Quote:
Originally Posted by whswhs
From the reading I did, it wasn't clear to me that that was the case; that is, that the human sense of balance is inferior to that of, say, cats as a sense. After all, human beings spend their entire lives balancing on two limbs! We take that for granted as obvious and trivial, in the same way that we take having high visual resolution for granted; but not many mammals can do it. So I didn't feel I could justify including it as "biologically realistic."
If you feel otherwise, of course, or if you have research information to show that a chimpanzee's or a cat's semicircular canals are better than a human's, it's pretty trivial to define the ability.
|
We hold our bodies in perpetually horrible top heavy precarious positions. We lack counterbalancing tails. It is amazing that we don't fall over more often.
It's interesting that every animal mentioned as having much greater balance is significantly smaller. That makes me think it's really just greater strength to mass ratios and less inertia.
It's like how studies show that the elderly don't trip more often, they just don't have the strength to correct themselves before hitting the ground.