  Although Savulescu highlights the well-being of the individual in his work on procreative beneficence, in more recent work, the obligation to produce the best seems to have shifted from an obligation to improve the world by privately producing the best individuals, to an obligation to improve the world by producing individuals who will help to solve social problems. For instance, in their book Unfit for the Future (2012), Persson and Savulescu argue that we are obligated to fund and explore moral bioenhancement (2012: 2) – the idea that we could genetically or pharmacologically enhance our moral motivation, to reduce selfishness and aggression, and increase our sense of fairness, altruism, and our willingness to cooperate (see also Douglas 2008). Given the massive threats to human well-being presented by global climate change and the abundance of weapons of mass destruction – and the fact that solutions to these large-scale problems will require collective action to prevent future problems – Persson and Savulescu claim that traditional methods of moral change (e.g., education, public campaigns) are unlikely to be effective. If we care about the planet – and we should – then we are obligated to invest in moral bioenhancement research, and presumably ensure that if successful, it gets wide uptake (Persson and Savulescu 2012). Buchanan (2011) is sympathetic, noting that critics who worry about whether we will use this technology wisely may be short-sighted.