Click HERE to see this thread with all of the graphics, features, and links.

Recently I was watching one of those shows about insects on Nat Geo, and I began thinking about what if people were as large as insects? Let's say we were as large as the Goliath Bird-killer Tarantula. Would we as a race be able to survive, and dominate the world as we have done up until now, or would we be wiped out?

We would have been stepped on long ago. We also couldn't get enough oxygen in the way we breath now. We would have to breath more like insects do.

babby

Originally posted by Stoic
Recently I was watching one of those shows about insects on Nat Geo, and I began thinking about what if people were as large as insects? Let's say we were as large as the Goliath Bird-killer Tarantula. Would we as a race be able to survive, and dominate the world as we have done up until now, or would we be wiped out?

No; our brains wouldn't be big enough to be sapient. We would be no smarter than the insects.

^Whales and elephants have bigger brains than us, I don't see them dominating the planet like we have.

Originally posted by Stoic
...what if people were as large as insects?As small as insects? I'm sure you've heard the argument against human giants: as a matter of geometry (how volume increases faster than surface area), even a 12 ft tall human would not be able to support his/her own weight. Conversely, a 6 inch person's muscles would be grossly overpowered for that size, and we'd tear ourselves apart just trying to move.

There's also, as Lestov mentioned, the argument that for brains (especially the neocortex) to be as complex as ours, we need a minimum number of brain cells. Tiny brains would preclude that number.

Sweeping all that aside...I suppose one could say that, given our much smaller size, we might've, perhaps, become that much more aggressive (as our intelligence might logically conclude), and dominate that way (eg, badger attitude?). Not sure, though, how the much smaller scale might affect things like building fires, mining and metalworking. OTOH, I don't see scale mattering much when it comes to say, writing, math, or doing science.

A large exoskeleton is extremely heavy. Also tension and stress are applied over two-dimensional surfaces whereas mass is based off of volume which is three dimensional. So even if they were endoskeletal their joints would wear out quite quickly.

There'd be a lot more of us. Being that small we might develop the ability to fly. I'd be pretty cool.

Originally posted by Mindship
As small as insects? I'm sure you've heard the argument against human giants: as a matter of geometry (how volume increases faster than surface area), even a 12 ft tall human would not be able to support his/her own weight. Conversely, a 6 inch person's muscles would be grossly overpowered for that size, and we'd tear ourselves apart just trying to move.
.

Wouldn't our bodily tissues have adapted to support a 12' height? ie There were and are animals who are 12+ feet tall.

Or maybe I should ask, why kind of tissue makeup did something like a T-Rex have compared to humans that allowed a 12+ height.

Originally posted by Robtard
Wouldn't our bodily tissues have adapted to support a 12' height?
It's the bones and joints that are the problem.

Originally posted by Astner
It's the bones and joints that are the problem.

When I said "bodily tissues" I was including those too.

Originally posted by Robtard
Wouldn't our bodily tissues have adapted to support a 12' height? ie There were and are animals who are 12+ feet tall. There would, indeed, have to be major structural/anatomical adaptations as seen in said animals (elephants, dinosaurs). But taking a human body and simply enlarging it to double its height (thereby increasing muscle-skeletal surface area by 4, but mass/volume by 8), would not be good. Note those problematic pituitary cases, where people grow to "only" 8+ ft tall.

Originally posted by Robtard
Or maybe I should ask, why kind of tissue makeup did something like a T-Rex have compared to humans that allowed a 12+ height. This sounds like a question for Dr. Robtard, er, Robert Bakker. Barring that, you have my layman's spin above.

Well this whole thread seems a little silly, but I do know my body is able to support 12 inches.

Originally posted by Lestov16
No; our brains wouldn't be big enough to be sapient. We would be no smarter than the insects.

I question your theory to be honest. This is why.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_shortest_people

Originally posted by Kamahamaha
Well this whole thread seems a little silly, but I do know my body is able to support 12 inches.

Why is it silly? I asked a question. Perhaps you're silly?

Originally posted by Stoic
Why is it silly? I asked a question. Perhaps you're silly? You're very thin skinned.

Originally posted by Stoic
Why is it silly? I asked a question. Perhaps you're silly? You're going full silly.

http://www.okmoviequotes.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/06/102-Tropic-Thunder-quotes.gif

Originally posted by Astner
A large exoskeleton is extremely heavy. Also tension and stress are applied over two-dimensional surfaces whereas mass is based off of volume which is three dimensional. So even if they were endoskeletal their joints would wear out quite quickly.
The OP mentions a decrement in size, not increase. Square Cube Law tells us that if a proportional increase in size leads to reduction in overall tensile strength, then the converse should also be true; proportional reduction of size would result in greater tensile strength that what is needed to hold the bones, muscle fibers etc together.

One of the main reason why a number of small arthropod species is so strong proportionally speaking.

I don't think humans would ever have had the opportunity to evolve to the point we are at now. Our existence would probably be extremely short lived. I think even with the resources and scientific awareness we possess now it would be a struggle to excel as the dominant species just due to the sheer number and rate that insects reproduce at. I don't think we would be able to find a way to co-exist with insects in the way that we do with wildlife now. We'd probably end up killing ourselves and most of the ecosystem trying to find ways to control, destroy or co-exist with the insects.