In their conclusions the scientists stated that no single weather event proves that we are experiencing human-induced global climate change. But the frequency of unusual weather events may be an indicator of a shift away from normal climate patterns. In their cataloguing of extreme weather events one thing became exceedingly clear. The Earth is experiencing more extreme weather events than at any time in recorded history and that the events are more extreme – heavier rain and flooding, more violent storms, larger and more frequent tornadoes, and more prolonged droughts and heatwaves.

Coumou and Rahmstorf’s data shows that globally we are experiencing three times higher monthly heat records in the 21st century than at anytime in our past. Like other climate scientists they recognize that local weather variation is not proof of global warming, but the pattern that is emerging suggests something is happening with the most likely variable in the climate model being us. We are the influence that is causing global temperatures to rise. And when the atmosphere gets warmer, weather gets more active and weather events become more extreme. So although we cannot unequivocally state that extreme weather reflects climate disruption, we can see cause…not certainty….but high probability.

The arguments for this approach include:

1. Human engineering may be potentially less risky than geo-engineering the planet to mitigate climate change.
2. Human engineering could decrease human-induced climate change.
3. Human engineering could solve many of our social and health problems and contribute to a more sustainable planetary footprint.
4. Biomedical modification is already within sight with the mapping of the human genome and our ability to insert genetic information into the DNA of individuals suffering from genetically induced diseases.

Why would re-engineering us be better than re-engineering the planet?

1. Geo-engineering is a very imperfect science and climate scientists are still trying to perfect models to explain the interaction between atmosphere, solar radiation, our oceans and land masses.
2. Geo-engineering requires all nations to commit to a common strategy for reducing our carbon footprint. Humans have shown a disinclination to achieve any kind of consensus on a common approach to date.
3. Ge0-engineering could have unforseen consequences that further damage the environment globally. We could create a runaway cold event or induce more rapid heating if we choose the wrong technological solution.

What kinds of changes would we consider making to humans?

1. Make humans smaller so they need less to eat and use fewer resources.
2. Make all humans vegans by genetically modifying them to not tolerate meat and thus free up land currently used for the meat industry and repurpose it for crops.
3. Make humans less prolific in reproduction to reduce population.
4. Make humans more sympathetic and altruistic to reduce war and conflict.

I recently read Margaret Atwood’s messianic novel of the future, Oryx and Crake.  If you are not familiar with it, the subject focuses on bioengineering with outcomes darker than that suggested by the proposals made by Liao et al. The authors freely admit that human engineering solutions may be considered preposterous but if we are to survive as a species in a habitable Earth, it is an option worthy of debate.