To my knowledge the current record is about 9 ft. However that was Robert Waldow who died when he was 22 and still growing. Even though he was almost 9 ft tall his growth was accidental (ie, people weren’t using drugs and surgeries to intentionally make him tall, I assume intentionally trying to make someone tall would be more effective than a pituitary disorder), and he died young. What is the tallest a person can get if you intentionally try to make them as tall as possible using all means necessary including genetically selective breeding, growth hormone injections and various surgeries to lenghten bones? What is the upper limit to how tall a person can get?
The sky’s the limit!
Check out this link: http://www.madsci.org/posts/archives/may2001/991259808.An.r.html
7’ 1" is a theoretical limit for people without underlying skeletal or endocrinologic abnormalities. Heights beyond this tend to compromise the normal skeletal and cardiovascular structure.
Some researchers hypothesize 15 to 18 feet being attainable if the skeleton and circulatory system is modified.
I believe this guy is the tallest human ever recorded. 8’11" is substantial.
Psst, Xema, that’s the guy that Wesley mentioned in the OP.
Yeah, thats the same guy. But he died when he was 22, and no one was intentionally trying to make him tall his hormones were just running amuck. You’d assume if someone could live into their 40s or 50s and have their hormones intentionally and scientifically manipulated rather than just go wild due to a tumor they could get alot taller than 9 ft.
The thing to keep in mind is that, very roughly speaking, your weight is proportional to the cube of your height, while the surface area to support it is proportional to the square of your height. This presents significant problems once you start getting up there.
In order to be 15-18 feet tall, a human would probably need bones the size of my arms (source: my ass).
Gulp!
It’s my impression that Robert Wadlow was barely able to get by with his great height. His bones were under great stress. He died of an inflected foot blister brought on by the fact that walking put too much pressure on his feet. I don’t see how anyone could live long with a greater height unless you assumed that they spent all their time lying down.
Here are a couple of tall dudes that are not thought to have had abnormalities:
I cannot attest to the accuracy of the measurements, though.
I know it was mentioned above, but to source the same thing Ultrafilter said: From College Physics by Giambattista, Richardson, Richardson, 2004.
The giant would need much thicker legs as he got taller. There would be a limit to a giant’s size. At some point the bones just by themselves would be too large to suppor their own weight, let alone the rest of the giant.
This is the speculation I am most interested in. Say aliens came to earth, and more or less raised humans as humans have dogs and horses. Could they conceivably breed larger humans, with denser bones and a physiology that was up to the task?
You could breed taller humans, at least up to the level of what we think of as tall but not unusually tall people. You allow humans to breed normally. As they grow up, you notice which ones are particularly tall (say, all those over 6’4’ as adult males or 5’11" as adult females). Then, just before this new generation starts to breed, you kill every male under 6’4" and every female under 5’11". Keep doing this for a few generations. Voila, a breed of taller humans. But you almost certainly can’t breed them into having a bone structure that will accommodate much greater height (say, over 8’). It would be too far from present human body shape, and it’s very unlikely that such a change would spontaneously appear.
Actually, while Johann Petursson (a.k.a. Johann Svarfdaelingur/Johann the giant) was advertised as being 8’8’’, his official height was a mere 7’10’’. That’s carnies for ya…
Well, the link cites his height as being 2.34 meters, which–according to my admitted public school education–equates to about 92 inches, or 7’8", which is consistent with the Guinness Book of World Records’ assessment of his height.
In one of their editions in the 1970s or 1980s, they listed the tallest “reputed” of the past 200 years or so, and gave their best assessments of their true heights. One of them was Al Tomaini, whose wife was a “half woman” (ie, she had no legs). Tomaini was billed as tall as 8’4". His true height was 7’4".
Also, one of the most famous giants in recent memory, Andre the Giant was commonly billed as 7’4", and sometimes 7’5". In truth, he was practically an even 7’, and by the time he died, as the result of his arthritic condition, he was down to 6’10".
On the whole volume=cube, cross-section = square isue:
Consider the girth/length ratio of an elephant’s leg. Also consider the overall body size/leg diameter ratio. Handy photo: http://www.neystadt.org/john/album/Tanzania2003/Animals/DSCN1243-Elephant-Eating.jpg
Now consider the same parameters on a greyhound dog: http://www.dogbiz.com/dogs-grp2/greyhound/images/greyhound-290x250-tig-256.gif Or even a bear, which is a much huskier quadruped: http://www.bearbiology.com/bbbear.jpeg
Both have majorly different design parameters from those of an elephant.
Finally , consider the same parameters on a daddy long-legs: Warning: closeup photo of (pretty innocuous) arachnid. Even factoring 4 legs vs 8 the difference is obvious.
Critters can come in many sizes, but any given design only scales up & down so far.