Humans are getting fatter and fatter. As soon as they have the

Excuse me, but gym and self-esteem also comes with money.

(Well, sometimes...)

I'm in biotech and I like to think that maybe a century from now we'll be regularly editing to improve the human genome.

As long as you're not editing to improve metabolic efficiency, and adding genes so that say, a person packs on more muscle, humans would be able to eat more without getting fat.

I suppose you could also edit to purposefully decrease metabolic efficiency as well, so you'd eat more to maintain the same body you got right now.

Of course the chief ethical issue with this, assuming we can wield the tool reliably, is that it makes everyone on Earth need more food. But I suppose if we can assume this doesn't change food intake, then all you're doing is turning that fat into something else that is useful for the person, like more muscle, a stronger immune system, more DNA repair to prevent aging, etc.

Obesity is primarily a social issue though. In America it's the poor who are fat, not the rich.

>>8075215
>humans would be able to eat more without getting fat.
This would be fucking horrible.
Imagine all of the wasted resources coming from creating all that food. The only thing stopping humans from eating 24/7 is fear of their health and the fact that they die early if they eat too much.
If suddenly everyone was able to eat as much as they wanted the amount of resources needed to do this would completely wreck our planet.

I hope we never find a "cure" for fatness or else fat fucks will ruin everything. The fact that they die is the best thing about them.

The idea of eating is becoming increasingly criticized. Think about how primitive it is for a species as "advanced" as humanity. Some believe it should be a strictly social event. I'm sure this would help to a degree, but I would rather see a cultural trend that praises "responsible" lifestyles.

There are a few products based around this idea, you might have seen them in ads on social media. Soylent (previously Soylent Green) is a big one.

I put quotes there because I know someone is going to respond with something stupid like
>responsible hurr durr who defines what is responsible

>>8075201
Is pic related yo mama's toe?

Unfortunately 'taste' is pushed at us from all directions. How many different food channels and programs can you watch every night?

Technology pushes 'taste' the discovery of umami and now another (lazy to google) promotes fatness. Differing and advancing processes change current tastes subtly so producing a desire to savour.

Money drives 'taste'. Entrepreneurs and existing manufacturers seek a market for their skills so new culinary delights are sold to people.

Transportation and emerging markets deliver new 'taste' experiences to your supermarket weekly.

Education - designed to NOT inform people. Cooking used to be taught in schools. It is not now. Who here knows that to work off 1 chocolate digestive you have to run 2 kilometers?

We live in fat land. Enjoy your chubb.

>>8075201

who is this burger brute?

File: 1463146937514.png (42KB, 456x450px) Image search: [Google]

42KB, 456x450px

>>8075371

> Chocolate digestive
> Kilometers

>>8075201
Don't worry even with this technology our species won't survive as gluttonous blobs. So it'll stop.

>>8075736
>implying
Most fats die in their 40s to late 50s but will have fat kids in their 30s