to decide. So in this case, I would want to say that... But there's a difference here, which is that selecting smaller people, you're selecting it not for self-interested reasons, not because you want your child to be better than other people, but you're doing it for everybody. And so there's something here where it could be more attractive. It's kind of like vegetarian restaurants are becoming more and more popular. But those are voluntary, right? And people voluntarily go to vegetarian restaurants and other people want to eat their meat and that's OK too, but... So, in general, I'm in favour of liberty and sort of allowing people to choose. And I think that what you need to do is provide people with the ethical argument, "Why is it a good thing?" You know, and so this might start a trend where... I know I have friends who for the longest time just think that being small is a bad thing. But here's a reason, smaller people, for you to think that, hey, you're actually environmentally friendly. (LAUGHTER) SIMON: Do you think that society has a right to impose vaccination on children born to protect them and others from measles and things of that kind? That's a great question. I actually think that the society does have, yeah. So why not, to follow up the question from the other Matt... -Yeah. -..why not put a cap on height? For the same reason. It might be that we have to go that route just like it might be that China, for example, has already this one-child policy, which is very, very coercive. But I'm hoping that we are self-reflective enough that we don't have to go that route. That's sort of a last resort, right? I mean, if the planet's going to be destroyed tomorrow and we've got to have all these coercive measures, you know, ticking-bomb scenarios, everybody would say, "Yes," you know, "we gotta do it." But the idea is hopefully we can hit the brakes before we get there. OK. This lady. My name's Alma, I just wanted to ask - you were talking about reducing emissions from what we do - the small things that we do - but your solutions, have you considered how much they emit? So, for example, selecting embryos is a difficult and complicated process which might mean more emissions... -Right. Yeah. -..in that way. That's a great question. SIMON: Embedded carbon in an embryo. (LAUGHS) So, that's right, so we need to take into account the technology. Sometimes the solution might be worse than the cure, so we need to certainly take that into consideration. And if it turns out that certain technologies are going to be more carbon producing then maybe that's not something we should engage in. But I think that we should sort of evaluate these solutions on a case-by-case basis, and one of the things to evaluate would be along that dimension, the dimension you've just suggested. -SIMON: Thank you. -Yeah. SIMON: Great. Yes. Hi, Matt. My name's Mahesh. We are limited in regards to change, societal change, by... To create change, you need incentives - people need to incentivise to create change - and we are generally limited, maximum, to two generations worth of, sort of, view and we only incentivise, at max, two generations worth of view, like children and grandchildren. You're talking about sort of a broader, fundamental change and I don't see how we are incentivised - we can see the value-add of making these changes. Does that make sense? Does the question make sense? SIMON: So you're saying that typically we only look out two generations and that we're not serious about our stewardship obligations... -Right. -..to future generations. Yeah, we incentivise by buying a big house... SIMON: So how do you take it out for much further generations? Well, that's one of the problems of climate change is that it's precisely because we only see... Like, we have this tendency... I think some people see a bit further, but we have this natural tendency not to see that far and that's why we have this problem because... And so, how do we get people to see further? So, one possibility is maybe increasing empathy, getting people to... Once you increase your empathetic capacities, you might become more 'all' with nature, right, and then you might come to see things that you haven't seen before that are salient. And then, the other thing is just to, you know, make it aware, make the ethical point that if we don't think about the future beyond the two generations, it's going to be really bad for humanity, for mankind. And so, you know, that's why we need to engage in these endeavours. The trouble when you have long lists of options is that people think that they're mutually exclusive. But I'm imagining you're think it's possible to have somebody who is wearing a meat patch, is a bit shorter than they would have been... -Right. -..and having a dose of oxytocin. Right. (LAUGHS) You know, this is the kind of golden moment, is that right? Yeah. No, I think that's right. So, today... ..I have an allergy pill and this morning I also took a reflux pill and then, "What other medications am I on?" -(LAUGHS) -Not too much personal... That's right. That's right. But the idea is that we already do this, right? We already do this in other contexts, so there's something... Allergy - there's nothing wrong with... You know, it's sort of a niche biological us humans versus the environment. And we do things to modify ourselves now already so that we can adapt to the effects of our environment. SIMON: OK. And the question's why, you know, we shouldn't be doing that. There's not just one thing, there's a lot. Yeah. Over here. Hi, my name's Kieran. Firstly, thank you for a truly dangerous idea. (MATT LAUGHS) Yeah, knowing that we're sort of genetically inclined not to take big questions like climate change seriously - I'm certainly supportive of the idea - it seems to me the elephant is a bit like turkeys voting for Christmas. You know, we have trouble enough in a democratic society for people to take climate change seriously, never mind take radical action like this. So what's your answer to that? Yeah, so... ..what we try to do in coming up with solutions is to come up with solutions that could be win-win solutions. Things that could be desirable, that you may even want to take. And so, things like cognitive enhancement, that's something that you may even want to take, so you don't have to coerce people, people may actually want to take it even if, you know, the effects on the environment could be very small. And the other thing is like the meat patch, people might want to take it for health-benefit reasons - they're just eating too much meat. And so...if a lot of people do it for even...directly, they do it for the health benefits, that will have indirect effect on the climate. So I think the key here is to come up with solutions that are win-win. SIMON: OK. A lady at the top in the gallery. Mmm. Hello, Matt. -My name's Margaret. -MATT: Hello. I'd like to ask you a fairly fundamental question. What percentage of the population would need to adopt any of these measures before they actually became effective in altering the rate at which we're going through climate change? That's a really good question. So, it's an empirical question, so right now I'm just throwing out ideas, that this whole class of solution just haven't been considered at all. And so, we would need to, for each solution, figure out exactly what you just said, what you just asked, you know, how many people need to take these in order for it to be effective? So, I'm hoping that further research will shed light. Once we have come up with a solution that, through public discourse, people are generally happy with and think that the risks are minimised and that they'd be willing to adopt, then we'd need to sort of then try to figure out these type of further questions. -SIMON: Thank you. -MARGARET: Thank you. What we'll do is, just because I know you're up to it, I'll take a couple of questions now so we make sure we get through, so the next two people ask your questions in series and Matt magically will hold them all in mind and answer them. Sure. I'm Robbie. And I was just wondering what are your views on the ethical considerations of whether children who haven't been born yet can actually consent to being selected to be shorter in society. SIMON: Good. OK. And the next one? My name is Nathan. How do you stand on incentives for sterilisation? Tax breaks? Or, perhaps, a mother who has one child, if they opt to be sterilised after birth, their child receives free health care for life or something of that nature? Good. OK. Great questions. So I'll take the first one. So, in philosophy there's this idea... ..this problem called the non-identity problem, so it turns out that if you select one embryo rather than another embryo, then the other embryo can't complain because... Well, the embryo that you selected can't complain about whatever, you know, because this embryo wouldn't have existed otherwise, right? And so, in the case of selection, there's really, as you rightly point out, there's really... ..consent's not an issue because this embryo wouldn't have existed otherwise if you hadn't selected the embryo, right, if you had selected a different embryo, right? But in the case of modification, in the case of where you give hormonal treatment, then consent becomes an issue and that's where I try to address the idea of future consent and the idea that so now, for example, our society allows parents to give hormonal treatments to, you know, their children who are, you know, usually girls who are gonna be really tall. So, you know, then the question is, why couldn't we do it out of ethical grounds? Or what's the principle? I want to know. One principle might be that, in the case of the girl, she is the sole beneficiary of the hormonal treatment which reduces her height... -Mm-hm. -..whereas what you've done is you've invoked a reason for the other class... -I see. -..being based on a public good. -I see. But she'll also benefit. -Yeah, but marginally. -It could be significant. (LAUGHS) -Mmm. So, that's good - that's a good point. So, and your... 'Cause you asked if there was one reason so I gave one reason. Good. No, that's a good point. And... The second question was about incentives for things like agreeing to sterilisation and other benefits that might be given... -Right. -..subsequent to that, say, to a child that might get additional health care if the parent takes that kind of corrective action. So, I think we need to put different solutions on the table. So incentivising sterilisation, that's sort of one possibility. But it seems very liberty restricting, right? So once you sterilise - you're sterilised - that's it, you can't procreate, and procreation is one of the basic activities that we want to engage in. It's almost a fundamental right. And so, I'd be very careful. And so, that's why I want to suggest that rather than sterilisation, think of having smaller children, right, where you can choose, you don't have to sterilise. And ultimately the aim is to have, you know, a sustainable world. And if you can have something else that doesn't require you to infringe on something like a fundamental right, that seems to be a better way to go, right? And that's the suggestion. So if you can have... ..if you can have your children, exercise your fundamental right to procreate and have happy little children running around, you know, that seems like a good thing. So you're resistant to the idea that there should be incentives which draw you into a position which, in a sense, voids some of the options that might be fundamental to the person. -That's right. -We'll take a couple more now. What about things like Implanon and things that can be reversed? Does that change the opinion? Yeah, so reversible sterilisation is, I mean... Then it's not, I mean... It depends - if you can just take a pill and sort of it lasts sort of for... People are investigating that right now, actually, sort of contraceptives that will last for a really long time until you take something else, so that's actually, in fact, being investigated where you can just take something and then it is reversible, and I think that would be a better way to go. In those cases, I think it might be less controversial. I'll have to see the data, but, yeah. SIMON: Next two? MAN: Hi, I'm James. If we accept the premise that, like, our planet can only support a certain amount of human life sustainably, say, 10 billion people or so, but if we made humans smaller then we could, say, have 12 billion people or so and support them, then at the rate that we're growing, eventually, even if we did adopt this policy and had small people, wouldn't we eventually reach that population cap and, like, have the same problems? So isn't, like, a population cap the ultimate solution to the thing and shorter people is just a temporary one? Good. So... But there are other things that we might be able to do which is, sort of, I mean... So, you know, like, for example, what I was talking about, achieving zero food miles, right, so if we can make it a case that for each person our carbon footprint is exactly neutral, right, then that might be a way where we can sort of address this problem. Or we might just need to, you know, sort of spend more money in space exploration, so... -(LAUGHTER) -Yeah. Or, yes, next person? Yeah, thanks, Matt. My name is Tibor. Climate change is a global problem, so I want to take a slightly global perspective, a slightly less anthropocentric perspective. Let me suppose that we can work out that if we don't do anything about climate change then the human race will become extinct in 5,000 years. The number doesn't matter, could be 500, could be 5 million, -but it'll happen one day. -MATT: Right. Let's suppose that happens. Let's suppose that we can work out that if we do something about the climate, instead of 5,000 years, it's going to be 6,000 years. Clearly, in 5,000 years time that's going to be an immediate problem and I'm going to get really worried about it. But how do I get excited about that today? Right. Do you want to take two? No, we'll take this one and then we'll take the last two - there's one upstairs and one downstairs - and that will be wrapping it up. So, we're at that 5,000 year point that you're talking about, so science's experts tell us that we're close to the point of no return and so we need to, in fact... You know, we need to reduce reduction by close to 70% and that might not even do the job. And so we need to take seriously those... ..you know, it's in this context that people are suggesting something like geo-engineering, right, large-scale manipulation of the earth. People wouldn't be taking seriously those solutions if we're still 5,000 years away from, you know, the problem. So the problem really is here now and the question is how do we go about dealing with it. SIMON: OK. Upstairs and then downstairs. Yep, hi, Matt. My name's Brent. Just wondering what... I note that you that haven't mentioned the obesity factor. MATT: Oh. SIMON: He's being kind to me. -(LAUGHS) -BRENT: Thanks, Simon. I wondered what your position is on that... ..regarding engineering humans to stop climate change, on that subject. Particularly, with note to the example of, say, the Danish government who've recently introduced a 5% tax on... ..at retail, on high-sugar and high-fat content foods, which is a relatively doable kind of government incentive. MATT: Right. And the money generated from that is then put back into subsidising fresh fruit and vegetables. SIMON: We'll go to the other question. Mayor Bloomberg's also doing something similar in New York. That's right. OK, my name is Ian Bryce. I'm a primary ethics teacher, so I work for Simon indirectly. -MATT: Oh. -SIMON: Mmm. And, Matt, my question is, you mentioned Britons as having 280 times, I think it was, the carbon footprint of an Ethiopian, or something like that, the implication being that the Ethiopians should perhaps increase their numbers while reducing the Britons would improve the carbon footprint of the planet. However, what about the quality of life? Have you thought about utilitarianism, where the amount of pleasure and the amount of pain comes into it? So what sort of balance would you seek if you took that into account? -Good. -SIMON: Our last two questions. OK, so the first question is... That was about sugar and obesity and should there be regulation to control obesity rather than the height? Great. So, that's a very good question. In New York, they're trying to address the obesity problem. Bloomberg has, you know, sort of saying that drinks - you can't sell carbonated drinks over 16 ounces, I think. So, a way to... I mean, making humans smaller, you can do it through... ..as I said, you can do it through average height or you can do it through average weight. And I focus on height partly because the issue of obesity is very sensitive - politically sensitive, there's also... There are a lot of issues around obesity. It's a very complicated issue. And it seems that... And on top of that, it seems that there's also this discriminatory aspect that, you know, you might be, you know... ..I mean, if you talk about obesity, you know. So we wanted to focus on average height, where height usually is an advantage, right, and so, you know... so then we're not targeting a group of people that are already being targeted in, you know, other areas. So that's sort of the reason for focusing on that. In terms of just obesity policies, I think that it's a really tricky situation because, I mean, living in the US you'll find that you get these servings and they're American servings, I mean they're massive, and you don't need to eat that much. But they give it to you and then... ..either they get wasted or people end up eating them and then they get bigger and bigger and bigger. Everything is supersized. Like, at some point someone decided that this was a good marketing tool, supersizing. And so, then it became over the nation and I think it's a big problem. It's a collective-action problem, right? It's one where little...just having that extra bite of that little thing doesn't seem to make a difference. But when you do it a lot over, you know, a range...over your lifetime, it becomes a really big problem. And when a lot of people do that over a lifetime, then you have an obesity problem and that affects energy, transport, yeah. And the question on utilitarianism - reducing the number of happy Britons and increasing the number of unhappy Ugandans? Right. (LAUGHS) Well, I think... I'm not a utilitarian. So I think that the problem with... So, one of the things I want to propose is I want to have win-win solutions, right, so I want it to be the case that the solutions are actually people would be willing, they'll be happy to adopt them. And so I don't want to have solutions that are coercive, that means getting rid of Ugandans, for example, that sounds pretty bad. And I hope you'll agree. And, yeah, so the utilitarian implications can lead you to that type of conclusion, right, where maybe you can sacrifice a group of people... ..for the benefit of another group. And, generally, I take it very seriously a set of fundamental human rights and I think that, so I'm trying to work within a framework where their rights are not violated. I thought, having lived in Britain, you were going to say, -"Show me a happy Briton." -Oh, right. (LAUGHS) Look, ladies and gentlemen, we're almost out of time. Just, I suppose, one of the remarkable things that Matt's done today is that we philosophers have a guild relation which he's broken today. The guild rule is that if we can ask a good question, we generate work for our mates for thousands of years, so we're not supposed ever to answer one and yet here he is being proposing actual solutions. Matt will be available outside in the foyer later on for those of you who might not have had a chance to ask a question or make a comment. There may be something that's come into mind that you would like to draw to his attention. And I should mention also, if you're really interested in these group of topics, later on today, I think up in the concert hall, Jason Silva will be also sort of putting out some things. And if you saw him on 'Q&A', for an hour's talk he had about three hours of ideas in terms of the speed with which he goes. But would you please join with me in thanking Matt Liao for his wonderful talk? -(APPLAUSE) -Thank you. Thank you very much. -Thanks, Matt. -Thank you. Thank you, Simon. Thank you very much.