That is the suggestion of S. Matthew Liao, professor of philosophy and bioethics at New York University.

See:

How Engineering the Human Body Could Combat Climate Change

http://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2012/03/how-human-engineering-could-be-the-solution-to-climate-change/253981/

>>The threat of global climate change has prompted us to redesign many of our technologies to be more energy-efficient. From lightweight hybrid cars to long-lasting LED's, engineers have made well-known products smaller and less wasteful. But tinkering with our tools will only get us so far, because however smart our technologies become, the human body has its own ecological footprint, and there are more of them than ever before. So, some scholars are asking, what if we could engineer human beings to be more energy efficient? A new paper to be published in Ethics, Policy & Environment proposes a series of biomedical modifications that could help humans, themselves, consume less.>>

To the best of my knowledge this is not a windup.

Engineering humans to be more environmentally friendly seems to be a serious proposal.

S. Matthew Liao does seem to be on the faculty of NYU. Here is a link to his home page.

http://philosophy.fas.nyu.edu/object/smatthewliao.html

This is bizarre and of course quite absurd.

If Professor Matthew Liao and his cohorts put their mental energies towards methods of reducing the world’s population, significantly and steadily, for about the next fifty years, then they would be doing something useful for the planet, instead of entirely wasting their energies!

Well it is true that many of our academics are becoming more odd as time goes by, but it gets worse.

Today, if you find one with any reference to ethics in their title or job description, run for the hills. They are either ratbags, totally dishonest or both. They are so arrogantly crazy they probably actually believe some of the cr4p they write.

that's how the daleks started.

I know I have asked you this on many previous occasions, Ludwig, but it is always worth asking again.

What do you believe would be valid...

>>... methods of reducing the world’s population, significantly and steadily...<<?

I'd be particularly keen to understand what options you might have in mind that would not involve the suppression of basic individual freedoms.

If you are unable to envisage any, does it really make sense to keep banging your drum, hoping that someone else might be able to work cataclysmic magic on the entire human psyche?

The population of the world is managed, most effectively, through the availability of food and shelter.

In fact, when you think about it, there is a case to be made that the first action in the pursuit of your objective should be to end the process whereby rich countries send food and medical assistance to poorer ones. But as I'm sure you would agree, such callous inhumanity would keep the media in a permanent frenzy.

Or perhaps you don't consider this inhumane?

Yes ok, the only way we do that is breed far less of them.
World wide.