Photosynthetic human

Well, yeah, given that solar power is approx. 1.36 kW/square meter, and the area of human shadow is say, 0.2 m^2, you'd be getting 270 W of power at max., and you'd have to save for the night. The problem is that maximum overall photosynthetic efficiency is of 3 to 6% of total solar radiation, which is then equivalent to 0.016 kW of power. So, unless there's a better photosynthetic chemistry, being like a tree doesn't seem very nice. A 100 g bar of chocolate, that I've just eaten, has 2202 kJ (0.6 kWh) of energy, so, I'd need to sit under the sunshine for 37.5 hours straight to get equivalent amount of energy via photosynthesis.

Oh, and where is my electric battery instead of stomach? :)

But we gonna be something else, not human any more. I wanna stay human. I don't think tinkering with our genome and splitting us at n subspecies is a good idea. It's complicated enough just being split into races of different skin color. I'm highly opposed to altering human genome. It's a very scary thought of having this tech available. It'll be the end of the world as we know it, and I hope I'll be gone by then, but it's prbly inevitable

// I'm highly opposed to altering human genome.

Why so? I'm actually for freedoms and rights of self-modification at genetic and higher levels.

// It'll be the end of the world as we know it,

It already is the end of the world as we know it, it's great that this technology exists -- finally, being born a dog doesn't mean that you'll have to be a dog for the rest of your life, finally, we will be able to supersede our genetic limitations.

Yeah, there's a reason why we evolved passed plants, to consume high energy foods. This is why trees don't move. It's out of their energy budget. We are free to move, but burdened by necessity to find high energy food. Can't have it both ways. If there was, we would see some critter doing it

finally, being born a dog doesn't mean that you'll have to be a dog for the rest of your life, finally, we will be able to supersede our genetic limitations.

Modifying genome will affect only the next generation, not the individual, but his offspring. What kinda motivation would we have to do that to our children? I'd guess, to produce slaves, highly specialized for some tasks. Another scenario is rich people enhancing their children with super senses, creating a master race. How about creating a warrior subspecies of humans? Are you ready to fight them? These are not hard predictions to make.

It's like software that can modify its own code. Maybe by some rules at first, but then those rules will be subject to change. It's just too confusing. Also, how would you deal with unfortunate, but inevitable mistakes. Woops, we just created a species in f monstrous phycopaths, for ever to deal with. Good luck.

The genetic modification should have a separate topic. I've started such topic here on self-modifcation.

All the ingredients of chocolate came from photosynthesis. That's how powerful it is.

Sure we would have to stay still like trees but our civilization would be far more stable and there would be less want.