Monkeys manage it all the time. At 1ft tall, cracks in bark and small knots are more climbable than at 6ft. But 1ft tall primitives aren’t going to need to cut down redwoods. They can use the trees we’d consider not yielding enough timber - saplings or bushes.
And once they have equivalent-to-us technology, I don’t think even redwoods would present a problem.
Why smaller ships, and not just bigger ships with larger crews?
Again, why would smaller people be restricted to smaller fires? We make fires in a range of sizes relative to our size, from little ones to bonfires.
I think while there are downsides to smaller size, it’s largely going to be offset by the fact that smaller people have a smaller requirement of food (even given the metabolic rate scaling at .75 not 1) - so the carrying capacity of Homo unoped is going to be that much greater, while still having our intelligence. So anything that would take 1 human, gets 200* 1ft humans thrown at it. I think even a lion is going to look sideways at 200 stone points coming between it and a mouthful of human. And conversely, a small gazelle or rabbit isn’t standing a chance against 200 intelligent hunters…
*216, actually, if we’re just cubing…
Your assuming humans would hence grow the claws needed to climb trees. But then many people in the rain forest learn to climb trees quite quickly - and they also tend to be shorter to.
Here in the midwest weeds on their own easily grow to 2-3 feet and sometimes even higher so walking across a field would be like hacking thru a jungle.
Considering how oxygen molecules would stay the same and some small animals like ants are tremendously small for their size, wouldnt we be stronger and breathe easier if we were smaller?
Does anyone know the answer to this? I’m curious.
Thanks.
Folks speculating ought to read the article linked in post #35. It’s a very approachable explanation of the issues involved in scaling biological systems.
A smaller rocket would be required to carry a smaller payload to orbit. Alternately a rocket the same size as one of our man-rated rockets could carry a payload containing dozens of little people.
Note as well that smaller humans would have several advantages in space, requiring less accommodation space and less fuel to get to, and land on planets. They would, however, need more food per gram of bodyweight, as J B S Haldane pointed out in his essay.
Smaller humans could conceivable adapt better to high-gravity worlds; if we ever want to colonise a superterrestrial planet, miniaturised humans might be more comfortable there (although they would need to be muscular enough to support their increased weight). Falling over on a high-gee world would be less deadly if you are half a metre tall.
It’s the physics of fire: for a self-sustaining fire, you need to keep the center hot enough for things to burn. With a smaller fire, you’re generating much less heat from burning, but losing only a little less heat to the outside (it’s the square-cube law again). Think about scattering a burning fire: most of the burning sticks and coals go out when they’re not surrounded by other burning wood.
Now, I’m not really sure what a reasonable lower limit is. Matchsticks burn all by themselves, but they’re debarked, super dry, good type of wood. I think a six inch person could probably get a fire going, but it will be harder to keep going. And getting a hot enough fire to melt iron might be very tough.
Minor nitpick: That’s the second time you’ve referred to a six-inch person. But the OP was about people one foot tall, not six inches tall.
I’ve also mentioned half-metre people, which I find a bit more realistic (half a metre is about 20 inches).
This doesn’t answer my question - what about a person being 1 ft tall prevents them from making fires the same size as ours?
Did anyone ever say they couldn’t? But doing so would be more expensive for the gnomes than it would be for us since they would need more firewood relative to their size.
It may not literally stop them, but it’s an issue that can’t be ignored since it would have an impact on the cost of any product or activity that requires fire.
All the people bringing up the non-scaling nature of fire certainly seem to be implying as much.
Yes, but not (I think) linearly so. So while they might be 216x smaller, they will not need 216x the firewood to build a sustainable fire.
Like I said before, such a cost argument is somewhat offset by the increased numbers. Atomie labour would be cheaper. It’s not right to compare the effort/cost of building a fire for one 1ft human to that of one 6ft human. You need to factor in that you’ll have scores of 1ft humans - I believe this is sufficient counter to the cost argument, especially when you factor in equal intelligence - so these 1ft humans are going to be domesticating animals (different animals, probably), using levers, inventing the wheel…
Well, first, a 1 foot tall person couldn’t toss five-inch-thick logs on the fire. I don’t think you could get an average large fireplace fire going very well or long with just twigs.
Second, there’s just the sheer quantity of fuel. A one-foot person might not be able to gather enough fuel to regularly have two-foot wide fires.
Thirdly, a one-foot-tall person is going to have a bit more trouble making a four-foot-wide fireplace (or worse a four-foot Franklin stove). Not impossible, but not something that could be done in every peasant’s house, either.
And finally, if a one-foot blacksmith did get a full-size fire going to heat up the metal she’s working on, she’d have a bit of trouble getting the metal in and out of the fire. A six-foot blacksmith can just pick up tongs long enough to hold one end in the fire while the other end is cool enough to grip. A one-footer can’t.
Again, I’m not saying it’s completely impossible, just that it might be such a hassle that fire isn’t really a useful technology (and might be such a hassle that one-foot humans would never really learn to use fire, since they’d have no reason to try scaling up a small, useless, fire).
That’s like saying we could never light a yule log.
Plus I don’t know about you, but my regular fires use 2-inch-thick wood, and burn just fine.
I already dealt with the absurdity of a 1-to-1 comparison. 200 1-footers would have no problem gathering the fuel that 1 human does…
We’ve been building many, many things that, to scale, are that much bigger than us since the Neolithic…
Whence this absurdity? The tongs would scale just fine - I have no problem holding things in a flame with jeweller’s tongs (which are like tweezers) - it’s all in the tongs’ design, and the time in the forge (which, BTW, would be fueled with charcoal, so rendering any log size arguments moot for blacksmiths). And the smaller pieces for our 1footers would need less time in the forge.
Again, why would they scale anything? Like us, they’d start with natural fires, and nature would show them the size fires like to be. They’d start with fires that work already.
I met with some indigenas in Guatemala in their village and another American asked if they wished they were taller (they are well under 5 feet - diet being a major contributor). They joked that if they were taller, they couldn’t fit in their houses.
Well, we had to be big enough that predators weren’t an issue, and so we rose to be dominant animals
Though, in the same vein as what you’re saying, I’ve always imagined we’d be way more natural farmers if we were rodents. No arching down to do weeding and sowing and diggine, so no lower back problems.
I dont see domesticating sheep, cows, pigs, or even chickens and if so, there goes leather and wool as well as alot of our meat.
There are other, smaller animals we could domesticate instead.
And let’s not forget that we tamed elephants.
What about travelling and exploration?
How long would it take to go Coast to Coast in the US if you were 1’ tall?
And do remember that a lot of developments are due to the lone / small team explorers setting out on their own - would this style of exploration still be possible?
Would it still be possible to catch and train something equivalent to horses? (and if not horses - then what smaller animal would qualify?).