# Are midgets the key to our future? **URL:** \ **Category:** In My Humble Opinion\ **Created:** [October 22, 2013, 2:13am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-midgets-the-key-to-our-future/671898 "2013-10-22T02:13:40Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 14\ **Page:** 2
**Author:** ![knel3030](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/ecae2f/32.png) [@knel3030](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/knel3030)\ **Post date:** [October 22, 2013, 11:49am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-midgets-the-key-to-our-future/671898/21 "2013-10-22T11:49:38Z")
They are our only hope. However I fear for a small world after all, due to the rising epidemic of feral Eurasian boar interbred wild pigs running rampant across larger and larger portions of the civilized world. An 800 pound mass of stocky betusked testosteronedrenched pig-rage is enough to put a full grown giant human into a pickle. And a whole rampaging drove of squealing quadraped mauraders? I suppose the relative caloric payoff and the increased cohesiveness that would result from organized defense and hunting parties might just allow this midget utopia to thrive. ---
**Author:** ![Siam\_Sam](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/d78d45/32.png) [@Siam\_Sam](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Siam_Sam)\ **Post date:** [October 23, 2013, 1:19am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-midgets-the-key-to-our-future/671898/22 "2013-10-23T01:19:12Z")
Not to get all PC, but I thought “midget” was an offensive term? ---
**Author:** ![Omar\_Little](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/omar_little/32/269_2.png) [@Omar\_Little](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Omar_Little)\ **Post date:** [October 23, 2013, 7:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-midgets-the-key-to-our-future/671898/23 "2013-10-23T19:46:45Z")
> [@Wesley\_Clark](#): > > midget > [@Musicat](#): > > You mean dwarves? Elves? Little people? > [@Der\_Trihs](#): > > Oompa-Loompas > [@Siam\_Sam](#): > > Not to get all PC, but I thought “midget” was an offensive term? The proper term is “growth limited”. ---
**Author:** ![Simplicio](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/c37758/32.png) [@Simplicio](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Simplicio)\ **Post date:** [October 23, 2013, 8:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-midgets-the-key-to-our-future/671898/24 "2013-10-23T20:11:00Z")
> [@twist010](#): > > We would still have weapons to protect ourselves and would be able to consume 1/2 to 1/3 the resources depending on how small we were to go. I know this is hypothetical, but would this be a viable solution to global resource problems? A large chunk of human calorie consumption is used to power our brains, which we presumably would want to keep roughly the same size. And smaller people also need more calories to retain body temp. So as far as food consumption goes I think you’d only get mild savings from transforming the human race into a bunch of pygmys. “Space” isn’t really an issue. The world is big, we have plenty of square footage. There would be some gains from shrinking the physical dimensions of cars and such. But I think these would be pretty small as well. Cars and houses and such are right now a lot bigger then they need to be to adequately house people of our current size, so even if we were smaller, I think those things would stay more or less the same size. ---
**Author:** ![Simplicio](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/c37758/32.png) [@Simplicio](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Simplicio)\ **Post date:** [October 23, 2013, 8:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-midgets-the-key-to-our-future/671898/25 "2013-10-23T20:17:19Z")
> [@Superhal](#): > > Actually theres a factual answer about this. Overpopulation and doomsday theories started in the 2nd century ad. The term overpupulation was coined by Thomas Malthus in the early 1800’s. > > [Overpopulation - Wikipedia](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Overpopulation) > > Since then, the everyone who has ever said the world is coming to an end because of overpopulation has made the exact same mistake time and time again. They look at census data and extrapolate it over X years. But, they take GNP or current resources and keep it static. Of course, if the population doubles we will run out of resources…i_f the new people don’t produce anything_. Except Malthus didn’t make that mistake, because he wasn’t an idiot. He lived in a time of increasing agricultural productivity, and was smart enough to realize that would continue. He just figured that at some point we’d hit physical constraints about how much food we could produce even with improving technology. And he was right, there’s only so many calories provided by the sun per meter of the Earth’s surface after all, so even if we perfectly captured every watt and turned it into consumable food, the Earth still has a limited carrying capacity. Malthus’s mistake was on the other end of things. He didn’t think humans would be able to limit population growth, and so whatever gains were made would eventually be eaten up by increasing population until that limit was reached. But he was (probably) wrong. Human population growth has slowed, and looks likely to level off in the next few decades. ---
**Author:** ![Lukeinva](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/lukeinva/32/17872_2.png) [@Lukeinva](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lukeinva)\ **Post date:** [October 23, 2013, 8:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-midgets-the-key-to-our-future/671898/26 "2013-10-23T20:48:02Z")
Won’t all the animals have to become small, too. Otherwise big dogs will be licking their chops. ---
**Author:** ![thelurkinghorror](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/7c8e57/32.png) [@thelurkinghorror](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/thelurkinghorror)\ **Post date:** [October 23, 2013, 9:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-midgets-the-key-to-our-future/671898/27 "2013-10-23T21:14:29Z")
Haha, the Dead Kennedys have a song about this. It doesn’t end well. ---
**Author:** ![Siam\_Sam](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/d78d45/32.png) [@Siam\_Sam](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Siam_Sam)\ **Post date:** [October 24, 2013, 2:38am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-midgets-the-key-to-our-future/671898/28 "2013-10-24T02:38:50Z")
I am now reminded of something uttered by an old flame of the actor Herve “Fantasy Island” Villechaize. She said, “You haven’t lived until you’ve taken a shower with a chocolate-covered dwarf,” or words to that effect. ---
**Author:** ![Superhal](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/b4bc9f/32.png) [@Superhal](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Superhal)\ **Post date:** [October 24, 2013, 3:04am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-midgets-the-key-to-our-future/671898/29 "2013-10-24T03:04:00Z")
> [@](#): > > Human population growth has slowed, and looks likely to level off in the next few decades. If you are referring to zero population growth theory, where births exactly equal deaths, i just can’t see that happening. Advances in medicine keep increasing lifespan. In industrialized countries like Japan, families are now averaging one child per family, but people there live the longest. China has had a one child policy for decades now and still is number one in population. India is expected to surpass them soon as well. Average children per family would have to be less than 1. ---
**Author:** ![Colibri](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/colibri/32/1841_2.png) [@Colibri](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Colibri)\ **Post date:** [October 24, 2013, 4:39am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-midgets-the-key-to-our-future/671898/30 "2013-10-24T04:39:25Z")
> [@Superhal](#): > > Average children per family would have to be less than 1. Average children per family would have to be less than two, not one. ---
**Author:** ![Siam\_Sam](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/d78d45/32.png) [@Siam\_Sam](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Siam_Sam)\ **Post date:** [October 24, 2013, 4:46am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-midgets-the-key-to-our-future/671898/31 "2013-10-24T04:46:21Z")
> [@Colibri](#): > > Average children per family would have to be less than two, not one. Maybe they’re all half-brothers and -sisters. ---
**Author:** ![Der\_Trihs](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/der_trihs/32/233_2.png) [@Der\_Trihs](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Der_Trihs)\ **Post date:** [October 24, 2013, 4:48am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-midgets-the-key-to-our-future/671898/32 "2013-10-24T04:48:35Z")
> [@Superhal](#): > > Water is naturally recycled all the time. But we are dependent upon water that _isn’t_ recycled, but has been underground since the last glacial period. > [@Superhal](#): > > What makes you think technology can’t keep advancing? Because the laws of physics have limits. > [@Simplicio](#): > > A large chunk of human calorie consumption is used to power our brains, which we presumably would want to keep roughly the same size. Not really; presumably there’s a minimum size needed to sustain a sapient mind, but most of the brain is there to control the body and can shrink as it does. Brain/body size ratio is more important than absolute brain size. Smaller people have smaller brains; women for example have smaller brains than men on average, but they _also_ have smaller bodies on average for those brains to control so are just as smart. Some whales on the other hand have huge brains compared to humans; but they have even huger bodies and so aren’t nearly as smart as us. ---
**Author:** ![Terr](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/839c29/32.png) [@Terr](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Terr)\ **Post date:** [October 24, 2013, 4:52am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-midgets-the-key-to-our-future/671898/33 "2013-10-24T04:52:22Z")
> [@Der\_Trihs](#): > > Smaller people have smaller brains; women for example have smaller brains than men on average, but they _also_ have smaller bodies on average for those brains to control so are just as smart. Some whales on the other hand have huge brains compared to humans; but they have even huger bodies and so aren’t nearly as smart as us. That’s weird logic. It takes exactly the same “brain power” or complexity to control a tiny human body as it does a gigantic one. ---
**Author:** ![Terr](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/839c29/32.png) [@Terr](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Terr)\ **Post date:** [October 24, 2013, 5:03am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-midgets-the-key-to-our-future/671898/34 "2013-10-24T05:03:30Z")
> [@Simplicio](#): > > There would be some gains from shrinking the physical dimensions of cars and such. But I think these would be pretty small as well. Cars and houses and such are right now a lot bigger then they need to be to adequately house people of our current size, so even if we were smaller, I think those things would stay more or less the same size. It would only work if every human being on the planet “shrunk”, but if the human size was halved, theoretically the required housing space could be four times+ less, (+ because the ceilings could be quite a bit lower too), car dimensions could shrink probably 2-3 times and the car weight could probably be lowered 2-3 times as well (not too much more because of safety issues I would think) thus significantly lowering fuel consumption. Because of required living space shrinking, cities’ density could probably go up at least twice if not more. etc. etc. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-midgets-the-key-to-our-future/671898.md?page=1)