PAAES 2009-2012 3ª ETAPA LET’S GET SMALL: There would be
all kinds of perks to being smaller,
said a 1967 TR article. For one, it
would be easier to find parking.
The Shrinkage Solution
Wherein a pair of MIT civil engineers proposed a novel way to
lessen our environmental impact.
By Timothy Maher
In 1966, a Nobel Prize-winning biologist named Joshua
Lederberg suggested, in an essay in the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists, that because human evolution could now be
directed by scientific means, we ought to seriously consider
what kinds of changes we might like to see. A year later, in
a provocative - and bizarre - ­essay for the July 1967 issue of
Technology Review, a pair of MIT civil-engineering professors
named Robert Hansen and Myle Holley considered one such
change: making people smaller.
We wish here to comment on one kind of human change
- a change of physical size - which apparentfy would be far
less difficult to achieve than the modifications we infer to be
potentially feasible through genetic alchemy. Indeed, it is our
understanding that controlled, substantial modification of size
may require only the judicious application of findings in the
area of endocrinology.
The authors never got into the specifics of how humans
might be made smaller, or how much smaller they should be.
They acknowledged that the idea would probably generate “widespread antagonism, “but they argued that given our emerging
capacity for genetic engineering, it would be reckless to ignore
the possibilities altogether: “Can we afford not to consider, in
all its aspects, the question of human size?”
If, as the authors believe, the question of human size merits thought, it appears more reasonable to consider a decrease
rather than an increase in size. First, an increase in size would
clearly aggravate the problems we already associate with our
excessive rate of population growth. Second, the advantages
of large size and physical strength (in the performance of useful labor, the resolution of individual and group conflicts, etc.)
have been almost entirely eliminated by technology.
Smaller people, they wrote, would need less food and tinier
houses. They’d create less waste. And the smaller you are, the
bigger the world seems. “A reduction in man’s size might be
compared to an increase in the size of the earth,” the authors
noted.
Consider, as but one example, the relation of man’s size
to the facilities provided for his transportation. Smaller man
could mean smaller vehicles, either smaller highway rights of
way or greater capacity for existing highways, easier provision
for off-street parking ... Similar benefits of smaller human size
become apparent in buildings.
In a section called “What Price Man’s Shrinkage?” they
addressed the “problems of transition.” For instance: How
would people react emotionally to such a proposal? Would they
be less able to endure cold weather? And at what rate should
the shrinkage occur? Five percent per decade? Twenty-five
percent?
Allowing for an inevitable transition period, will smaller
man really be comfortable in lesser space (or volume) than
his larger predecessors have come to expect? .. If a change
in size appears desirable, what incentives, if any, will lead to
its achievement through free, individual choice?
Strange as the argument sounds, it did resonate as late
as 1995, when an essay in The Futurist briefly cited Hansen
and Holley’s work in TR before pointing out that pygmies are
physically fine at four and a half feet tall. Hansen and Holley
emphasized that they weren’t necessarily advocating making
people smaller - they were simply (as Lederberg advised) giving the idea the careful thought they believed it deserved.
Needless to say effective consideration of this question
will require not only effort within the scientific and humanistic
communities, but frank and sympathetic interactions between
the two. The end product of such inquiry and debate is not
predictable. Possible conclusions range from feasibility, desirability, and moral acceptability to impossibility for technical,
social, or other reasons. But need we prejudge the issue? Or
should we seriously study the question?
Technology Review, Sept./Oct. 2011.
Marque, para as afirmativas abaixo, (V) Verdadeira, (F) Falsa
ou (SO) Sem Opção.
It appears more reasonable to consider a decrease rather than
an increase in size because
1 -
(
)
2 -
(
)
3 -
(
)
4 -
(
)
pygmies have serious health problems due to the
fact they are small.
smaller men will be more comfortable in lesser
space or volume.
the smaller we are as a race the less food we
need to produce.
it could help reduce man’s negative impact on
the environment.
Resolução:
1 -
(F) Tradução da alternativa: “Parece mais razoável
considerar uma diminuição na estatura humana
do que um aumento porque (enunciado) pigmeus
têm sérios problemas de saúde devido ao fato de
que são pequenos”. Na linha 33 lê-se: “... pointing out that pygmies are physically fine…” (chamando a atenção que pigmeus são fisicamente
bem). Logo, a alternativa é falsa.
2 -
(F) Tradução da alternativa: “Parece mais razoável
considerar uma diminuição na estatura humana
do que um aumento porque (enunciado) homens
menores estarão mais confortáveis em espaços
ou volumes menores”. Não há no texto trechos
que corroborem a alternativa, logo a alternativa
é falsa.
3 -
(V) Tradução da alternativa: “Parece mais razoável
considerar uma diminuição na estatura humana
do que um aumento porque (enunciado) o quanto
menos somos menores enquanto raça humana,
menos comida precisaremos produzir”. N linha
19 lê-se: “Smaller people, they wrote, would need
less food...” (pessoas menores, eles ecreveram,
precisariam de menos comida). Assim, a alternative é verdadeira.
4 -
(V) Tradução da alternativa: “Parece mais razoável
considerar uma diminuição na estatura humana
do que um aumento porque (enunciado) a diminuição poderia ajudar a reduzir o impacto negativo
do homem sobre o meio ambiente. Na linha 19
lê-se: “They’d create less waste (As pessoas
gerariam menos lixo)”. Assim a alternativa é
verdadeira.
L.
E.
I
N
G
L
Ê
S