Being short is “better” for the planet and future, according to a Sunday op-ed in the New York Times that describes short people as “inherent conservationists” who save resources by consuming less and are “best suited for long-term survival.” The essay’s author, who boasts of her “tiny” children who “eat like gerbils” and thus help “save money and food,” also calls for mating with a short partner as “an effective way to help the planet” because it can decrease the “needs of subsequent generations.”
“There Has Never Been a Better Time to Be Short” by author Mara Altman calls increased height a “widely held fantasy of superiority that long ago should have been retired… Short is better, and it is the future.”
The author describes short people as “inherent conservationists,” something she deems “more crucial than ever in this world of eight billion,” as she cites engineer Thomas Samaras who harbors a philosophy “that considers small superior.”
“[He] calculated that if we kept our proportions the same but were just 10 percent shorter in America alone, we would save 87 million tons of food per year (not to mention trillions of gallons of water, quadrillions of B.T.U.s of energy and millions of tons of trash),” she writes.
“When you mate with shorter people, you’re potentially saving the planet by shrinking the needs of subsequent generations,” she writes, adding that “[l]owering the height minimum for prospective partners on your dating profile is a step toward a greener planet.”
In response, the essay faced a torrent of ridicule online.
“The STUPIDEST op-ed in the @nytopinion I have EVER READ,” wrote one Twitter user.
“I’m a short way from canceling my subscription,” the user added.
“Not even 24 hours into 2023 and the NYT has a barn burner of a bad take about how tall people are inherently bad,” another Twitter user wrote.