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

21–30 of 34 posts

Re: The Case for Making Humans Smaller

#21

Post by cheez »

DrScump wrote: post #13
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...

Haha, we use up EVERYTHING.

Re: The Case for Making Humans Smaller

#22

Post by jacalata »

1ris wrote: post #20
DrScump wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Do you have a cite for that? I know plenty of people of various heights who can sit on the soles of their feet, it just uses muscles that most westerners don't exercise. I'm also pretty skeptical that it would affect your height in any way to do it regularly.

Re: The Case for Making Humans Smaller

#23

Post by vacri »

modeless wrote: post #3

Being very small would have other fun advantages. You'd have a much higher strength to weight ratio than today's humans, for both your muscles and bones. You'd probably be able to jump your own height or even more. Falls would be much less damaging. Not just everyday falls, but you might be able to survive falling at terminal velocity, as cats can, thus allowing you to fall from any height. Even wilder, it might be p…

Disadvantages include moving down the foodchain. I live in an inner suburb of a city, and I see foxes in my street. At my current height, they're a curio - but at 50cm tall, they're a viable threat.

Re: The Case for Making Humans Smaller

#24

Post by vacri »

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…

The problem isn't physically occupying space, it's resource consumption. Humans themselves don't consume much space in total - the entire 2010 population could 'stand on zanzibar', as the book title predicted: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stand_on_Zanzibar#Title

Re: The Case for Making Humans Smaller

#25

Post by Someone »

modeless wrote: post #3

Being very small would have other fun advantages. You'd have a much higher strength to weight ratio than today's humans, for both your muscles and bones. You'd probably be able to jump your own height or even more. Falls would be much less damaging. Not just everyday falls, but you might be able to survive falling at terminal velocity, as cats can, thus allowing you to fall from any height. Even wilder, it might be p…

http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal....:

In the present study, the effects of pure isometric scaling on vertical jumping performance were investigated using a biologically realistic model of the human musculoskeletal system. The input of the model, muscle stimulation over time, was optimized using jump height as criterion. It was found that when the human model was miniaturized to the size of a mouse lemur, with a mass of about one-thousandth that of a human, jump height dropped from 40 cm to only 6 cm, mainly because of the force-velocity relationship. In reality, mouse lemurs achieve jump heights of about 33 cm

Re: The Case for Making Humans Smaller

#26

Post by StefanKarpinski »

I can't tell if this is a Swiftian modest proposal or an earnest but ridiculously impractical idea, but this bit got me:

> Liao has calculated that reducing the average US height by just 8 percent (15 cm) would mean a corresponding mass reduction of 23 percent for men and 25 percent for women, and a 15-18 percent reduction of metabolic rate. The effect of this downscaling “is not linear,” he says. “It’s exponential.”

Face palm.

Re: The Case for Making Humans Smaller

#27

Post by rtl49 »

yojo wrote: post #19
iSnow wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

What you say is true, but the proposal is to reduce the height of the human species as a whole. Thus the cross-species comparison might be applicable here (i.e. humans at their current height vs. a smaller derived species).

Re: The Case for Making Humans Smaller

#28

Post by rtl49 »

StefanKarpinski wrote: post #26

I can't tell if this is a Swiftian modest proposal or an earnest but ridiculously impractical idea, but this bit got me: > Liao has calculated that reducing the average US height by just 8 percent (15 cm) would mean a corresponding mass reduction of 23 percent for men and 25 percent for women, and a 15-18 percent reduction of metabolic rate. The effect of this downscaling “is not linear,” he says. “It’s exponential.”…

I think it's tongue-in-cheek or a publicity stunt. Among other problems, this would only increase the carrying capacity of our planet. It doesn't miraculously solve the problems of inevitable overpopulation or excessive consumption.

Re: The Case for Making Humans Smaller

#29

Post by paulsutter »

DrScump wrote: post #13
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...

A better source of energy solves any limitations on water and food. And "waste carrying capacity" is another term for pollution - as I said there are better ways to manage pollution.

Yes that takes technology, but the problem is mismanagement of resources, we aren't running out.

"The situation we’re in isn’t a looming wall that we’re doomed to crash into. It’s a race – a race between depletion and pollution of natural resources on one side, and our pace of innovation on the other."

- http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/guest-blog/the-limits-of...

Re: The Case for Making Humans Smaller

#30

Post by cromulent »

vacri wrote: post #24
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…

The problem isn't physically occupying space, it's resource consumption. Humans themselves don't consume much space in total - the entire 2010 population could 'stand on zanzibar', as the book title predicted: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stand_on_Zanzibar#Title

Yes exactly. The current population would fit into a 1km sided cube.

Volume of a human = 67 l [1]

Double this for packing errors = 134 l = .134 ㎥

.134 x 7.13 billion = 955,000,000 ㎥

[1] http://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=volume+of+a+human+being

Post reply on HN