Rate my "Big Bad Evils"

[Alonsua]

Originally Posted by AlexanderHowl

Most of the people who have lived have not produced children (around 50%, on average, died before reproducing). In the developed world, so many people are not having children that it is only through immigration that populations remain stable or grow. A man with IQ 200 might not be able to reproduce because he suffered an accident in his youth that prevents him from producing sperm while a woman with IQ 200 might not be able to reproduce because she was born with a deformed uterus as a congenital defect. In both cases, they possess superior genetics, it was just random chance that made them unable to reproduce.

When it comes to ants, I am not worried about 30 lb ants except as a possible problem for building foundations. A 30 lb ant is probably not going to be stronger than a 30 lb dog, and it will likely be a lot dumber. Since its exoskeleton cannot thicken proportionally to its size, otherwise it would be unable to move or breathe, it is just a very large and very fragile pest.

They´re weaker than the large guard dog, at average Strength-6, but they have Lifting ST +3 and Striking ST +3 (while the large guard dog, which weighs 90lbs, has Strength-9). They´re equally dumb, at average IQ-4 (while queens can go a bit higher). However they´ve a poisonous sting, damage resistance 2, vibration sense, tunneling, clinging and flexibility, among others. And they are manipulable through pheromones and reproduce by thousands, which was Alexandra's main interest.

*Fixed, I wrote it wrong.

[jason taylor]

Originally Posted by AlexanderHowl

Most of the people who have lived have not produced children (around 50%, on average, died before reproducing). In the developed world, so many people are not having children that it is only through immigration that populations remain stable or grow. A man with IQ 200 might not be able to reproduce because he suffered an accident in his youth that prevents him from producing sperm while a woman with IQ 200 might not be able to reproduce because she was born with a deformed uterus as a congenital defect. In both cases, they possess superior genetics, it was just random chance that made them unable to reproduce.

When it comes to ants, I am not worried about 30 lb ants except as a possible problem for building foundations. A 30 lb ant is probably not going to be stronger than a 30 lb dog, and it will likely be a lot dumber. Since its exoskeleton cannot thicken proportionally to its size, otherwise it would be unable to move or breathe, it is just a very large and very fragile pest.

That is the thing. "Wanting" to reproduce is a metaphor. Like the "law" of gravity (if an apple falls on Isaac Newton it is not going to get a traffic ticket if it hits his head). A lot of people want sex of course and many want children. Wanting to have a lot of descendants is an ideological not a biological motive. A fairly common one, which is why the metaphor sticks so well (thus the Nietzcheans in Andromeda, despite their silliness are in some ways fairly plausible as a future ethnoreligious group). In any case having that as a conscious motive for a breeding program is implausible. Or I should say not rational. There is no more reason for that then anyone else.

Collective genetic instinct is another possibility. It explains why so many deliberately follow activities that are detrimental to their individual possibility of spreading genes. An artist decorates his group or tribe much as a peacock's tail decorates him and thus makes it more likely for the group to spread whatever his personal genetic good fortune. Or to use your model, that barran woman or man with their 200 IQ enable others. In such a case thinking of any given nation as a superorganism would work as a partial model. Again the problem is, why should anyone initiating a breeding program to bring such about. The whole thing is basically Argument From Nature. Nature kind of works that way (if you fudge the myriads of complications and loose ends). But that is no reason to breed following nature. In fact if someone has the hubris to initiate this project there is no reason they would be humble enough to except what nature has to say (except it doesn't have anything that we can prove it saying, it simply exists).

In fact a given breeding program will simply have the objectives the initiator will say it is to have. But there is no reason his successors will sympathize enough with that objective to basically discipline their libido in a manner far beyond what any conventional religion demands for thousands of years.

[whswhs]

Originally Posted by jason taylor

That is the thing. "Wanting" to reproduce is a metaphor. Like the "law" of gravity (if an apple falls on Isaac Newton it is not going to get a traffic ticket if it hits his head). A lot of people want sex of course and many want children. Wanting to have a lot of descendants is an ideological not a biological motive. A fairly common one, which is why the metaphor sticks so well (thus the Nietzcheans in Andromeda, despite their silliness are in some ways fairly plausible as a future ethnoreligious group). In any case having that as a conscious motive for a breeding program is implausible. Or I should say not rational. There is no more reason for that then anyone else.

On the other hand, we do have an objective, scientific definition of "fitness" in terms of successful propagation of one's genes (note that this includes helping one's parents or siblings to reproduce, as they share many of the same genes). Whether it's what you personally want, or whether organisms that behave in a way that results in reproductive success "want" to have lots of copies of their genes in future organisms, is irrelevant. It is a possible yardstick and it has predictive value.

If you don't go by that criterion, you need to choose some other criterion of "favorable." And I'm asking what that criterion is. I suspect that any such criterion can be described as "subjective," but I'm not proposing to reject it on that basis; I simply don't see any one other human trait that stands out above all the others as marking some people as "superior" to others. So it's more a case of "'Take what you like,' said God; 'take it—and pay for it.'"

[Alonsua]

Originally Posted by whswhs

All this would be more convincing if you gave sources.

But also, species getting bigger if provided with higher oxygen levels during maturation does not seem to show that the same species could be bigger in the current planetary environment. It's not as if you were providing a way to boost the oxygen content of the atmosphere in general! And there's also a big difference between a 20% increase in size (and does that mean body mass, or length?) and a 900% increase in length!

Bioengineering should be able to achieve this indeed. There have been insects larger (in length or wingspan) than that being the product of natural evolution.

[Alonsua]

Originally Posted by jason taylor

That is the thing. "Wanting" to reproduce is a metaphor. Like the "law" of gravity (if an apple falls on Isaac Newton it is not going to get a traffic ticket if it hits his head). A lot of people want sex of course and many want children. Wanting to have a lot of descendants is an ideological not a biological motive. A fairly common one, which is why the metaphor sticks so well (thus the Nietzcheans in Andromeda, despite their silliness are in some ways fairly plausible as a future ethnoreligious group). In any case having that as a conscious motive for a breeding program is implausible. Or I should say not rational. There is no more reason for that then anyone else.

Collective genetic instinct is another possibility. It explains why so many deliberately follow activities that are detrimental to their individual possibility of spreading genes. An artist decorates his group or tribe much as a peacock's tail decorates him and thus makes it more likely for the group to spread whatever his personal genetic good fortune. Or to use your model, that barran woman or man with their 200 IQ enable others. In such a case thinking of any given nation as a superorganism would work as a partial model. Again the problem is, why should anyone initiating a breeding program to bring such about. The whole thing is basically Argument From Nature. Nature kind of works that way (if you fudge the myriads of complications and loose ends). But that is no reason to breed following nature. In fact if someone has the hubris to initiate this project there is no reason they would be humble enough to except what nature has to say (except it doesn't have anything that we can prove it saying, it simply exists).

In fact a given breeding program will simply have the objectives the initiator will say it is to have. But there is no reason his successors will sympathize enough with that objective to basically discipline their libido in a manner far beyond what any conventional religion demands for thousands of years.

The ants would actually be bioengineered to become larger and scarier. They wouldn´t be a product of selective breeding. And their poisonous attack would use an equivalent to those of scorpions, with Follow-up 1d seconds delay [2d toxic] (HT-3 to resist) every hour for 5 hours. However queens may use an equivalent to that of the Fugu. I´m considering it.

[whswhs]

Originally Posted by Alonsua

Bioengineering should be able to achieve this indeed. There have been insects larger (in length or wingspan) than that being the product of natural evolution.

"Natural selection" is not a unitary thing, though. Natural selection has produced animals that can breathe air; but it has not produced such animals in the oceanic abysses. Natural selection has given huge brains to human beings, but not to ruminants that weigh as much as we do.

Have there been larger insects in, say, the past ten thousand years, with our current atmospheric composition? Or were all those insects around in past geological ages when the atmsopheric concentration of oxygen was higher?

[jason taylor]

Originally Posted by whswhs

On the other hand, we do have an objective, scientific definition of "fitness" in terms of successful propagation of one's genes (note that this includes helping one's parents or siblings to reproduce, as they share many of the same genes). Whether it's what you personally want, or whether organisms that behave in a way that results in reproductive success "want" to have lots of copies of their genes in future organisms, is irrelevant. It is a possible yardstick and it has predictive value.

If you don't go by that criterion, you need to choose some other criterion of "favorable." And I'm asking what that criterion is. I suspect that any such criterion can be described as "subjective," but I'm not proposing to reject it on that basis; I simply don't see any one other human trait that stands out above all the others as marking some people as "superior" to others. So it's more a case of "'Take what you like,' said God; 'take it—and pay for it.'"

That's pretty much it. Any criterion for "bestness" a hypothetical human breeding program has will be subjective.

[Daigoro]

Originally Posted by Alonsua

They´re weaker than the large guard dog, at average Strength-6, but they have Lifting ST +3 and Striking ST +3 (while the large guard dog, which weighs 90lbs, has Strength-9).

They're equally strong to the guard dog. Lifting ST and Striking ST are the only measures of strength. Effectively they have a few lower HP; you may as well say that they have the same ST with -3 HP.

[AlexanderHowl]

If I remember correctly, the 'poison' of an ant is actually formic acid, which suggests that it would be better represented as a corrosive attack that follows up a bite. A 1d-2 cutting bite would a 1d-2 corrosive attack as a follow-up would seem about right for a 'realistic' 30 lb ant. I would give them DR 2 though, as their physiological design, when scaled up, would not allow them to move with such a thick carapace. I would also make them really, really slow, since they lack lungs that would allow them to oxygenate their scaled up bodies properly (Basic Move 1).

[mr beer]

I'd make them however I'd want them and handwave realistic problems as 'genetic engineering'. Say they've been spliced in with proper lungs or super-efficient spiracles or an oxygen reserve organ or something. It's not a problem unless you intend to literally engineer your own 30lb ants.