They study Human Engineering for Climate Change.

David Fraser

Senior Member.
I came across this on a few FB chemtrail pages

max bliss.JPG

Max makes reference to an article that was presented in a journal called Ethics, Policy and the Environment in 2012

Human Engineering and Climate Change
Anthropogenic climate change is arguably one of the biggest problems that confront us
today. There is ample evidence that climate change is likely to affect adversely many
aspects of life for all people around the world, and that existing solutions such as
geoengineering might be too risky and ordinary behavioural and market solutions might
not be sufficient to mitigate climate change. In this paper, we consider a new kind of
solution to climate change, what we call human engineering, which involves biomedical
modifications of humans so that they can mitigate and/or adapt to climate change. We
argue that human engineering is potentially less risky than geoengineering and that it
could help behavioural and market solutions succeed in mitigating climate change. We
also consider some possible ethical concerns regarding human engineering such as its
safety, the implications of human engineering for our children and for the society, and we
argue that these concerns can be addressed. Our upshot is that human engineering
deserves further consideration in the debate about climate change.
Content from External Source
Far from studying human engineering it is a philosophical thought piece designed to generate discussion, and the authors go to the lengths to place a disclaimer.

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. Our central aim here is to show that human engineering deserves consideration alongside other solutions in the debate about how to solve the problem of climate change. Also, as we envisage it, human engineering would be a voluntary activity – possibly supported by incentives such as tax breaks or sponsored health care – rather than a coerced, mandatory activity.
Content from External Source
At the time of publishing it did court some controversy and the authors did receive some abuse, but that is the nature of philosophical inquiry I suppose. There is an elightening article with the authors here.

As to the content of the article it is all pretty tame. There are no recommendations to engineer webbed feet or gills or even to grow ape like hair to keep us warm. Most of the ideas are non invasive pharmacological ideas to adjust behaviours.

The modifications discussed included: giving people drugs to make them have an adverse reaction to eating meat; making humans smaller via gene imprinting and "preimplantation genetic diagnosis"; lowering birth-rates through "cognitive enhancement"; genetically engineering eyesight to work better in the dark to help reduce the need for lighting; and the "pharmacological enhancement of altruism and empathy" to engender a better "correlation" with environmental problems.
Content from External Source
Some of the ideas do hold some merit but that is a long way off from been studied and accepted as Plan C to counter climate change. I do have an interest in ethics especially debating the more out there ideas and to be frank this is not that bizarre or offensive. Around the same time I read an article about post birth abortion and the nature of when an infant becomes a person. Ethics journals are of controversial and extreme articles.