1

An extension to another question about Why would humans be the dominant species?

In my story Giants, humans, and a bunch of other fantasy races live along side each other and i'm curious as to why wouldn't Giants (this also apply's to Yetis) be the dominant race? some basic characteristics of my Giants include:

  • are 10.5ft (3.2 m) tall and weigh 619lbs (280kg)
  • have bloodhound level sense of smell and greatly improved hearing
  • have thick skin approaching 0.5 in (12.7 mm) at its thickest
  • have Human-level intelligence
  • are proportionately weaker than a human (but are still quite strong)
  • have worse endurance
  • are quite stocky
  • have sauropod like feet
  • have a gestation period of two years
  • can't jump
  • are surprisingly good swimmers
  • have a slightly more robust stomach

Note: Magic does not exist in my world

icewar1908
  • 6,865
  • 1
  • 20
  • 66
  • 1
    What do you mean by "dominant?" Control of politics? Control of economy? Best musician? Apex predator? Lease susceptible to famine or pestilence? Best farmer? Or something else? – user535733 Mar 22 '20 at 16:35
  • I like the general direction of this query, but as it's written, I'm sure someone will close it for being opinion based or lacking in focus. A query that begins with the broad salvo of a possible justification is by definition lacking in focus. I'd ask you to focus on sòme aspect of Giant physiology or personality or culture for folks to work with. E.g., *what physiological justification*... You provide a couple good lines of enquiry already. You can always ask followup queries later! – elemtilas Mar 22 '20 at 16:42
  • @user535733 "dominant?" in this case means bulling the other races into subjugation or extinction/controlling overall more land – icewar1908 Mar 22 '20 at 17:01
  • 1
    So are you saying that the giants are aggressive? And want to dominate their neighbors? If so, then you must either dial back the aggressiveness, or give the giants a weakness that the others use to keep them in check. The giants must also bring some clear benefit to the community, else the others would have driven away (or been driven away by) the aggressive giants. – user535733 Mar 22 '20 at 17:16
  • @user535733 giants aren't any more aggressive then humans. it's just in the story i'm writing there are only 600,000 giant in the world and i was wondering why might that be? – icewar1908 Mar 22 '20 at 17:18
  • All this information should be up in your question - it's important. – user535733 Mar 22 '20 at 17:20
  • 2
    Seems like you answered you own question: Giants are not dominant and live in mixed communities because they are not especially aggressive. – user535733 Mar 22 '20 at 17:21
  • 3
    Your giants are very unlikely to dominate humans. They reproduce more slowly than humans (so their population is considerably smaller), they are bad at fine motor skills (due to the rhinoceros hide and the longer distance that the nervous impulse must travel), they are more prone to injuries from falling, they cannot sustain effort for long, they are less agile on rugged terrain... Humans got where we are because we are nimble, flexible, with great endurance, and we have internalized Aesop's fable about the Old Man and His Sons. – AlexP Mar 22 '20 at 17:32
  • Off topic alert : Why do they have sauropod like feet? Robert Wadlow was 9 foot tall (take an inch) & he could walk, granted he needed additional support from sticks, some structural adjustments to the feet & legs may well be in order to avoid that, but are full blown sauropod feet really necessary? – Pelinore Mar 22 '20 at 17:57
  • Sultan Kösen the worlds current largest man (8′ 3″) clearly has problems walking due to the weight he has to carry, I imagine the bone structure of the knees, hips & feet all need upgrades for someone his size, not sure that a 'complete' structural change from human norm is required though? – Pelinore Mar 22 '20 at 18:09
  • 3
    If they're 5 times as heavy as humans, they likely need 5 times as much food - and the attributes given don't make it plausible that the average giant will be as good at gathering food than five humans spread out, so they would be at a disadvantage, not dominant. – Peteris Mar 23 '20 at 15:02

1 Answers1

13

You listed the reasons.

  • have Human-level intelligence
  • have a gestation period of two years
  • have worse endurance

They are larger than humans, but have equal intelligence. Larger creatures generally require more food, so your giants are essentially less efficient than humans in terms of planning/watt.

They are worse at reproduction. Not only do they reproduce more slowly, they do it so slowly that one must endure multiple winters while pregnant (note that there's a slight but noticeable skew in birth months for humans -- August is quite popular, which makes sense -- might as well carry that kid around in the more plentiful summer months).

Poor endurance means that they don't get to use our primary hunting gimmick, so they won't have as much food. Less food=fewer troops. Poor endurance=less strategic maneuverability. If they made the mistake of declaring war on humanity, they'd find themselves outnumbered and outflanked.

Why aren't they taking over the world? The better question is why haven't we wiped them out yet. Humans would see them as a particularly threatening megafauna, and if there's one thing we love to do it is wiping out megafauna.

Zwuwdz
  • 3,154
  • 7
  • 24