Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[a1s]

1) Intelligence and creativity, to invent required technology an have the desire to do so in the first place.
2) The ability to spread across a good deal of the planet (adaptability/enviromental adaption), to get to the wide range of resources they would need.
3) Strength enough to interact with the environment and defend from local fauna, equipment etc. But not too much muscle as to take away brain power from 1.
4) Reasonably peaceful, so as to not annihilate each other, but not so peaceful that they get eaten by the local fauna.
5) Reasonable productivity, so they can get into space in the first place.

Not necessarily any of those.
1.Aliens could evolve in asteroid fields, where their natural way of travel would be a kind of long jump between planetoids. Granted these aliens wouldn't be interested in planets, like Earth, but isn't different exactly what we're going for here?
2. Obvious for steroid dwellers (it's all one big rock), but even on large planetary bodies, it's possible to have reasonably homogenous conditions, at least on the same latitude. Conversely, we're not using ~70% of our planet either (We do, a bit, but not like we do the fertile 10%).
3.1 It's hard to justify intelligence for these creatures, but there could be a world of almost still organisms (think plants).
3.2 Or you could have strong intra-sepcies differentiation, with strong individuals doing all the defending/contruuction, while the resource intensive brainy types do all the planing (think ants, but with the additional thinker-ant class).
4. Would you call lions warlike? It's possible to be the apex predator, while not grasping the concept of killing another member of your own species (Why would you ever try to decrease your own gene-spread? Preposterous!)
5 is meaningless- tool use is already covered under 1 and the ability to work under 3.

[alexandertnt]

1) Intelligence and creativity, to invent required technology an have the desire to do so in the first place.
2) The ability to spread across a good deal of the planet (adaptability/enviromental adaption), to get to the wide range of resources they would need.
3) Strength enough to interact with the environment and defend from local fauna, equipment etc. But not too much muscle as to take away brain power from 1.
4) Reasonably peaceful, so as to not annihilate each other, but not so peaceful that they get eaten by the local fauna.
5) Reasonable productivity, so they can get into space in the first place.

Not necessarily any of those.
1.Aliens could evolve in asteroid fields, where their natural way of travel would be a kind of long jump between planetoids. Granted these aliens wouldn't be interested in planets, like Earth, but isn't different exactly what we're going for here?
2. Obvious for steroid dwellers (it's all one big rock), but even on large planetary bodies, it's possible to have reasonably homogenous conditions, at least on the same latitude. Conversely, we're not using ~70% of our planet either (We do, a bit, but not like we do the fertile 10%).
3.1 It's hard to justify intelligence for these creatures, but there could be a world of almost still organisms (think plants).
3.2 Or you could have strong intra-sepcies differentiation, with strong individuals doing all the defending/contruuction, while the resource intensive brainy types do all the planing (think ants, but with the additional thinker-ant class).
4. Would you call lions warlike? It's possible to be the apex predator, while not grasping the concept of killing another member of your own species (Why would you ever try to decrease your own gene-spread? Preposterous!)
5 is meaningless- tool use is already covered under 1 and the ability to work under 3.

1) Its unlikely sufficiently complex aliens could evolve on an asteroid. Also,the points were a somewhat off topic response to the idea that we can determine humans position in the universe by comparing us with other animals.
2) It is possible, but still, a sentient space faring species would probably have this trait. There is still no reasont o assume humans are particularly good at it.
3.1) No intelligence? Not really relevant then.
3.2) Possible, diddn't think of that.
4). A species too violent could very well cause its own extinction. A species described by 3.2 would probably have to err on the more peaceful side of things to avoid having their thinkers eaten.
5) Not at all, its possible they can invent tools and have the strength to use it, but not efficiently enough to get into space. Again, there is no reason to assume humans kick ass here.

None of those points are "requirements", but rather "probabilities", to demonstrate that being (for example) "adaptable" in comparison to animals is hardly a good reason to assume we are adaptable compared to space faring aliens. Its not supposed to prove that its impossible.

Humans should be different and not the default, but there should be a good explanation as to why and I don't think "because thats how animals are" is one of them.

[sebcool]

This thread is now beyond derailed. It's more like a car. On fire. Driving off a cliff.

I'd still go with humans being warlike-research types.

[a1s]

3) Strength enough to interact with the environment and defend from local fauna, equipment etc. But not too much muscle as to take away brain power from 1.
4) Reasonably peaceful, so as to not annihilate each other, but not so peaceful that they get eaten by the local fauna.

3.1 It's hard to justify intelligence for these creatures, but there could be a world of almost still organisms (think plants).
4. Would you call lions warlike? It's possible to be the apex predator, while not grasping the concept of killing another member of your own species (Why would you ever try to decrease your own gene-spread? Preposterous!)
5 is meaningless- tool use is already covered under 1 and the ability to work under 3.

3.1) No intelligence? Not really relevant then.
4). A species too violent could very well cause its own extinction. A species described by 3.2 would probably have to err on the more peaceful side of things to avoid having their thinkers eaten.
5) Not at all, its possible they can invent tools and have the strength to use it, but not efficiently enough to get into space. Again, there is no reason to assume humans kick ass here.

3.1 yeah... (but if I ever figure out a way to justify this one with anything other than "uplifted!" (99% of the time that's just bad writing) we'll get back to it.)
4. I'm trying to say entirely non-violent. To this hypothetical "space lion" hunting something is the same as picking a berry is to you (herding something is, in turn, agriculture). Humans don't get the urge to kill other humans with hoes just because they've been digging up roots all day and neither do "space lions".
5. Efficiency is a quality of the tool, not of the species (the more "advanced" civilization gets the more efficient it's tools. The only way to fail criteria 5, while meeting 1 is through insufficient time)
5.1 Are you saying that stone (indeed iron and early steel) age civilizations can't get off a planet? In that case I agree.

[Sergius]

I've seen mention of WH40k, and well, Humans are a *bit* default if you consider Imperial Guard to be the "humans" and the Marines to be the "freaky supermen godpeoples"...

[Chaoswizkid]

The biggest issue with finding something where humans are not considered the baseline is that, with some exception, it must be something as seen from the perspective of non-humans. WH40k can manage that a bit because it does have developed viewpoints that aren't human/suprahmareen/kaosbros. Without that developed viewpoint, all you're getting is a human's point of view if there's a story, and if it's just gameplay then you're getting the devs' point of view, which is "Okay, so imagine humans, but three times as big! With three eyes!"

So really, let's look for stuff where we get that perspective and then see if it carries over to gameplay.

[alexandertnt]

4. I'm trying to say entirely non-violent. To this hypothetical "space lion" hunting something is the same as picking a berry is to you (herding something is, in turn, agriculture). Humans don't get the urge to kill other humans with hoes just because they've been digging up roots all day and neither do "space lions".
5. Efficiency is a quality of the tool, not of the species (the more "advanced" civilization gets the more efficient it's tools. The only way to fail criteria 5, while meeting 1 is through insufficient time)
5.1 Are you saying that stone (indeed iron and early steel) age civilizations can't get off a planet? In that case I agree.

4) What you have given here is an example of a species that is not violent enough to destroy itself (there are limits to what they kill), but still violent enough to not be above feeding themselves and actually survive. This seems to be more of an issue with the semantics of the word violence - it may not seem like violence to them, but its still violence.
5.1) This doesn't really make sense. Give an ape a gun and they will probably try to bash their prey to death with it.
5.2) Any species has the potential to use tools efficiently, given time.
When they are given time, they can use the tools efficiently enough to get into space.
And as such, the new space faring race is reasonably efficient at using tools, there is no reason to assume that efficiency/productivity is an intrinsic human trait, and giving humans a +20% productivity boost solely because humans are humans isn't really justified.

[a1s]

4) What you have given here is an example of a species that is not violent enough to destroy itself (there are limits to what they kill), but still violent enough to not be above feeding themselves and actually survive. This seems to be more of an issue with the semantics of the word violence - it may not seem like violence to them, but its still violence.

Other than this aside

Generally, though, anything that is turbulent or excited in an injurious, damaging or destructive way, or presenting risk accordingly, may be described as violent or occurring violently, even if not signifying violence

The article makes clear that violence happens between humans (and animals as ersatz humans.) So (in the narrow sense the article uses) bullying is violence, while hunting is not (unless it involves unnecessary cruelty unrelated to food procurement).

5.1) This doesn't really make sense. Give an ape a gun and they will probably try to bash their prey to death with it.
5.2) Any species has the potential to use tools efficiently, given time.
When they are given time, they can use the tools efficiently enough to get into space.
And as such, the new space faring race is reasonably efficient at using tools, there is no reason to assume that efficiency/productivity is an intrinsic human trait, and giving humans a +20% productivity boost solely because humans are humans isn't really justified.

5.1 When I say "tools" I mean both the physical object and the knowledge required to use it (something I feel is justified in case of tools created by the civilization itself). Indeed tools like Language and Calculus have no physical object at all.
5.2. Agreed. The +20% bonus (if it is caused by tools) comes from advancing up the research tree.

[alexandertnt]

Well, hunting is on the "see also" list, so yeah. Oxford Dictionary is also much close to what I meant "Behaviour involving physical force intended to hurt, damage, or kill someone or something". Either way, my point remains valid and the interpretation of the definition of violence doesn't really change the fact that a race is probably going to have to have some capacity to kill and cause damage to things in its surroundings, and probably would not meet our criteria for an all peaceful race.

5.1) Take a computer for example. We invented it and are still figuring out new ways to use the same computers more efficiently. If a civ were to invent a computer but couldn't work out how to get past using a Selection Sort to sort everything they probably won't be using them to control spaceships any time soon.

[Culise]

4. Would you call lions warlike? It's possible to be the apex predator, while not grasping the concept of killing another member of your own species (Why would you ever try to decrease your own gene-spread? Preposterous!)

Bad example.  Male lions, when they take over a new pride, will typically kill all of the cubs sired by the previous lion, if any are present.  It's not just a gender thing, either; female lions of a pride are typically all related as well, and will actively prevent nomadic lionesses that aren't related to them by blood from joining their pride.  Such behaviour isn't unique to lions, either, or humans for that matter.  The question isn't whether they do it, but why, and you've hit upon one of the more common theories in your own assertion on why they wouldn't do this - gene-spread.  Killing members of your species not related to you makes resources (food, nurturing, etc.) available to members of your species that are your kin. 

EDIT: Wait, I'm trying to parse that sentence again.  Are you saying lions are fratricidal (from a species-level perspective) or not?

[a1s]

5.1) Take a computer for example. We invented it and are still figuring out new ways to use the same computers more efficiently. If a civ were to invent a computer but couldn't work out how to get past using a Selection Sort to sort everything they probably won't be using them to control spaceships any time soon.

Yes. And if they invented the combustion engine, but can't make it efficient, that doesn't mean that the civ is -20% to tool use, it means they won't be going to space this decade. At all. (-20% to research is reasonable though)