Earth’s Short Future – Josh T’s Manifesto


03/9/2007, 1:36 pm -- by

“In the beginning you laid the foundation of the earth, and the heavens are the work of your hands. They will perish, but you will endure; yes, they will all grow old like a garment; like a cloak you will change them, and they will be discarded.” Psalm 102:25-26

From the day Noah stepped off the ark until the birth of Christ, the earth’s population rose to 300 million. In the centuries after Christ, the population continued to rise until 1804, when the world’s population first topped one billion. Now improvements in medical technology, coupled with a higher standard of living and more sanitary lifestyles, have brought about a great surge in population growth. By 1927, the world’s population had grown to two billion, and today the world’s population has exceeded six billion. It took a mere twelve years to make the jump from five to six billion, and now 78 million people are added to the world’s population annually. That’s like adding a new France, Sweden and Greece every year, or a Philadelphia every week.

Of all the people that have ever walked the face of the earth, one-tenth of them are alive today. And the lusty inhabitants of our fair planet show no sign of letting up either. Some scientists optimistically estimate that the world’s population will stabilize just shy of ten billion around the year 2080. But others pessimistically hint that even with decreased fertility rates, it may be too late by then. So what are we to do?

It is the purpose of this essay to outline a possible solution to what many perceive as an imminent overpopulation crisis. I will outline a clear and precise plan of action, which, if followed, will postpone any worries of overpopulation for generations to come. I propose nothing less than that we dwarf an entire generation, and continue to dwarf successive generations, through manipulation of the human growth hormone.

The benefits

Dwarfing mankind to half its present size would have many benefits. In effect, by cutting our average size in half, we would make the world twice as large. According to the Little People of America, the amount of food consumed by proportionate dwarfs is far less than that consumed by average-sized individuals. Likewise, everything from clothing to soda cans would also be reduced in size. All items reduced in size would require fewer materials to be used in their construction and thus, would be more efficient. Cars are a prime example. Not only would smaller cars require fewer materials in their construction, but they would also be more fuel-efficient. Two-lane highways could expand to four, and traffic congestion would be virtually eliminated. It is surprising how many scarcity problems are directly linked to the size of man and the instruments we use.

Despite the many benefits of dwarfing, of which I have only named a few, there are no shortage of critics for this plan of action. I will now address some of the criticisms regarding the effects and implementation of planned dwarfism.

The ethical criticism

Many criticize planned dwarfism as unethical. They claim that once we embark on the path towards planned dwarfism, it will be a slippery slope towards more sinister plans such as genetic engineering, euthanasia, or shortened life expectancies. However, dwarfism, in its proper context, should be viewed as an alternative to such plans and not as a precursor. Planned dwarfism is not “playing God.” It is using our God-given intellect to address a crisis and effect positive change.

The survival criticism

This criticism points to natural hazards in our environment — bears, hurricanes, hail — and concludes that mankind has a hard enough time facing these hazards as we are. How much harder would it be if we were half our present size? I answer this criticism in two ways.

First, the number of dwarfed individuals that may fall victim to natural hazards seems trivial compared to the alternative: the famine, drought, and pestilence which would inevitably come with an overpopulation crisis. Second, mankind’s survival has never been contingent on our size or strength; if that was all man had going for him, we would be long extinct. Our intellect sets us apart, and it is our greatest asset against an often hostile world.

The existing goods dilemma

If the size of the average person is halved, what are we to do with existing products and infrastructure built with today’s person in mind? The ability of a market economy driven by profit motive to iron out these wrinkles should not be underestimated. The same answer can be extended to those jobs, such as logging or commercial fishing, which are strenuous or physically demanding tasks. If there is sufficient demand for a product or service, the market will find a way to provide it at a reasonable cost. Pepsi would repackage its product in smaller cans and bottles. Footstool sales would go through the roof. One company in a major metropolitan area could do very well simply revamping stairways or modifying furniture. Another company might cut new doors into existing ones or specialize in lowering cupboards.

I am confident that for any problem resulting from existing goods and infrastructure, there is an entrepreneur with a solution, for where there’s a potential for profit, there is a way. If anything, planned dwarfism has the potential of sparking a worldwide economic boom unparalleled in human history.

The aesthetic objection

This is the most trivial of the criticisms I have seen. Many object to planned dwarfism because they do not find dwarves attractive. This is ridiculous, and I would not even address the issue were it not such a common objection. When we talk of planned dwarfism, we refer to equally proportioned individuals who are simply smaller. Since dwarfism would be imposed upon an entire generation, a dwarf would not be at a reproductive disadvantage. Finally, society’s concept of attractiveness is in a constant state of flux, and can even vary regionally in the same country. It is irrational to say that because society currently finds dwarves unattractive that an entire generation of them would find one another unattractive.

The maverick nation criticism

Possibly the most legitimate criticism is that, in order to be successful, a policy of planned dwarfism would need to be imposed worldwide. Due to the virtual impossibility of achieving this level of international cooperation, it would seem some form of global government, with sufficient power to propose and enforce policy, must necessarily precede implementation.

Imagine if nation A dwarfed its offspring, but its neighbor nation B did not. Nation A would be placed at a disadvantage in a variety of areas, ranging from the serious (national defense, competitive labor) to the trivial (Olympics, Miss Universe). This is perhaps an oversimplification of a very serious and complex problem, but it must be addressed before we can go forward.

I am not convinced that international cooperation can be entirely ruled out. The complex fabric of the groups that make up our planet become more intertwined each year. If a majority of the earth’s nations, or even just a few powerful ones, concluded this policy should be implemented, they could levy strict sanctions on dissenting nations to bring them into agreement. In this day and age there are no true isolationists. The world’s economies are so intertwined that one nation’s goals can easily be realized through skillful manipulation of its assets and position in the world.

The cost criticism

“Do you have any idea how much this will cost?” This question is a common refrain whenever planned dwarfism is discussed. It is generally assumed that the cost of implementation would be prohibitive. I will not deny the cost would be staggering, but one cannot put a price tag on saving the world. Also, credible but anonymous sources have assured me that medically speaking, dwarfing an individual is a relatively simple process involving the regulation of growth hormone secretions. Therefore, the expense of implementation would not come from the complexity of the process, but only the scale on which it would be administered.

Conclusion

No one suggests this will be an easy process, or one without faults, but today, we find ourselves waging a battle against time and ourselves. Technology and circumstances have rendered our oversized frames obsolete and dangerously inefficient; they must be shed for smaller, more efficient ones. The alternative is a horrific future fraught with pestilence, war, famine, drought and every imaginable consequence of overpopulation. It is imperative that advocates of planned dwarfism act now. We must argue our case using all means available, and in such a convincing and undeniable manner that the world will come to an acceptance of the necessity of planned dwarfism.

Go back to the main post and vote here!