re: If all creatures were the same size who would dominate the world?

I'm 6ft

I would think flying creatures might have a pretty obvious advantage. What is a dung beetle going to do to a golden eagle that can perch up well out of its reach?

quote:

---

Killer bees would be scary as shite

---

I would actually feel better about the situation bc they would be large enough to hear and see coming. Shotgun takes that flying thing out of the equation real quick.

Crawfish? Nah. Got me a bee this morning. Y’all come over here

quote:

---

I think ants would just bring so many numbers to the table that nobody else could keep up. Who cares if we are smarter if there are 1 million ants to every 1 human

---

And if that didn't work, they would create a virus...

A giant, fast as hell inland taipan. One drop of its venom can kill 100 men and it can be deadly at 45 mins. Or maybe a black mamba. Very fast and deadly.

Who would rule the world if starting today all creatures were the same size, or would we start in prehistoric times? I assume somehow intelligence isn't diminished by shrinkage of the brain?

I think if all creatures became the size of humans then humans would still win with our civilization and technology. Bugs would present the biggest threats and kill off the most people though.

If we were all shrunken down to ant size then ants win. The foliage, weather, and texture of the world would slow us down and the physics doesn't allow for linear scaling of organisms without diminishing returns. Kinda like scaling your house up to 100x bigger. The structure would collapse under its own weight.

Basically an ant that is 6' long might not be able to lift itself up, much less 10x its weight, a cat would not be able to leap 10x its height, a giant bee would not be able to fly with that wing design, and a human scaled down would not be well suited for the planet.

Honestly if you look at physics it would probably be one of the larger creatures like a whale or Hippo.

The larger a creature is the weaker it is per body weight. That is because muscle strength is determined by the cross-section of a muscle not it's volume. In order for strength to be squared, volume (and therefore weight) must be cubed. This leads to diminishing returns as creatures get larger.

Ants are nothing special. All creatures that are tiny seem strong for their size. Fleas can jump hundreds of times their body length. But if an ant was the size of a horse its legs would be too spindly to even support its own body weight.

Shrink something like a rhino or a hippo down and suddenly its strength to weight ratio dwarfs an ant. A whale has a huge muscle to body weight ratio but can't even support itself out of the water. If you shrunk it down it would still have a ton of strength but only be constrained by a fraction of the gravity.

That's not real. It better not be.

quote:

---

I assume somehow intelligence isn't diminished by shrinkage of the brain?

---

Relative intelligence is determined by the ratio of brain size to body size. As the brain needs to control every part of the body, the larger an animal is the bigger its brain must be just to function.

The animals with the largest brain to body ratio are:

Human
Chimpanzees (and other apes)
Dolphins

quote:

---

Impersonate or eliminate the queen and those numbers rapidly diminish.

---