A scientific paper was presented to New York University and immediately became an international cultural sensation. Professor of philosophy and bioethics Matthew Liao (Matthew Liao) proposed to radically “help” humanity to give up meat.
He recommends that anyone considering giving up meat get a voluntary vaccination that will give you a runny nose if you eat beef or pork – this will quickly form a negative reaction in a person to the idea of eating meat in general. In this way, the infamous professor proposes to “cure” humanity from meat-eating.
Liao is not concerned with animal rights and human health, but rather with the ability to stop the catastrophic climate change that has been observed in recent decades (animal farming is known to be a big contributor to global warming) and help humans become more efficient as a species.
According to Liao, the human community is no longer able to cope with a number of disharmonious social tendencies on its own, and it needs help “from above” – through the methods of pharmaceuticals, public administration, and even genetics.
According to the scientist, the “Liao pill” will cause a slight runny nose in a person who has eaten meat – in this way, children and adults can be quite effectively weaned from consuming meat products. At the first stage of the project implementation, the intake of a special drug that triggers such a reaction should be voluntary, the professor believes.
Many scientists condemned Liao’s report, emphasizing that, firstly, such a pill will undoubtedly become mandatory at some stage. In addition, they condemned the professor, who did not stop at the proposal to wean humanity from eating meat (which would undoubtedly have a positive impact on the climate and would partially or completely solve the problem of hunger on a global scale – Vegetarian).
The scientist went so far as to propose to correct the human race not only on a dietary basis, but also to introduce a number of beneficial genetic changes, adapting evolutionary features in accordance with the lifestyle and energy resources of the planet.
In particular, the doctor promotes the idea of gradually reducing a person’s height using genetic methods in order to save fuel. According to Liao’s calculations, this will prevent an energy crisis in the near future (according to many scientists, the coming one is inevitable in the next 40 years – Vegetarian). To solve the same problem, the professor also proposes to change the eyes of a person, adapting them to low light conditions. In fact, the scientist proposes to give mankind cat’s eyes: this, he believes, would save a significant amount of electricity. All of these proposed rather radical innovations Liao calls “expanding the freedom” of mankind.
A number of Western scholars have already commented negatively on the American professor’s report, noting the totalitarian orientation of the proposed measures and even comparing Liao’s proposals with the ideas of fascism.
One of the important arguments of Liao’s opponents is that he proposes to abandon the use of meat in food in general. And from the point of view of planetary and human health, it makes sense to abandon only the modern “cellular” system of industrial animal husbandry and switch to creating a large network of small farms that raise “organically” correct animals, the meat of which is rich in omega-3 fatty acids and other nutrients. . Such methods of raising livestock for meat are environmentally friendly, good for human health (!), and even good for the soil, according to some scientists.
Of course, the point of view of Dr. Liao’s opponents is the point of view of supporters of meat consumption and, in general, supporters of the consumption of mineral, plant and animal resources of the planet without considering ethics, but considering only their effectiveness. Paradoxically, it is precisely this logic that underlies Professor Liao’s proposals!
Whether to take Professor Liao’s proposal seriously – everyone, of course, decides for himself. However, from the standpoint of vegetarianism, it is worth noting the narrowness of the view of its opponents, who take into account only human rights and health, and do not at all take into account the rights of animals themselves – and at least their right to life, and not just the nutritional value and environmental friendliness of their life cycle!