# Human Modification to Help the Environment: Thoughts

Category: Let's talk

## Post 1 by Shepherdwolf (I've now got the bronze prolific poster award! now going for the silver award!) on Saturday, 22-Jun-2013 15:19:43

Hi all,
I just wanted to throw this out there and see what you all thought. It might start a firestorm and it might not, but that's definitely not my intent.
All right. So it's pretty clear that we're hurting the world more than we ought to if we want to go on living here. Greenhouse gases, fossil fuel depletion, the huge emphasis now put on the throwaway nature of created commodities like laptops and phones and cars and other gadgets. Some people, however, are starting to realize that something has to be done.
Among the many many ideas, some good and some bad, the notion of human modifications in order to lessen our impact on the environment has come up, and it's a complex issue to be sure. We're talking about things like making meat intolerance the standard, genetically aiming the species to be 15-25% smaller so as to both require and burn less energy and ultimately take up a little less space, focusing on intelligence since it has been strongly suggested that increased cognition and decreased birth rates are related (the smarter you are, the less likely you are to have a quote-unquote "accident" I guess).
Most of these changes wouldn't hurt us, though it would mean slow but pervasive change. Some will howl at the idea, citing the fact that we shouldn't play God or that human life is too sacred to toy with. Others go to the opposite side of the fence and suggest even more extreme measures, such as the elimination of those who will supposedly take more from society than they will give back to it.
I feel as if I'm somewhere in the middle here. I'm not shocked by some of the suggestions that have been made in order to help the environment, but nor am I flinging myself upon them with open arms. Like it's always being said, change is resisted by almost everyone, at least to begin with.
I really just wanted to throw the floor open and see what you all thought of this.

## Post 2 by forereel (Just posting.) on Saturday, 22-Jun-2013 18:15:48

I don't go so large with it, but I do things daily I feel help.
Example, when I buy food, I bring my carry bags instead of getting the plastic ones at the store. If I'm doing any other shopping, I bring a small backpack and ask them not to give me the bag.
Instead of trash bags, I simply wash my can.
If I use the bath, and only pee, I don't flush for a while, and use as little water as possible washing dishes and such. I hate dirty, so I try to use as few dishes as possible when cooking or eating, so I don't have to use lots of water.
I take showers, short ones, and have water restrictive hads on everything, and my toilet is also low water.
I buy as few things in packages as possible. I'm blind, so never use the lights unless I'm having sighted company. I can see it, but it doesn't add anything to my life inside, so I just leave it off period.
I try to get as much use from things, or give them away instead of tossing them.
I open windows in the evening and some I leave open all the time, so I don't have to use air in the summer much at all, because the house is cooled at night.
That is just a few things I do, and I hope these help.
I forgot, I don't use paper napkins, and such.

## Post 3 by Shepherdwolf (I've now got the bronze prolific poster award! now going for the silver award!) on Saturday, 22-Jun-2013 18:39:13

I guess every little bit helps, yup. I do many, though not all, of these things myself.
Oh, another one I forgot to add in my first post. Apparently, oxytosen or however exactly you spell it, induces people to be more open and trusting, and to be willing to be more charitable and sympathetic on the whole. Thus, I think part of the suggestion for human modification would be, to a small extent at least, the use of oxytosen to generally make us nicer, more friendly people. There are risks (just like with fluoride in city water, which has different ones of its own), but it's not totally out of the question.
In case any were to wonder, the idea of meat intolerance has been approached the same way smoking is being approached...using a patch which, while worn, would give the user a mild but unpleasant sensation when they ate meat. Since most people wouldn't submit to that (or to oxytosen, probably) willingly, I suspect that what they'd do is give people willing to do those things (to give up eating meat and to take oxytosen) tax breaks, insurance boosts and the like.
One other funky modification they're thinking about is giving humans "cat eyes"...that is, eyes designed to see almost as well in the dark as in light, so as to vastly cut down on energy usage. Don't know how exactly that'll pan out, but I guess we'll see.

## Post 4 by Runner229 (I've now got the silver prolific poster award! wahoo!) on Saturday, 22-Jun-2013 20:58:35

It's good to do your part. However realize, there are 7 billion other people in this world, so good or bad your part is rather small. Lol. The biggest controlling factor humans will face no matter what happens is nature.

## Post 5 by LeoGuardian (You mean there is something outside of this room with my computer in it?) on Saturday, 22-Jun-2013 21:26:22

Love how the anti-meat people speak up on this one.
I think the alternate meat sources is a better idea than removing one's desire for animal products. They are working on laboratory-based animal cells grown into meat products.
I am unashamedly a paleo and so eat meat. Meat proteins give your brain power. Regimes who want to dumb down people to control them take awy animal products first.
Oh, and by the way, vegetarians fart more, releasing more methane into the atmosphere. Who want 7 billion strict vegetarians releasing the greenhouse gas methane to these higher levels?
I'm more in favor of lab-raised meat.
Oh and as to human modification? Why not also perhaps gills so we can go long distances underwater? Then provide canals for navigation also, removing some needs for traffic. It'd be hard to do, but I'd go for a flight modification in a new York minute.

## Post 6 by forereel (Just posting.) on Saturday, 22-Jun-2013 22:08:14

I can't see how eating meat products hurts anything? If we stopped eating meat, we'd have the problems that many places in India have.

## Post 7 by Shepherdwolf (I've now got the bronze prolific poster award! now going for the silver award!) on Saturday, 22-Jun-2013 22:20:05

Wayne, here's the theory. Eating red meat isn't wonderful for the human gut, but aside from that, you have the issue of methane created by beef cattle and pigs and such. In a society where no animal was raised to be killed for its meat, mouths which would have to be fed and chemical which would be used to raise those animals are no longer in the equation at all. Thus, fewer animals, less money spent raising, feeding and then processing them, and less methane and such created by said animals.
If they can create meat from lab cells, that's kind of a best-of-both-worlds scenario, as it allows people to eat meat while still allowing the world at large to scale back its slaughtering.