A Question of Dominance
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?
Re: A Question of Dominance
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.
Originally posted by StoicAs 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.
...what if people were as large as insects?
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.
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 RobtardThere 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.
Wouldn't our bodily tissues have adapted to support a 12' height? ie There were and are animals who are 12+ feet tall.
Originally posted by RobtardThis sounds like a question for Dr. Robtard, er, Robert Bakker. Barring that, you have my layman's spin above.
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 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.
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.
One of the main reason why a number of small arthropod species is so strong proportionally speaking.
About.com says:
"The real strength of an ant, or any insect for that matter, lies in its diminutive size. Generally speaking, the smaller the critter, the stronger it will be. It's physics, plain and simple.
First, you need to understand a few basic measurements of size, mass, and strength:
•The strength of a muscle is proportional to the surface area of its cross section.
•Surface area is a two-dimensional measurement, and is proportional to the square of its length.
•Volume is a three-dimensional measurement, and is proportional to the cube of its length.
An animal's weight is related to volume, which increases in proportion to the cube of its length, or by a factor of 3. But its strength is related to surface area, which only increases in proportion to the square of its length, or by a factor of 2. Larger animals have a greater disparity between mass and strength. When a large animal needs to lift an object, its muscles must also move a greater volume, or mass, of its own body.
The tiny ant has a strength advantage because of the ratio of surface area to volume. An ant need only lift a small measure of its own weight relative to the strength of its muscles."
Which seems to be your Square Cube Law point