Height Versus Height

Reihan Salam notes that by some odd coincidence David Brooks and Paul Krugman both wrote their columns about height. What's more, they both live delightfully up to stereotype. The subject of Krugman's column is that Europeans used to be shorter than Americans, because they were poorer. Nowadays, though, Europeans are (mostly) taller than we (even when you control for race and hispanictude) thanks, it seems, to Europe's beneficent socialism.

In Brooksland, however, none of this matters, because he's looking forward to the genetically engineered super-children of tomorrow who'll all be as tall as you like. Ultimately, I think Brooks' more optimistic perspective exemplifies the qualities that have led to conservative political dominance. Voters, I think, don't like this whinging style -- "oh, sure, you think we've got it good, but they're so much taller in the Netherlands" -- and much prefer to hear can-do spirit "science will make us huge!" The thing of it is that the standard liberal points almost always can be phrased in an optimistic forward-looking manner ("the Krugman Five Point Plan for Increased Stature") and, I think, we should endeavor to do so.

Comments

The thing of it is that the standard liberal points almost always can be phrased in an optimistic forward-looking manner

By definition this is true. If you can't phrase a point in a forward-looking manner it is likely not liberal and certainly not progressive.

OTOH, that Brooks does this sort of forward-phrasing so much will be useful when the paleo-cons resurge and seek to cast all neo-cons as just so many Jewish, er, liberal wankers.

Posted by DAS | June 15, 2007 10:21 AM

But we need lots of short people to be jockeys and fighter pilots!

Posted by dj moonbat | June 15, 2007 10:28 AM

OK, so I don't have Times Select and I can't read either column, but from your description, the Brooks one sounds like a more enjoyable read, too.

Doesn't the Times have editors? If you're the opinion page editor, and two guys turn in columns about height for the same day, don't you maybe tell one or both of them, "we've got enough on height today, maybe we'll save this one for later"?

Posted by too many steves | June 15, 2007 10:35 AM

But we need lots of short people to be jockeys and fighter pilots!

It would be funny if, in an alternate universe, the fighter jet was finally retired as the obsolete relic it's rapidly becoming because we engineered ourselves to be too tall to sit in one.

More practically, I can't see the specifics of what Brooks is talking about because I can't/won't get behind the Times paywall, but how tall do we really want to be? I'm 6'1" - above average, but unexceptional - and if I'm honest with myself and a trustworthy genie found himself in my employ I might want to be 6'3" or 6'4", but I don't really want to be 6'7" or something.* Particularly if everyone else were to be 6'7" or 6'9" - what's the point?

* Unless it were for NBA purposes, but at that point I'd just have the genie transmit to me John Stockton's basketball ability and teleport me into Celtics training camp.

Posted by Quarterican | June 15, 2007 10:36 AM

Voters, I think, don't like this whinging style

I, for one, would support any candidate who comes out whinging.

Posted by right | June 15, 2007 10:40 AM

I fear genetic engineering will soon give us a genertion of twelve foot tall men and women with 45 inch busts.

The men will have shortened life expectancies from overworked hearts. The women will have lower back problems.

Posted by David Tomlin | June 15, 2007 10:43 AM

There is a disadvantage to being taller. Taller people have more cells, which translates into a higher probability of cancer. Thank you, but I'm happy to be at the ideal height: 5'11".

Posted by Jim W | June 15, 2007 10:44 AM

Shouldn't we be genetically engineering away from height?

We should be going for small stature, so that we can save on food and housing. The exception should be our heads, which should be huge and bulbous to allow for big brains. Then, we should incorporate chloroplasts into our skin so we get nourishment directly from the sun, also turning us a pleasant greenish hue. Lastly, we should learn to communicate just by saying, "ACK RACK!"

Posted by Njorl | June 15, 2007 10:44 AM

Short people are the last group which it's OK to ridicule. That was the message of "Shrek", with the odious midget Farquaad.

Matt here has never denied that he is an effete elitist Latino Elder of Zion New Yorker, but he responded fiercely to accusations of shortness.

Posted by John Emerson | June 15, 2007 10:50 AM

The Dutch are tall, skinny and clear-skinned on a diet of cake, dairy and pickled herring.

Obviously, this means Americans need to eat more pickled herring, since they've got the cake and dairy down pat.

Or perhaps just ride bikes.

Posted by pseudonymous in nc | June 15, 2007 10:51 AM

I read Krugman's column in the deadtree version this morning, and I don't recall him giving the credit to "Europe's beneficent socialism." I thought his take-home point was Americans' crappy diet and lack of exercise. Maybe I just read it differently, or maybe you need to actually read Krugman himself rather than what someone says it says.

Posted by Glenn | June 15, 2007 10:57 AM

But the question nobody addresses is why being taller is better? Come on, we're not cavemen anymore, and surely evolutionary biology should be pushing us toward bigger brains, not bigger muscles?

I'm a very happy 5'6'' man, thank you very much.

Posted by Morning's Minion | June 15, 2007 10:58 AM

Obviously, if no one is tall, then we can't have a president.

OK, that's not a downside, so much.

Posted by too many steves | June 15, 2007 11:00 AM

Obviously the Dutch were bred to be tall in order to put their fingers in high holes in dikes.

Posted by Rob | June 15, 2007 11:05 AM

Echoing Morning's Minion here, why is height such a big deal? I don't mind being 5'8", I'm not overweight, I exercise moderately but not obsessively, and just don't see how being 6' or taller would make my life any better. I understand the connection to childhood nutrition, but really tall people are at some extra risk--and height was advantageous, perhaps, as a sign of wealth. But that was in a time of much shorter lifespans.

I'll match my health anytime with any man my age, four inches taller and with a few extra pounds and lots of red meat in his diet. Everybody needs to grow up and focus on health and brain function.

Posted by Robert Young | June 15, 2007 11:13 AM

There was a young gaucho named Bruno
Who said "Love is all that I do know."
"A tall girl is fine,
A short one's divine,
But a llama is Numero Uno!"

...I dunno, that just seemed the appropriate thing to write...

Posted by Mr. Noah | June 15, 2007 11:17 AM

Attempting genetic engineering on a large scale with any scientific knowledge we currently had would be a nightmare. Unfortunately, bans on government funding of such technologies means it will likely be centuries before we even understand how things work. We'll have to sort out the problems with redundancies on genetic coding, and with code that serves various functions that aren't entirely obvious.

Anyone who's screwed around with computer code, from programmers to rom-hackers, will understand that even intelligently designed code will be chock full of mistakes, accidents, and redundancies. Code that evolved naturally, basically patching any problem so the fix was just good enough, and without ever fixing the major flaws (cancer, anyone?) is going to be so mangled that even it will take billions and decades to master. We could end up an inch taller, but with a much shorter lifespan because the same gene is referenced in our aging code.

Posted by soullite | June 15, 2007 11:21 AM

The only thing height will offer most people is a slightly larger dating pool, and even then mostly only for men. Honestly though, who wants to be with someone that shallow? Height offers more evolutionary problems than solutions. You require more food, you lose stealth (and evolution has shown a strong preference for stealth hunters over brute-force or strictly speed hunters)

Also changing only height, and not the coding for our circulatory systems, respiratory, and nervous systems would be dangerous. We'd then be coded to be 6'7, but those vital systems would be coded for a man who's 5'10. Even many people who are naturally tall have that problem, and most of them come from gene pools where being tall is common. Changing something like height would require total knowledge of genetic manipulation. You can change eye-color or hair-color without such fuss, but a change in mass would require a full overhaul of the entire genetic structure to be viable.

Posted by soullite | June 15, 2007 11:29 AM

The only thing height will offer most people is a slightly larger dating pool, and even then mostly only for men

In my experience, increasing height doesn't necessarily increase dating prospects even for men. From what I've seen the men who do best in the dating scene are either the same height as the typical woman (so they can stand up and look their gf straight in the eye) or as tall as possible (towering over their gf).

So if the height of both men and women were increased, it wouldn't make much of difference.

If only the height of men were increased a 5'10" guy (my height) becoming instead 6'3" would increase my dating prospects immensely (not that it matters to me anymore -- I'm now engaged! :) ). OTOH, if a 5'6" guy were to become 5'11", I'd reckon his dating prospects would worsen -- he'd still not be tall enough to tower over women and thus be loved for his height (which is, of course, as you point out, shallow narishkeit anyway -- would you want such a date?), but now he'd be way to tall to look most women square in the eye and be loved for that.

Actually, changing hair color might be a fuss depending on which gene gets changed. If you change a gene involved in melanin synthesis only expressed in the hair, you can change the hair color with no fuss. But, e.g., changing MCR1 or some such gene to get red hair, is a lot of fuss as you're dealing with genes expressed in the nervous system as well -- and you might end up with a firey-tempered person insensitive to some noxious, overly sensative to other noxious stimili and impossible to anesthetize properly. ;)

Changing skin color (and possibly eye color) though shouldn't be too hard as, IIRC, the genes involved in regulating such things are more specific in their expression to the skin/eyes.

Posted by DAS | June 15, 2007 11:40 AM

Speaking from the perspective of someone who goes weeks without seeing anyone as tall as I am (except my son, who grew from a sick premature baby through being the smallest kid in his class for years to about a quarter of an inch taller than I), I find it amusing when shorter people speculate on the needed adaptations of being tall. (By the way, I don't need more food than very many other people I've known.) One thing I find is that I handle low ceilings, doorways, and stairwells better than people six inches or a foot shorter than I because I instinctively know when to duck or bend, while those who haven't internalized that skill are hitting their heads left and right.

But I've always thought the best part was that day I spent walking around a Southern Italian town many years ago followed by awestruck children who didn't know people my height really existed.

Posted by Gene O'Grady | June 15, 2007 11:40 AM

Honestly though, who wants to be with someone that shallow?

In women's singles ads, an explicit height requirement appears about 1/3 of the time. It's right up there with "non-druggy". I'd guess that it's an implicit factor in many more cases.

People should always remember that desire and romance are irrational randomizing factors in the great game of life, often causing people do things that don't make any sense. Asking people's desires to make sense is like complaining because the dice are unpredictable.

Posted by John Emerson | June 15, 2007 11:40 AM

I don't think anyone's saying that being taller per se is better, it's that Americans' relatively shrinking stature is, overall (not necessarily in any one individual's case), indicative of poor nutrition and sedentary lifestyle. Sure, if you could make the case that Americans were eating just as healthily, but that we had re-geared our diet in such a way that it promoted height less and, say, intelligence more, then the Incredible Shrinking American wouldn't be of concern. I think it's apparent, though, that such an argument would be patent bullshit.

Posted by Glenn | June 15, 2007 11:51 AM

I don't think that Europeans in general are taller than Americans, just north-western Europeans. (The only study I know of on this involved a comparison with the Dutch) And that population has tended to tallness since antiquity. The people of northwestern Euirope have been fairly isolated (genetically) for millennia: lots of them have migrated outward but few people, until very recently, have migrated into the region. This reinforces the existing genetic patterns in the population. Meanwhile in America even northwestern Euroepan genes have been watered down by matings with people with ancestry from other parts of Europe and (to a lesser extent) with Africans, Hispanics, and native Americans, hence regression toward the mean has taken over.
As far as diet goes, the American diet is not that much different from Europe's (heck, we've borrowed a large fraction of our cuisine from there), except that North America uses more corn products, something that goes back well before Columbus. But height-stunting is a function of outright malnutrition, something which rather few Americans actually suffer (yes, the poorest of the poor, and Native Americans on reservations, do experience this-- I'm not trying to sugar coat reality, just pointing out that middle class Americans do not experience the sorts of calorie and protein deprivation that stunts growth in children).

Posted by Jonf | June 15, 2007 12:13 PM

Obligatory link to On Being The Right Size

Posted by NickS | June 15, 2007 12:28 PM

There's probably scant genetic info involved in height. Have a healthy mother carry you to term and then eat and stay healthy between birth and 19.

If the paleos really want a gene for height, though, there's probably one in Africa.

Posted by Jeffrey Davis | June 15, 2007 1:34 PM

And that population has tended to tallness since antiquity.

Not the Dutch. They were shorties not too long ago. Epidemiologically speaking.

Posted by Jeffrey Davis | June 15, 2007 1:36 PM

"The only thing height will offer most people is a slightly larger dating pool, and even then mostly only for men

In my experience, increasing height doesn't necessarily increase dating prospects even for men. From what I've seen the men who do best in the dating scene are either the same height as the typical woman (so they can stand up and look their gf straight in the eye) or as tall as possible (towering over their gf).

So if the height of both men and women were increased, it wouldn't make much of difference.
"

Tell that to the peacocks. Sexual selection isn't a method for SENSIBLY changing the phenotype.

Posted by Maynard Handley | June 15, 2007 2:41 PM

Genetic engineering would launch a lot of pointless arms races like this one for height, with much collateral damage that we won't expect until after it has already happened (by way of analogy, look at the health effects recently discovered for hormone supplementation for post-menopausal women).

I'm glad that genetic engineering isn't arriving as fast as was predicted.

Posted by Steve Sailer | June 15, 2007 3:46 PM

Meanwhile in America even northwestern Euroepan genes have been watered down by matings with people with ancestry from other parts of Europe and (to a lesser extent) with Africans, Hispanics, and native Americans, hence regression toward the mean has taken over.

JonF, according to Krugman, the study he cited controlled for this, and still found Northern Europeans to be taller.

Posted by Glenn | June 15, 2007 4:03 PM

From the more amusing Brooks column:

So as my kind heads off to obsolescence, I wonder about the unintended consequences. What if it’s true, as some believe, that genes are dominant and home environment has little effect on children? You could have two lesbian bikers giving birth to Mitt Romney.

Re the control for ethnic variety mentioned above - this is from Krugman:

It’s not the population’s changing ethnic mix due to immigration: the stagnation of American heights is clear even if you restrict the comparison to non-Hispanic, native-born whites.

Well, are the American descendants of British, Italians and Irish "non-Hispanic native born"? One might think so, but they are not exactly towering North Western Europeans.

Re beneficient Euro-socialism, Krugman wrote:

“U.S. children,” write Mr. Komlos and Mr. Lauderdale, “consume more meals prepared outside the home, more fast food rich in fat, high in energy density and low in essential micronutrients, than do European children.” Our reliance on fast food, in turn, may reflect lack of family time because we work too much: U.S. G.D.P. per capita is high partly because employed Americans work many more hours than their European counterparts.

...Whatever the full explanation for America’s stature deficit, our relative shortness, like our low life expectancy, suggests that something is amiss with our way of life. A critical European might say that America is a land of harried parents and neglected children, of expensive health care that misses those who need it most, a society that for all its wealth somehow manages to be nasty, brutish — and short.

Europeans know how to live! (Why does he hate America?).

Posted by Tom Maguire | June 15, 2007 4:50 PM

Traditionally, of course, conservatives are pessimistic and liberals optimistic. "Science will solve everything!" is very much an Enlightenment leftist message. This old alignment can still be seen in some political debates ("Will immigrants assimilate?" "Will embryo-destructive stem cell research solve diseases?"), but in many ares the sides have flipped attitudes. This may be pne of Ronald Reagan's most lasting legacies.

Posted by James Kabala | June 15, 2007 6:08 PM

"Cure diseases," I mean. I don't know how anyone could "solve" a disease.

Posted by James Kabala | June 15, 2007 6:10 PM

Yglesias, you need to actually read both original op-eds. You so obviously wrote without reading the originals, very naughty.

I read Krugman's column in the deadtree version this morning, and I don't recall him giving the credit to "Europe's beneficent socialism." I thought his take-home point was Americans' crappy diet and lack of exercise. Maybe I just read it differently, or maybe you need to actually read Krugman himself rather than what someone says it says.

Posted by Glenn | June 15, 2007 10:57 AM

Exactamundo. That's what Krugman says.

But not only that, you have Brooks spin on it TOTALLY WRONG, you say:

because he's looking forward to the genetically engineered super-children of tomorrow who'll all be as tall as you like.

His op-ed teases all the non-conservative types for wanting to shop for genetically-engineered children while

Conservatives like me think that if you want your kids to have Harvard genee you should have to endure living with a Harvard spouse.

The overall tone is lighthearted, no omnious Nazi comparisons, but it is most definitely making fun of people for wanting to be able to pick and chose "god's work"...another quote:

In a world in Brad Pitt is average....In a world where everyone is smart, good looking and pleasant, everyone will be fit to perform in hit movies but no one will be fit to review them.

Posted by artappraiser | June 15, 2007 6:21 PM

Brooks is a retard. Consider a statement like

"
Conservatives like me think that if you want your kids to have Harvard genee you should have to endure living with a Harvard spouse.
"

OK. Does Brooks likewise claims that conservatives like him refuse to utilize modern dentistry (if you want perfect teeth, marry a woman with perfect teeth) or never utilize breast implants? Does he think that if you want your kid to be resistant measles you should damn well marry a woman with the appropriate genes rather than use this new-fangled "vaccine" technology?

Once these technologies are available, American-style conservatives will use them just as aggressively as anyone else.

If he has nothing useful to add to the debate, he should STFU, rather than pissing in the well of discourse with statements that are so obviously stupid.

Posted by Maynard Handley | June 15, 2007 6:54 PM

Re: Have a healthy mother carry you to term and then eat and stay healthy between birth and 19.

Which is not exactly rare in the United States, after all. Yes, I know (and acknowledged in my post) that there are some very poor people in this country who don't have that good fortune. But certainly this is not teh case for the great mass of people. And yes, genes do have a lot to do with height as witness the fact that there are naturally tall andf naturally short groups of people, the extermes being the African Tqa (pygmies) who are not short because they donlt eat right, and the African Masai (who are not tall because they eat better than the rest of the world).

Re: Not the Dutch. They were shorties not too long ago.

No they weren't. Yes, I agree they've gotten taller over the last century or so as nutrition and health has improved, enabling them to reach their genetic potential, but that's true of all First World peoples, including Americans. It's even true of the Japanese, though they reamin, on the average, shorter than Euroepans. I don't know why this should be so hard to undersdatnd: genes set the limit of how tall you can grow, but environment can overcome those genes and prevent you from reaching your potential (true in a lot more than just height). As for the Dutch, they, like the Germans, etc., are descended from the ancient Germanni, whom Roman writers described as an unsually tall people.

Re: JonF, according to Krugman, the study he cited controlled for this, and still found Northern Europeans to be taller.

I read the study. It did no genetic testing as such. Hence it could not have "controlled" for this, because it had no idea what populations in the US carry what genes. Just saying "Oh, he's white and his name is Smith, therefore he has all the same genes as a Dutchman" is borderline racist thinking. The facts of the study were accurate enough I don't doubt, but the conclusions were typical America-bashing, even though a moment's skeptical thought would reveal how silly the hypothesis the study offered was: rather few Americans suffer from malnurtrition or severe childhood diseases, so those enviornmental factors must be ruled out except in cases where such factors do exist. Which is not the American middle class, or even the American working class.

Posted by JonF | June 15, 2007 7:10 PM

Actually I think votes don't like guys who say, "whinging." Or, worse, "whingeing."

Posted by Sanjay | June 15, 2007 7:39 PM

In the Netherlands they have tall girls with golden locks that come around your house in the evening and bring you sherbet, and play with your peter. For the gays there are boys; they bring mangos.

In the future we'll have a race of highly intelligent, sexy robots to jerk us off in our sleep.

Posted by Linus | June 16, 2007 1:02 PM

I have really grown to resent this suggestion that everything must be relentlessly upbeat all the time-- turning optimism into a quality that is valued for its own sake, regardless of the situation.

If Americans are now shorter than our European brethren, then this is a public health issue-- not because "taller=better" but because the variable here is nutrition and activity. This is another metric of public health-- and when other people are doing things better than we are, we should probably pay a little bit of attention.

This seems more useful to our public discourse than fantasizing about science-fiction technologies which may or may not have important social ramifications, should they materialize, decades from mow.

Posted by Anhony Damiani | June 16, 2007 4:21 PM

I think shorter people live longer or something.

One of my 3rd great-grandfathers was twelve inches tall. He lived past 140.

Posted by Linus | June 16, 2007 8:46 PM

Shortness is better. Short people take up less space, and are therefore more efficient. Tall people are wasteful. How about smaller people as a solution for overpopulation? ;-)

Posted by Nathanael Nerode | June 17, 2007 2:41 AM