Sam Harris

I found myself contemplating a novel solution for the strain that humans are placing on the environment.  What if future generations of people were genetically modified to reach a maximum height of three feet tall?  It seems to me that this would essentially halve the environmental costs associated with an individual's footprint, whether that scales up better or worse, though, I'm not sure.

Obviously this isn't practical, and even if it was, there are certainly many reasons why it isn't a good idea, but it caught my fancy, and so I thought I would share.

-Matt

And then we create this “workshop” at the north pole and get these genetically engineered “dwarves” if you will to work. We of course make one larger one to control all the smaller ones, making them work day and night to give out presents to the entire world. We shall call him Saint Nicholas and then change it to Santa Claus because of a large soft drink manufacturer but in every other country in the world we shall give him a different name. A perfect plan!

What do you mean it’s already been done?

On a more serious note, as much as little people might use less energy, etc. we would still have the problem of reaching the top shelf without getting the ladder, in the case the top shelves.

Being 6’6”, I very much dislike small people I trip over some small kids as it is.

I get where you’re going though, have genetically engineered people to be more efficient in one way or another and although it might work there will be a lot of controversy around it. How would like to be born with 4 arms?

I get where you’re going though, have genetically engineered people to be more efficient in one way or another and although it might work there will be a lot of controversy around it. How would like to be born with 4 arms?

this is an interesting topic.  Should people be allowed the option of volunteering themselves as guinea pigs for genetic experimentation that could someday benefit all of man kind for the better?  If they were promised a percentage of the end profit, I’m thinking it wouldn’t be a bad idea.  It’d certainly a lot better than what the US government did in the 30s

http://www.kn.pacbell.com/wired/BHM/tuskegee_quest.html

Freaking Nazis!

But, people learn.  It’s already done to a certain extent with pharmaceutical testing.  Genetic treatment seems is the next step.

It seems that the western tradition has long been to recklessly change the world in an attempt to suit our needs better, often with unintended consequences.  It seems that, if we are going to go tinkering with things, that tinkering with ourselves instead of everything else, might be a nice change of pace.

Cloudwalker:  Yes, whimsical notions aside, there likely are genetic modifications that could be made to people that would make us more efficient, and thus might wind up reducing the net environmental footprint.  And yes, regardless of what they might be, they would be very controversial, even if we ignore the R&D, which would also be controversial.

-Matt