5 ms·
One possible resolution: homo sapiens really is physically weak. We route a lot of energy into our brains. Our strongest body builders, probably augmented with
by jerf 2y ago
One possible resolution: homo sapiens really is physically weak. We route a lot of energy into our brains. Our strongest body builders, probably augmented with chemicals, still don't reach what a normal gorilla does. A homo non-sapiens who isn't routing quite as much energy to their brain and is another 50% stronger than homo sapiens climbers may not find the climb so challenging. (I would expect climbing strength to non-linearly improve climbing skill; once you rise to "I can just barely lift myself" you'll get rapid climbing improvements as you incrementally improve past that, a sudden takeoff in the strength versus climbing skill chart.)
Humans have a lot of advantages; obviously our high-quality brains, fantastic eye sight, wonderful hands, etc. but I would argue that the fact we are physically weak, in the literal "strength" sense of that, even when we do exercise and strengthen to our very limits, is perhaps our biggest disadvantage compared to the rest of the animal kingdom.
(So, it isn't just a science fiction trope that there's a lot of things stronger than us. However, if the Klingons and the Vulcans and pretty much every other alien species in Star Trek can outwrestle a human, one does sometimes wonder how they can do that but also still have human, or slightly better than human, intelligence. Perhaps arguably the Vulcans should be a little weaker yet.)
- luma 2y agoDefine "physically weak". Chimpanzees are certainly better climbers, but we can run for hours on end, far longer and further than any other land animal. Not all physical strength is just lifting heavy things.
- jerf 2y agoPhysically weak, as in, what people expect when people say physically weak. We do not have good strength. We do, or at least can, as you say, have best-in-class endurance, but that's endurance, not strength.
- autokad 2y agoI get your point, but I also still think you are wrong. there is no one measure for 'strength'. humans can throw a punch much harder than a chimp even though a chimp's arm is stronger. humans can kick harder, etc, even though a chimp would usually tear a person up in a 'fight'. humans can throw a ball faster and harder than any other primate, likewise we can swing a stick harder and with more precision. some people will play down human skills saying, 'thats because they are trained and specialized, the average human cant do that'. THATS LITERALLY OUR SPECIAL ABILITY. Humans are adaptable both physically and mentally to do virtually any task. adaptability means we aren't inherently good at any one of those tasks without training and practice. Its a feature, not a bug.
- pixl97 2y agoI mean a chimp the same size as you would rip your arms off and beat you to a pink mist with them and barely break a sweat. Endurance is typically not counted as a strength Stat, but on its own metric.
- Retric 2y agoThe difference isn’t quite that extreme. Pound per pound “chimpanzee muscle exceeds human muscle in maximum dynamic force and power output by ∼1.35 times” they are strong largely because they are extremely muscular not simply stronger on a pound per pound basis. However, there’s inherent strength vs endurance tradeoffs involved. Space taken up by mitochondria is in direct competition with the cellular machinery that turns ATP into motion. Similarly, increased capillary density can supply more nutrients and oxygen, but again displaces more directly useful muscle tissue.
- s1artibartfast 2y agoI think there is more to it than just the muscle pull force. My understanding is that the chimpanzee muscle skeleton system is configured for much greater leverage for many motions and this is a much larger Factor.
- Retric 2y agoLeverage is another trade-off. Humans are well adapted to throwing a baseball sized rock, spear, or javelin much farther than a gorilla can, but a gorilla can throw a 200kg stone farther.
- s1artibartfast 2y agoMaybe that's the same as what I'm saying but it strikes me differently. As I understand it, the trade-off is between range and diversity of motions versus strength in one specific set of circumstances. The further your muscle Anchor Point is from the pivot, the greater the mechanical lever. For example, the human bicep anchors only inch or two from our elbow pivot. You could anchor twice as far and double the resulting Force, and in fact many animals do exactly that. It's hard for me to imagine the comparative kinematics in your example, but I would think throwing a baseball and a heavier Rock would go through essentially the same motion. Attempt might be far better at an overhand throw than a human, but a temp might be simply incapable of performing an underhanded or side pitch
- JohnMakin 2y agoHomo did not need to evolve to be strong when the prevailing theory is that we used our long distance running ability to chase and kill by exhausting large prey - strength is irrelevant to that kind of predator. It makes sense evolution did not select for this trait with homo, because there’s been no selective pressure for it and the species has been extremely successful without it.
- jerf 2y agoThis isn't an attack on humans. It's only to be expected that given all the other stat maxing we've done we need a dump stat somewhere, to borrow gaming terminology. Our list of attributes that is either simply the best, or very competitive, is quite absurdly long.
- keybored 2y agoYou say that humans are weak in terms of physical attributes[1] and then ignore the substance of the argument when someone replies and points out that humans are the best animal at long-distance running. Which is not a fitness attribute that anyone serious disregards… any human that is, to be fair. [1] But you have the “literal strenght” narrow fallback though.
- jerf 2y ago"You said a thing, and I understood what the thing meant, but then I reinterpreted the thing to mean something else that made you wrong. Ha! I win!" No, you don't.
- keybored 2y agoIt’s such a glaring thing to miss. We have bad explosive strength (… contra slow-twitch endurance power, contra this whole thing that people actively exercise to get better at.) It’s impossible to not see the incongruity after the fact.
- dghlsakjg 2y ago
- thaumasiotes 2y ago> One possible resolution: homo sapiens really is physically weak. We route a lot of energy into our brains. Humans are weak, but that's not because we're using the energy elsewhere. We have comparable muscle mass to chimpanzees. We don't have comparable strength; our anatomy is what makes us weak, not a diversion of energy to other purposes.
- Detrytus 2y agoIt's about fast-twitch vs slow-twitch kinds of muscle fibers: the former are good for strength, the latter for endurance. We evolved to be distance runners, so our muscle composition changed, decreasing our strength.
- pixl97 2y agoChimps use something like 25% less calories than a human, so yes strength and energy usage are not strongly coupled. What makes humans weaker is less fast twitch muscle, and this gives us finer motor control.
- lupire 2y agoNitpick: body builders are not the best weightlifters/strongmen. Body builders focus on aesthetic sculpting and cutting fat, not maximizing strength.
- PaulHoule 2y agoA bodybuilder has a better chance of winning a powerlifting competition than the other way around.
- kevin_thibedeau 2y agoOne is an objective measure, the other subjective. There isn't a comparison to be made.
- Dalewyn 2y ago>perhaps our biggest disadvantage compared to the rest of the animal kingdom. I agree our physical inferiority is a big disadvantage, but I would say the biggest one is by far how much time is required to raise children. Homo sapiens generally need anywhere from 10 to 30 years to reach proper adulthood, depending on social norms of the people concerned. Contrast most animals who are done raising their young in months if not weeks, sometimes even days.
- qayxc 2y agoI think you forgot to account for lifespan. Relatively long-lived mammals have a tendency to raise their offspring over many years (e.g. Orangutans 6-8 years, ~9 years for Elephants, etc.).