Should Shortness Be "Cured"?

Hitler, Napoleon, GW Bush... (Well, he looks short on the TV)

This has gone pretty mainstream - an article in Newsweek, an article in People. From the People article, it didn't even look as if anyone was really considering this as potentially dangerous - what are side effects, etc? Just - wow! this is great!

It makes me very uneasy. How sure can they be that there will be no impact on internal organs ?

safecracker and all, yes, this is about money. But I think that's a side effect of what this is really about--values. In a society that values appearance to an insane degree (IMO), there are profits to be made from anything that can make people look "better." We are overwhelmed with products that are purported to make people look younger. The products wouldn't be on the market for long if we as a society didn't value looking young. Cosmetic surgery wouldn't be the booming business that it is if we didn't value appearance to such a great degree.

I don't know at what point in our collective national psyche we came to believe that young is beautiful and old isn't. But those who chose to buy products or have themselves surgically altered to look young are adults and are making decisions for themselves.

What I find especially disturbing about this new drug is that it's given to children. We're telling them that there's something wrong with them when in fact nothing is wrong with them. Parents are deciding to give their children systemic medication. Yes, there may be terrible long-term side effects. But I'm also concerned about the short-term effects--on a child's self-image, a child's mind, a child's values.

I agree, when I said it was about money I was speaking from the companys point of view. If there was a drug for everything that is "wrong" with ppl then everyone would be on meds because nobody is perfect.

I had to chuckle at Wilso's post, sounds like he's working for the oz equivalent of "Louie" in taxi.

By the way Wilso I hope he's not a member of this forum.

Pretty apt description, except this sh!t is a lot more slimy and deceitful. Doubt he's a member of this forum. As a Harley rider he also justifies my opinion that the only difference between a Harley and a Hoover is the position of the dirt bag!

What about where this could lead to if genetic engineering were to become the accepted thing? What would we "cure" next??

Well, we could "cure" African Americans of their black skin, think how much happier they would be.

We could "cure" Chinese people of their (to put it as offensively as the biggest asshole in Britain, Prince Philip) slanty eyes.

We would be able to "cure" homosexuality.

We could "cure" baldness

We could "cure" people of having differing opinions, think of how much aggro that would save.

We could "cure" people of religious beliefs.

As my father once said to me when he was the age I'm at now: "Thank f*** I'm on my way out, and not my way in.

I totally agree with Roberta. What bothers me is not so much the uncertainty of an untried therapy, but the implied notion that 'short is bad, tall is good.' Putting aside for the time being the equally disturbing fact that only monied people would be able to provide their children with 'stature,' I ask instead, why are we constantly unhappy with what nature has provided us with? Is this a deep-seated speacies memory of the days when one had to be big and strong in order to survive? The short guy would have a hard time slaying a saber-tooth tiger, of course, but he might be able to think up a better snare for that same tiger.

I'm of average height, a shade under six feet. I have nevr given it much thought. My immediate superior at work is a very short guy with a vestigial hump back, to boot. He's one of the nicest people you want to want to meet, able to make jokes about his being vertically challenged. One of my oldest friends from college days who retired recently from the US Navy with the rabk of Lt. Cmdr. is all of five foot four.

I'm rambling here, but the whole notion of engineering a child's height is highly distasteful to me.

BTW, I first heard of this on NPR, at least two weeks before the Newsweek article came out.

Wilso, Love the Harley/Hoover line. I may use it some day.

Kev, Frightening, isn't it. Who or how we decide what's desirable and what's not.

Andy, My father's side of the family (the side that hails from Riga) is short. I tower over many of the men and all the women. So what?

One of the things I love about living in NYC is the diversity. You get on a bus or the subway or just walk down the street, and you can see the faces of the world. I think that living with the hand you're dealt is or can be a challenge, but it's also what makes people who they are--individuals. Different in appearance and personality.

I'm worried about a society that places such emphasis on appearance. I agree with your father, Kev. Glad to be on the outward path.

There are definate advantages to being short. Short people have the advantage in gun warfare. Short people require less energy. Short people's hearts dont' have to work as hard. Short people can fit through smaller openings.

But, if you live in a society like a major city with lots of average person sized standardized parts, being short can be a real problem. It's okay to want to be taller, especially if someone's shortness causes them problems.