&gt; Given how big of an impact agriculture has on the planet, figuring out how to allow people to eat many times more food simply for the sake of eating it seems... irresponsible to say the least.<p>If this environmental concern justifies compelling people who are born with unusually efficient microbiomes to <i>not</i> have that condition treated and corrected, despite the health benefits, does it also compel people born with <i>normally</i> or <i>under</i> efficient gut microbiomes to have that &quot;condition&quot; treated and corrected so that they have more environmentally-sound, hyper-efficient gut microbiomes, notwithstanding the health and weight-management challenges that will pose for them.<p>Are their other health conditions that people ought to leave untreated to reduce environmental footprint? I mean, certainly if we just didn&#x27;t treat life-threatening conditions and let people die, we&#x27;d save <i>both</i> their downstream food consumption <i>and</i> the resources (some of which are themselves, or have as inputs, agricultural products) used in the treatments, which, if &quot;the impact agriculture has on the planet&quot; is sufficient to deny treatments that might increase it, ought to be a compelling concern.<p>(Of course, on the other hand, since part of the point of treating extra-efficient gut microbiomes is to help people lose weight, which will [by reducing maintenance needs] mitigate the agriculture impact they have from its initial peak, <i>and</i> reduce the energy cost of transporting them, etc. -- often born through fossil fuels, which also have a tremendous impact on the plant -- I&#x27;m not convinced that even on its own terms your criticism is all that well thought out beyond the very short-term impacts.)