Print

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

Pressure-Based (Vacuum/Hydraulic)

Filaments (Standard)

[Hubris Incalculable]

Agree with the general direction this is moving in! Also, if it's not going to cause too many problems with expanding in the future what exactly are the downsides to going multi-cellular right now? It seems like it could potentially provide for better efficiency in specific tasks, giving us an overall boost.

Yes, i agree. departmentalising via multicellularity is in our favour.

[RAM]

1: Multicellular is for losers.
2: Some of us are enjoying our current scale and multicellular is a step towards a different scale.
3a: Multicellular is boring
3b: Becoming a multicellular entity is a step towards becoming more like a human, which is far too common and it would be nice to see some variation.
4: We are optimised for single-celled operation. Our spikes, for example, would be difficult to mount on a smaller cell and would be inappropriate between allied cells.
5: We had some sort of super enveloping power. It is probably gone now anyway...
6: The larger we are the more difficult it will be to operate at a nanoscopic scale, and therefore the more difficult it will be to become nuclear-powered...

[Armok]

My reasons were basically: 1) the biochemical level becomes less available for further improvements, 2) the WAY in which multicellular is implemented becomes fixed, and we currently lack the capability of doing it right, and 3) we don't yet have any good enough way for the cells to communicate and coordinate precisely.

[Theodolus]

Right-o, well, just wanted some clarification there. I don't intend to be pushing towards multi-cellular anyway, just enjoying the interesting story unfolding.

[kaian-a-coel]

1: Multicellular is for losers.
2: Some of us are enjoying our current scale and multicellular is a step towards a different scale.
3a: Multicellular is boring
3b: Becoming a multicellular entity is a step towards becoming more like a human, which is far too common and it would be nice to see some variation.
4: We are optimised for single-celled operation. Our spikes, for example, would be difficult to mount on a smaller cell and would be inappropriate between allied cells.
5: We had some sort of super enveloping power. It is probably gone now anyway...
6: The larger we are the more difficult it will be to operate at a nanoscopic scale, and therefore the more difficult it will be to become nuclear-powered...

1- WHO rule the earth? Bacteria? OK, they're more numerous than everything, but that's pretty much all.
2- I wont argue with that, because its true. But its also true that some of us actually want multicellular.
3a- unicellular is boring. Hey, you dont argument, i dont.
3b- unicellular is a step toward becoming nothing. I dont ask for bones-muscles-skin-hars-limb-head-brain. There's SO MUCH VARIETY in multicellular. Thinking multicellular = human is even more restrictive than thinking human = justin bieber. In fact, its like thinking tetrapod = justin bieber. Or even worse. Who is restrictive?
4-So let's optimize for multi-celled operations. More seriously, do you think no animal have spikes? And the Hedgehog?
5-phagocytosis? Multicellulars have way better. Its called a mouth.
6- i disagree with this statement. Even if our whole body is bigger, our cells stay same size. Where is the problem? And how will it be easier to be NUCLEAR POWERED as a single cell rather than multiple cells?

[ashton1993]

1: Multicellular is for losers.
2: Some of us are enjoying our current scale and multicellular is a step towards a different scale.
3a: Multicellular is boring
3b: Becoming a multicellular entity is a step towards becoming more like a human, which is far too common and it would be nice to see some variation.
4: We are optimised for single-celled operation. Our spikes, for example, would be difficult to mount on a smaller cell and would be inappropriate between allied cells.
5: We had some sort of super enveloping power. It is probably gone now anyway...
6: The larger we are the more difficult it will be to operate at a nanoscopic scale, and therefore the more difficult it will be to become nuclear-powered...

1- WHO rule the earth? Bacteria? OK, they're more numerous than everything, but that's pretty much all.
2- I wont argue with that, because its true. But its also true that some of us actually want multicellular.
3a- unicellular is boring. Hey, you dont argument, i dont.
3b- unicellular is a step toward becoming nothing. I dont ask for bones-muscles-skin-hars-limb-head-brain. There's SO MUCH VARIETY in multicellular. Thinking multicellular = human is even more restrictive than thinking human = justin bieber. In fact, its like thinking tetrapod = justin bieber. Or even worse. Who is restrictive?
4-So let's optimize for multi-celled operations. More seriously, do you think no animal have spikes? And the Hedgehog?
5-phagocytosis? Multicellulars have way better. Its called a mouth.
6- i disagree with this statement. Even if our whole body is bigger, our cells stay same size. Where is the problem? And how will it be easier to be NUCLEAR POWERED as a single cell rather than multiple cells?

Agree with everything said here

[Armok]

Just because the strawman actually turned out to exist, and even post before me, doesn't make that less of a fallacy.

[ashton1993]

Just because the strawman actually turned out to exist, and even post before me, doesn't make that less of a fallacy.

I'm more agreeing to going in a multi-cellular creature than the individual points.

[RAM]

1- WHO rule the earth? Bacteria? OK, they're more numerous than everything, but that's pretty much all.
2- I wont argue with that, because its true. But its also true that some of us actually want multicellular.
3a- unicellular is boring. Hey, you dont argument, i dont.
3b- unicellular is a step toward becoming nothing. I dont ask for bones-muscles-skin-hars-limb-head-brain. There's SO MUCH VARIETY in multicellular. Thinking multicellular = human is even more restrictive than thinking human = justin bieber. In fact, its like thinking tetrapod = justin bieber. Or even worse. Who is restrictive?
4-So let's optimize for multi-celled operations. More seriously, do you think no animal have spikes? And the Hedgehog?
5-phagocytosis? Multicellulars have way better. Its called a mouth.
6- i disagree with this statement. Even if our whole body is bigger, our cells stay same size. Where is the problem? And how will it be easier to be NUCLEAR POWERED as a single cell rather than multiple cells?

1- At the moment? Nobody. As for who rules life on earth, taken collectively the viruses make a pretty good argument... As for human technology, it has a few pretty impressive statistics, some less impressive, and thinking that multicellular=human...
2- Fair point, and it seems to be a vocal minority that wants to remain unicellular, a poll seems a good idea.
3b- Multicellular is a step towards the familiar, familiar scales, familiar vital processes, familiar mental processes, they are all likely to turn up in fairly short order. And there is incredible variety and potential in the unicellular world if you know how to look.
4- Yes, spikes are possible with multicellular organisms, but not the spikes we currently have, which would probably need to be thrown away...
5- It was matter many times our own volume and was remarked upon by the author. Also, it was taken intact...
6- because we will be too interested in the next big thing to worry about the next small thing...

[Tidal]

So, I had the update all ready, but then you folks started debating multicellularity...

I'm gonna put up a poll to see the trend of opinion.

Both sides have valid points; to tell the truth, I lean somewhat towards multicellularity. There's a bunch of things you can do at a cellular level, but as I see it, there isn't much there in the long run.

It's up to you guys for the final choice, however.

[Ibid Straydrink]

There's a bunch of things you can do at a cellular level, but as I see it, there isn't much there in the long run.

For this reason, I think that multicellularity would allow us t make the most out of things. We've already tackled an amoeba. Whether we go after more cells, or wait and parasitically prey on larger animals.. it's more or less going to be the same thing- search, infiltrate, destroy. By progressing to a new level of complexity, I hope we will be challenged in new ways.

I especially look forward to the point, if and when, for the economic necessity survival, we are forced to specialize ourself (i.e., unlike our OP cell, not every complex animal can have every advantage- it drains too much energy.)

Sorry, no constructive contribution to the game at this point. This 20 page essay on Judaism is kicking my tookhes. 

[kaian-a-coel]

1- At the moment? Nobody. As for who rules life on earth, taken collectively the viruses make a pretty good argument... As for human technology, it has a few pretty impressive statistics, some less impressive, and thinking that multicellular=human...
2- Fair point, and it seems to be a vocal minority that wants to remain unicellular, a poll seems a good idea.
3b- Multicellular is a step towards the familiar, familiar scales, familiar vital processes, familiar mental processes, they are all likely to turn up in fairly short order. And there is incredible variety and potential in the unicellular world if you know how to look.
4- Yes, spikes are possible with multicellular organisms, but not the spikes we currently have, which would probably need to be thrown away...
5- It was matter many times our own volume and was remarked upon by the author. Also, it was taken intact...
6- because we will be too interested in the next big thing to worry about the next small thing...

1- If "ruling" mean "having the power to modify and destroy at will", then the answer is obviously the humans (although they use this power to fuck up the planet instead of making something constructive). Virus sure are numerous, but can they alterate the climate AT WILL? Can they modify entirely landscapes in a very short time? have they the power du WILLIGNLY WIPE OUT ENTIRE SPECIES, and create some because they just want to? Humans can.
2- poll: multicell currently win by 10-2. vocal minority, uh?
3- familiar scales, yes, and yes, unicellulars sure have diversity. And potential. but potential need to be used. And evolution is like a tree (remember those evolutionnary trees). You can take an early turn, or a late turn. We just both want not to arrive somewhere we already explored.
Trust me, you can do something unfamiliar with something familiar. Civilizations games are sure funny with aliens, but they are also funny with humans, and even earthlings. Having humans at start dont mean you'll end with Earth's history.
4- throwing away our current spikes for better, bigger, more scale-adapted spikes dont seem to be a big problem for me. adaptation, evolution.
5- oh, yes, this. lucky dice throw? nice GM? The "taken intact" was for mitochondria. Because mitochondria needed to be absorbed. You didn't protest against this, did you? Had you said "symbiosis with mitochondria is too familiar. Let's stick without them"?
6- Then just be "the guy who take interest about small-scale changes" and do suggestion about cell-level ameliorations. You're likely to be supported.

[RAM]

I intend to cease this debate at the present juncture...

[Armok]

Yes. This debate will just ruin the thread.

Hmm... Idea! Lets compromise by becoming something that walks the murky threshold between single and multi cellular so that nobody can say they didn't get it their way!

[ashton1993]

Yes. This debate will just ruin the thread.

Hmm... Idea! Lets compromise by becoming something that walks the murky threshold between single and multi cellular so that nobody can say they didn't get it their way!

*sigh* here we go again