Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

The Case for Making Humans Smaller

nautil.us

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

11–20 of 34 posts

Re: The Case for Making Humans Smaller

#11

Post by jusssi »

cronjobber wrote: post #9
grondilu wrote: post #6

If overpopulation really is a problem, is it not much easier to control population? It's probably much easier to convince someone to have at most two children, rather than to convince him/her to let scientists fiddle with their gametes so that their children are dwarves.

There seem to be psychological barriers to public discussion of the (many!) downsides of ever-growing populations. I guess people feel like they're discussing genocide.

Ironic, the longer we put off that discussion, the more likely we actually end up with a genocide instead of some controlled solution.

Re: The Case for Making Humans Smaller

#12

Post by paulsutter »

Overcrowded? Ridiculous. Open up Google Maps. Switch on satellite view. Scroll around the planet. It's all empty space. Sure, we need to stop using carbon fuels. Yes, we need to stop polluting the oceans. But the earth is practically empty.

Switching power sources is the actual problem. And let's choose one that's also cheaper and more plentiful. Most of the other problems can be overcome with more and cheaper energy (like water for example).

But it's ludicrous to say the earth is nearly full.

Re: The Case for Making Humans Smaller

#13

Post by DrScump »

paulsutter wrote: post #12

Overcrowded? Ridiculous. Open up Google Maps. Switch on satellite view. Scroll around the planet. It's all empty space. Sure, we need to stop using carbon fuels. Yes, we need to stop polluting the oceans. But the earth is practically empty. Switching power sources is the actual problem. And let's choose one that's also cheaper and more plentiful. Most of the other problems can be overcome with more and cheaper energy…

Land is hardly the most limiting resource; in fact, it's well down the list, below: - fresh water - food - waste carrying capacity (waterways, atmosphere) - physical resources (metals, wood, concrete, oil and other energy forms)

Heck, there's even a worsening shortage of sand suitable for construction use, worldwide: http://www.nytimes.com/2014/11/05/opinion/why-sand-is-disapp...

Re: The Case for Making Humans Smaller

#14

Post by 1ris »

>The most extreme examples are in Japan, where mean height has increased 5.5 inches in the last 50 years,

If you want to stay small, do what the japanese did pre-war, that made them so small: Sit on your soles.

>“If you were that small,” he says, “you’d be eaten by cats!”

Here is a picture from 1956 of Henry Behrens, the smallest man in the world at the time, dancing with his cat. He was 75 cm, 50% lager than the envisioned 50cms.

https://kittybloger.files.wordpress.com/2013/10/26th-october...

Re: The Case for Making Humans Smaller

#15

Post by DrScump »

1ris wrote: post #14

>The most extreme examples are in Japan, where mean height has increased 5.5 inches in the last 50 years, If you want to stay small, do what the japanese did pre-war, that made them so small: Sit on your soles. >“If you were that small,” he says, “you’d be eaten by cats!” Here is a picture from 1956 of Henry Behrens, the smallest man in the world at the time, dancing with his cat. He was 75 cm, 50% lager than the env…

Seriously? I assumed it was a nutrition issue, especially sheer number of calories.

Re: The Case for Making Humans Smaller

#16

Post by stargazer-3 »

cromulent wrote: post #8

The 2% food consumption seems like an overly-simplified calculation from the mass reduction. My understanding is that the smaller animals are, the larger their surface area to mass ratio, and so their loss of heat increases. Metabolic rate is much higher. Shrews need to eat 90% of their bodyweight everyday or else they die.

Also, our brains currently consume 20% of the energy produced by our bodies. Even if you manage to "shrink" humans down to 50cm, their brains would still consume 20% of our current energy need for brain only.

Re: The Case for Making Humans Smaller

#17

Post by alphapapa »

This is utter insanity:

> Liao would accomplish this height reduction through pre-implantation diagnosis, a screening test used to determine whether genetic or chromosomal disorders are present in developing embryos before they are inserted into mothers through in vitro procedures. While height would be somewhat trickier to test than most hereditary diseases—it is controlled by 697 genetic variants, in contrast to the single variant of a hereditary disease like cystic fibrosis—Liao views this as a mere “technical problem.”

> Once science works out the kinks, he says, parents could screen for tallness just like they do now for disease.

He proposes aborting perfectly healthy embryos because they might grow up to be taller than he thinks people ought to be. I suppose it would implicitly require that all pregnancies be initiated through IVF, as well. What is this guy, the inverse of Khan Noonian Singh?

I suggest that Mr. Hendriks, "a 6" 4’ [sic] Dutchman," lead by example.

Re: The Case for Making Humans Smaller

#18

Post by iSnow »

cromulent wrote: post #8

The 2% food consumption seems like an overly-simplified calculation from the mass reduction. My understanding is that the smaller animals are, the larger their surface area to mass ratio, and so their loss of heat increases. Metabolic rate is much higher. Shrews need to eat 90% of their bodyweight everyday or else they die.

And there's the added problem of the well-established correlation between body size and longevity. If we scaled down to cat size, it is reasonable to expect we'd die at 50 instead of 80, even taking our outsize longevity factor into account (https://musingsofajunglequeen.files.wordpress.com/2013/12/sl...).

Re: The Case for Making Humans Smaller

#19

Post by yojo »

iSnow wrote: post #18
cromulent wrote: post #8

The 2% food consumption seems like an overly-simplified calculation from the mass reduction. My understanding is that the smaller animals are, the larger their surface area to mass ratio, and so their loss of heat increases. Metabolic rate is much higher. Shrews need to eat 90% of their bodyweight everyday or else they die.

And there's the added problem of the well-established correlation between body size and longevity. If we scaled down to cat size, it is reasonable to expect we'd die at 50 instead of 80, even taking our outsize longevity factor into account ( https://musingsofajunglequeen.files.wordpress.com/2013/12/sl... ).

The correlation you note is cross species. I thought within the same species it tends to be reversed (e.g. Smaller dog breeds live longer than big ones). Here's an unscientific article with a footnote that shorter people tend to live longer: http://m.mentalfloss.com/article.php?id=49358

Re: The Case for Making Humans Smaller

#20

Post by 1ris »

DrScump wrote: post #15
1ris wrote: post #14

>The most extreme examples are in Japan, where mean height has increased 5.5 inches in the last 50 years, If you want to stay small, do what the japanese did pre-war, that made them so small: Sit on your soles. >“If you were that small,” he says, “you’d be eaten by cats!” Here is a picture from 1956 of Henry Behrens, the smallest man in the world at the time, dancing with his cat. He was 75 cm, 50% lager than the env…

Seriously? I assumed it was a nutrition issue, especially sheer number of calories.

It mostly is. But sitting on your soles does change the proportion of your feet. I (and I think most other people) can't do that because my lower leg is too long.
Post reply on HN