Why would that be the case? Wouldn't sapient species tend towards low numbers of high-quality offspring?
Why would they? Why would "less" intrinsically mean "better"?
...because it implies more resources going to each one, and an overall quality-focused evolutionary (and/or manufacturing) approach rather than mass producing expendable models on the assumption that
some will get through?
We humans don't owe our sapience to our reproductive method, nor is it an evolution of something lesser from our relevant past.
By its most basic definition, probably not. A
lot of the things we associate with sapience require a great deal of teaching and learning to accomplish, though, which is hard to do when your reproductive strategy is "hurl offspring into a meat grinder, at which point the ones that slip through quickly mature and begin hurling their own offspring into a meat grinder."
The second point is factually incorrect. Menopause is believed to be an evolutionary adaptation in human females to encourage improving their current offspring rather than producing more, because humans are
that hardcore K-Breeders. It's not found in any other primates, which implies that it's a relatively recent and meaningful improvement in hominids.
That doesn't guarantee it's linked to sapience in any particular way, but at the very least it seems to have worked out.
Can doesn't mean did, and their engineering has repeatedly been shown to be somewhat more complicated than that; they couldn't fully disguise Thin Men in NuCOM, and apparently couldn't or didn't want to copy & paste all of their current goons' advantages into each other. That seems to leave quite a bit of room for odd aesthetic choices.
It would be far too strange (and hentai-like) for aliens to develop an aesthetic preference for human breasts, to the point of wasting scientific resources to purposefully replicate them on one of their combat species.
Speculating on alien preferences is an odd place to go; humans like and don't like plenty of noteworthy features in other animals, so who knows what aliens might consider cool or sexy or distinctive or whatever. As mentioned, though, they wouldn't necessarily
have to "waste scientific resources purposefully replicating them," because they might creep in on their own from a variety of sources. Also as mentioned, "combat species" does not appear to mean "war droids made of meat."
Let's face it, the function of the snaketits isn't actually important, as long as they look enough like tits. Humans as a general rule really dgaf.
It's also important they feel like tits.
Okay that too. Similar enough superficially. I don't know of any particular reason why they wouldn't be.
This is very true! Very important!
Unfortunately structure matters a great deal. Human mammaries are mostly fat encased in thin low-fur mammal skin. Snektits are ? ? ? encased in what are probably light armor scales. Clearly more research is needed.
Guys those snaketits don't have nipples. Whatever their function its not for feeding offspring.
Strictly speaking, neither are monkeytits; they don't
need to be that big, they just look nice when they are. They could still do something between the scales (or even through pores in the scales, ala scorpion milk), or serve as visible declarations of "I can vomit high-nutrient gruel into my offspring's mouth really well."
Actually, if they shrank after they used a venom spit attack that would be pretty hilarious.
Oh dear.
"Do you like flat-chested tsundere snek or pacifist melonchest snek?"
Author
Topic: X-Com Chimera Squad (Read 732468 times)