"Earth's Short Future"- Manifesto of the A.P.D. originally authored by A.P.D. founder and visionary Dr. Joshua Tate in 1999

“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

It is believed that from the day that Noah stepped off the ark, until the birth of Christ, the earth’s population had risen to 300 million. In the eighteen centuries directly following the time of Christ the population continued to gradually rise until 1804, when the world’s population, for the first time, topped one billion. Since that time 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 today 78 million people are added to the world’s population annually. That is 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. 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 sometime around the year 2080. Still 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 propose 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.
Dwarfing mankind to half its present size would have many benefits. In effect, by cutting the size of the average homo-sapiens in half, we would make the world twice as large. According to the Little People of America (LPA) the average amount of food consumed by proportionate dwarfs is far less than that consumed by average sized individuals. This means that food consumption would be reduced dramatically. 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 of this truth. 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 problems concerning the scarcity of resources 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. However, for the most part, their criticisms are either trivial in comparison to the crisis at hand, or faulty in their reasoning. I will now address some of the criticisms which have been put forth regarding the effects and implementation of planned dwarfism.




The ethical criticism-
Many criticize planned dwarfism as being 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 at natural hazards in our environment, such as bears, hurricanes or 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? They claim that to a bear we would be snack-size, and hurricanes would blow us around like tumbleweed. Large hail could knock us unconscious. I answer this criticism in two ways.
Firstly, the number of dwarfed individuals that may or may not fall victim to natural hazards seems trivial compared to the alternative, which is the famine, drought, and pestilence which would inevitably come with an overpopulation crisis. Secondly, mankind’s survival has never been contingent on our size or strength. It appears to me that if that was all man had going for him we would have long since gone extinct. It is our intellect which sets us apart, and which is our greatest asset against the often hostile world in which we live. Also, one should never underestimate the ability of a market economy driven by profit motive to overcome these problems.

The existing infrastructure and goods dilemma-
If the size of the average person is cut in half, then what are we to do with the existing products and infrastructure which were built with the proportions of today’s person in mind? Once again 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. For example, Pepsi, “The choice of the next generation,” 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, which would result from existing goods and infrastructure, there is an entrepreneur with a solution. For where there is 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 that I have been presented with. Many object to planned dwarfism on the grounds that they do not find dwarves attractive. This is ridiculous, and I would not even address the issue were it not for the fact that it is such a common objection. When we talk of planned dwarfism we are referring to proportionate dwarves which are equally proportioned individuals. In other words, proportionate dwarves are exactly like today’s population only smaller. Also, dwarfism would be imposed upon an entire generation, so a dwarf would not necessarily be at a reproductive disadvantage. Finally, society’s concept of what is attractive in a person is in a constant state of flux, and can even vary from region to region within the same country. It is irrational to deduce that because our society currently finds dwarfism unattractive that an entire generation of dwarfed individuals would find one another unattractive.

The maverick nation criticism-
Possibly the most legitimate criticism is that, in order to be successfully implemented, a policy of planned dwarfism must be imposed worldwide. Due to the virtual impossibility of achieving this level of international cooperation it would seem that some form of global government, with sufficient power to propose and enforce policy, must necessarily precede the implementation of planned dwarfism. Imagine if nation A dwarfed its offspring, but its neighbor nation B did not. Nation A would then be placed at a disadvantage in a variety of areas ranging from the serious (national defense, competitive advantage of labor) to the seemingly trivial (Olympic competition, Miss Universe pageant). This is perhaps an oversimplification of a very serious and complex problem, but it must be addressed before we can go forward with a policy of planned dwarfism.
I am not convinced that international cooperation can be entirely ruled out as a possibility. The complex fabric of the people groups and nations which make up our planet are becoming more and more intertwined every year. If a majority of the earth’s nations, or even just a few powerful ones such as the United States, European Union and China concluded that this is a policy which should be implemented they could levy strict sanctions on dissenting nations in order to bring them into agreement. In this day and age there is no such thing as a true isolationist. The economies and patterns of life are so intertwined from one nation to the next that it is possible for one nation’s goals to 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 by most that the cost of implementing a policy of planned dwarfism would be prohibitive. I will not deny that the cost would be staggering, but I answer this objection by pointing out that one cannot put a price tag on saving the world. Also, I have it from two credible sources (who wish to remain anonymous due to the volatility of the issue) that, medically speaking dwarfing an individual is a relatively simple process involving the regulation of growth hormone secretions. Therefore, the immense expense that would come with implementing this policy is not derived from the complexity of the process, but the sheer scale upon which it would be administered.

Conclusion-
No one would suggest that this is going to be an easy process, or one without its faults, but today we find ourselves waging a battle against time and ourselves. Technology and the circumstances of this age 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.