Want to save the planet? Then have sex with short people. Or so say some.
While I’m not against mating with the vertically challenged, I’m not buying the premise.
PJ Media recently referenced a New York Times opinion piece by Gross Anatomy author (and confessed short person) Mara Altman in which she argues that “short is better, and it is the future.” Altman wrote, “Short people don’t just save resources, but as resources become scarcer because of the earth’s growing population and global warming, they may also be best suited for long-term survival.” That claim seems short on evidence and substantiation if you ask me.
The PJ Media article also referenced Thomas Samaras, who, it says, has been studying height for 40 years and is apparently known in some (small) circles as the “Godfather of Shrink Think,” a philosophy that believes smaller is better. Samaras calculated that if Americans were just 10 percent shorter on average, we would save 87 million tons of food per year. (And countless gallons of water…while producing much less trash.)
Moreover, famed primatologist Jane Goodall, while speaking at the World Economic Forum, stated that the Earth would be far better off if 7.5 billion of us weren’t alive. She opined that we wouldn’t be facing the problems climate and population alarmists think we’re facing if only the planet had the population of “500 years ago.” Which was roughly 500 million. Ms. Goodall, who is extremely fond of chimpanzees, obviously does not hold humans in such high regard if she thinks it would be best if 94% of us were not here.
If it would be better if we were all 10% shorter, it stands to reason that it would be better still if we were all 20%-- or 50%-- shorter. But is this true? Better for who? And if the planet would be better off without 94% of us, surely the best-case scenario would be our utter demise and extinction. Turns out, some people think that is the case.
I might take this a bit more seriously if Altman, Samaras, and Goodall (sounds like a law firm) offered to get the ball rolling by, say, lopping off their legs or taking their own lives. But I dare say none of them are that committed.
If shorter is better, we can logically assume lighter and smaller are, too. Right ladies? Forget “tall, dark, and handsome.” Hello, “Short, pasty and weak.”
And what about our pets? Should owners of large dogs like St. Bernards and Great Danes turn them in for Chihuahuas and Toy Poodles? Or, better yet, goldfish?
According to progressives, the vehicles we drive need to get smaller and lighter to meet fleet gas mileage requirements. There is a heightened interest in “tiny homes.” And we are constantly told that the “footprint” we leave create or leave behind must be smaller. It seems the only thing progressives don’t want to shrink is government. Hmm.
Reports indicate the IQs are falling in many nations. Male testosterone levels are plummeting in much of the world. Fertility rates are dropping, as well. There are fewer Christians in America, as a percentage of the population, than ever before.
God’s plea to us to “be fruitful and multiply” aside, would everything really be better…if there were nothing?