Tucker reacts to scientist who suggested possibility of “engineering” humans to be intolerant to meat to help tackle climate change

Tuesday, Tucker Carlson responded with outrage to a viral video of a scientist who suggested in 2016 that humans could possibly be engineered to be intolerant to meat for the betterment of the planet and climate.

Scientist Matthew Liao said “some people on intolerant to fish so possibly we can use human engineering to make it the case where we are intolerant to certain types of meat, certain types of bovine proteins, so that’s something we can do through human engineering, possibly address really big world problems through human engineering.”

Later he says “Imagine if we had smaller children. Little tiny children. Think of how little they would emit in greenhouse gasses. Think about how easy it would be to pick them up, juggle them around, control them. All we need to do is experiment on human children. And we can solve climate change. That was at a public conference five years ago. Nobody said anything. That’s where we are. Surprised? You shouldn’t be. In fact, it’s less ghoulish than some of the things happening in labs right now.”

“Take a look at this tape,” Tucker said “It’s from an annual conference called the “World Science Festival.” A few years ago, the conference featured a professor of bioethics and philosophy at New York University named Mathew Liao.

“Liao is among the most influential bioethicists in the world — a fact that will amaze you. Liao explained that climate change can be solved with something called “human engineering,” he continued.

WATCH:

In response to the outrage Liao tweeted “Getting a lot of ‘fan’ mails because of @TuckerCarlson. . . For the record, I’ve never said that government should force people not to eat meat. #human_engineering

He added “Sure, thanks for asking! Here I make clear that these are thought experiments and that whatever we do it needs to be *voluntary*”

In the linked piece Liao writes “Before I explain the proposal, let me make clear that human engineering is intended to be a voluntary activity—possibly supported by incentives such as tax breaks or sponsored health care—rather than a coerced, mandatory activity. I am positively against any form of coercion of the sort that the Nazis perpetrated in the past (segregation, sterilization, and genocide). 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 seriously potentially catastrophic measures such as geoengineering.”