4
$\begingroup$

This question already has an answer here:

I read here about just scaling up creatures and that it wouldn't be a good idea due to the square-cube law. It would increase the weight times 4 but only the bone structure by two.

Are giants possible given that they are just scaled humans, or would they fall under their own weight?

I'm talking fantasy giants in the height of around 4 meters and 10-12 meters tall.

In difference to the similar question suggested How to make a realistic 'giant' I'm also talking about giants 4 and 10 meters compared to 2-3 meters.

Also I'm considering this quote:

Up to a certain size you can compensate for this by proportionally making the bones thicker, the muscles stronger, the legs shorter.

Whereas if you were to shorten the legs on the giant, it wouldn't be a giant any more. So back to where it is possible.

This is also to physically limit the skeptics about the Giant hoax where it was mentioned to find 6 meter (20feet) tall giants, that "mysterically vanished" giant hoax debunked

$\endgroup$

marked as duplicate by Erik, ArtOfCode, Frostfyre, bilbo_pingouin, zovits Jun 8 '15 at 12:58

This question has been asked before and already has an answer. If those answers do not fully address your question, please ask a new question.

  • 1
    $\begingroup$ See also this answer: worldbuilding.stackexchange.com/questions/316/… $\endgroup$ – Tim B Jun 8 '15 at 11:41
  • $\begingroup$ How can this be a duplicate? I have given several reasons where my question differs from the others, along with the fact that the other does not answer my question. $\endgroup$ – Magic-Mouse Jun 8 '15 at 13:01
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ Personally I think the other questions are related but not duplicates. Feel free to start a meta discussion (or in chat) and see if enough people agree for a re-open vote. As a moderator I don't generally over-rule the majority opinion when the community has voted. $\endgroup$ – Tim B Jun 8 '15 at 13:12
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ IMHO, your question is between a duplicate and a synthesis of two previous questions. The answers to the given questions apply to yours as well. As can be seen in the accepted answer. Your question is essentially: I have seen that question and the answer, but are you sure it still does not work if we paint it black? $\endgroup$ – bilbo_pingouin Jun 8 '15 at 14:13
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ The "paint it black" was a metaphor. But one other question/answer tell you about the problem of oversized humans, and another question/answer tells you about the problem to scale to huge sizes. Your question does not significantly differ from those. Now, if you think your question is more about the length of the legs as illustrated in the picture, then please do edit your question to make sure people clearly identify the aim and ask for re-opening. $\endgroup$ – bilbo_pingouin Jun 9 '15 at 6:53
3
$\begingroup$

4 Meter or bigger Giant aren't feasible under common Earth conditions. Even an elephant only stands about 3 meters at the shoulder and you can see what kind of a body it needs to reach even that far.

The tallest humans in the world reach a little under 3 meters and have all sorts of issues with having to support their own bodies.

The humanoid bipedal form simply doesn't get much bigger than it is currently with humans and other primates.

Remember that due to the square-cube law, a 10 meter proportional giant (5 times bigger than an ordinary human) would have a weight of roughly 125 times higher than a normal human. That puts you in the vicinity of 10,000kg, more than an adult elephant.

$\endgroup$
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ You are generally right, but I'd dispute "the bipedal form simply..." statement. There are lots of potential adaptations in tall animals that would allow significantly larger bipedals. Some are mentioned in the realistic giants question. And some birds have been taller despite having two legs. The problem does not come from being bipedal, but from us simply lacking the relevant adaptations. This is because we evolved from smaller ancestors with less upright posture relatively recently, not because some inherent problem. $\endgroup$ – Ville Niemi Jun 8 '15 at 13:47
  • $\begingroup$ Added "humanoid". You are right that a bipedal form is possible, but not one that looks human-like but bigger. (which is what the OP asked for) $\endgroup$ – Erik Jun 8 '15 at 13:55
  • $\begingroup$ You missed my point. We are held back by our evolutionary history, not by some hard limit on humanoid bipedal form. Such hard limit does exist as you correctly noted (and got an upvote from me for it), but we or our primate relatives have not reached it and can't reach it without adaptations we lack. So humanoid bipedal from could get significantly taller than we can, it just never has done so. Our disagreement seems to be about what "much bigger" means really. I think that there is enough air under the hard limit to qualify as "much", you apparently don't? $\endgroup$ – Ville Niemi Jun 8 '15 at 14:05
  • $\begingroup$ Mammoths reached 4 meters at the shoulder (en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mammoth#Description ), and would quite likely have existed perfectly well in current conditions if humans hadn't killed them off. There were a number of other quite large mammals and birds in the same time period. $\endgroup$ – jamesqf Jun 8 '15 at 18:08

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.