Re-introduction of Darwinism to a higher tech society

[kdtipa]

Hello all,

I'm starting a campaign in the January/February time frame, and while there's more to it than what this post is about, I'm really looking for some thoughts and info around just this piece of it.

A quick primer...
Human kind hasn't really had to worry about survival of the fittest for a while unless you change the definition of "fittest". Power technology is vastly improved. Propulsion tech is good enough to make trips to the asteroid belt and various planets/moons for mining purposes into something feasible. Medical tech is in good shape and includes some cybernetics. Weapon tech is based on magnetic propulsion of slugs (railguns, coil guns, etc). Technology has improved noticeably, but of course society hasn't changed much.

Now, we want to add a couple new breeds of animal that are a danger to humans on a scale large enough to be a real concern. Some of this is going to be "hand waving", but I want it to be at least moderately believable. Think: genetically engineered breed of animal. Some villainous entity has decided that human kind is sick and needs to be culled, but realizes that any attempt at doing the culling itself would likely backfire. The new breed of animal is created and released into the wild in great numbers. A couple years later, attacks on humans increase... and to an alarming degree. The animals are hunted, but they are smart enough to recognize danger, and frequently manage to take down at least part of the hunting teams. I want a "monster" to exist in this campaign (really its part of the central plot of course).

Now I have some questions that I could use some help with...

1) Considering the technologically advanced society, how would you design the animal so that it would be able to hold its own without making it into something that would wipe out society entirely?

2) Without giving the animals human level intelligence (though dog, dolphin, ape are about what I'm thinking), how do you explain that the animals aren't destroying the ecosystem by hunting the prey that's easier to get to (deer, buffalo, etc)?

3) If a monstrous animal was suddenly introduced to our real world society, and accounted for say 400,000 deaths per year world wide, what would the realistic response be? Having a good idea about this can help with figuring out how to design the animals so that they would survive the response.

4) Are there any concerns I haven't considered yet for making this at least sort of believable in a sci fi setting?

Thanks in advance for the help.

[mearrin69]

Seems as if it would have to be something that breeds slowly and limits its feeding (or else it'd soon cull too much of the population) and that has either the ability to escape being found (invisible, great hiding place, teleportation, etc.) or avoid being killed off (supernatural durability, immunities, etc.)

Anything killable that kills that many people each year is likely to become enemy number one...the governments will be out hunting it and they'll have plent of volunteers wanting to get freelance licenses to join in. Check out wolves. Barely dangerous, nearly extinct (don't know the number but I doubt it's more than a couple thousand) and you've got 90k or so yahoos up here in the northwest applying for licenses to go out and shoot them. Why? We have some legend that says they're scary killers. Imagine if they *were* scary killers, actively making off with half a million people a year?

Something like the Predator is a good example (though I know you don't want alien and you don't want very smart). It's effectively invisible and has better senses (augmented anyway) than humans, limits its killing (through an artifical season and rules of engagement), and makes itself scarce when people come looking for it. Not sure how you do that in your setting but I imagine you could be all kinds of creative.

Nanotech is one option. Or, what about a computer virus that overloads and explodes a computer's power supply when it detects you doing something 'unworthy'...could be looking at porn, timewaster videogames, applying for welfare, whatever? That's not a terribly serious (and maybe not realistic, doubt you can harm someone via their computer but recent exploding printers suggest otherwise) suggestion, but it is an example of how something could fit your parameters and impose 'artificial' selection on a technologically advanced population.

Be interested in hearing what you come up with!
M

[Psychotime]

A quick Google search got me something of an answer for 3.

There are between 56 and 57 million deaths each year worldwide.

WORLDWIDE SITUATION
- 57 million deaths per year

Source:
Principles of Infectious Disease Epidemiology / EPI 220
UCLA School of Public Health / Department of Epidemiology
Instructor: Scott P. Layne, MD / Fall 2004
http://www.ph.ucla.edu/epi/layne/Epi...0/01.intro.pdf


?According the World Health Organization's statistics, chronic NCDs
such CVDs, diabetes, cancers, obesity and respiratory diseases,
account for about 60% of the 56.5 million deaths each year and almost
half of the global burden of disease.?
Source: International Journal for Equity in Health
http://www.equityhealthj.com/content/4/1/2


?The WHO says that in 2000 cancer was responsible for 12 per cent of
the nearly 56 million deaths worldwide from all causes.?
Source: Cancer Decisions
http://www.cancerdecisions.com/040903_page.html


The increase in deaths estimated by the World Health Organization is a
tiny fraction of 56 million deaths reported annually around the globe
for all reasons.
CBS News
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/...in604166.shtml

If that's true then 400,000 isn't even 1% of that. Cancer alone is a much bigger concern than those monsters.

[vicky_molokh]

Very difficult path to balance.

Originally Posted by kdtipa

Technology has improved noticeably, but of course society hasn't changed much.

Of course? That alone is something that will have to be either justified or (at worst) handwaved away.

Originally Posted by kdtipa

Now, we want to add a couple new breeds of animal that are a danger to humans on a scale large enough to be a real concern. Some of this is going to be "hand waving", but I want it to be at least moderately believable. Think: genetically engineered breed of animal. Some villainous entity has decided that human kind is sick and needs to be culled, but realizes that any attempt at doing the culling itself would likely backfire. The new breed of animal is created and released into the wild in great numbers. A couple years later, attacks on humans increase... and to an alarming degree. The animals are hunted, but they are smart enough to recognize danger, and frequently manage to take down at least part of the hunting teams. I want a "monster" to exist in this campaign (really its part of the central plot of course).

Now I have some questions that I could use some help with...

1) Considering the technologically advanced society, how would you design the animal so that it would be able to hold its own without making it into something that would wipe out society entirely?

And (1) is the prime problem. If it is weak enough to be defeated at all, then response teams will be buffed up from volunteer to SWAT to specialized exterminators. If the animal is still good enough to wipe out a percentage of exterminators (who will be soldier-level at the very least, and likely better given enough incentive), then it will totally wipe out everyone else. You need to make it somehow more dangerous for the specialists than for the 'weak' people it is supposed to cull.
And that seems to better fit the mystical than the genetic.

Originally Posted by kdtipa

2) Without giving the animals human level intelligence (though dog, dolphin, ape are about what I'm thinking), how do you explain that the animals aren't destroying the ecosystem by hunting the prey that's easier to get to (deer, buffalo, etc)?

Bizarre instinctual preferences.

Originally Posted by kdtipa

3) If a monstrous animal was suddenly introduced to our real world society, and accounted for say 400,000 deaths per year world wide, what would the realistic response be? Having a good idea about this can help with figuring out how to design the animals so that they would survive the response.

Quarantines and/or fortifications, for one, awaiting proper response teams.

Originally Posted by kdtipa

4) Are there any concerns I haven't considered yet for making this at least sort of believable in a sci fi setting?

Thanks in advance for the help.

Seems like your best bet is to do something more inspired by Doom (which is pretty soft as far as SF goes).

A somewhat related idea I once posted here. Not the same, but still the issue is somewhat similar, in that having cool SWATs is not enough.


Also, a case of not an animal, but rather an epidemic that psychologically/psychically modifies humans into monsters of sort, and is not as simple as a zombie plague, can be found here.

[mearrin69]

We don't seem to adopt the same level of vindictiveness versus entities that kill and activities/substances/diseases that kill. I bet we'd try a lot harder to wipe out Predators hunting on Earth than we work on curing cancer (or stopping its suspected root causes).
M

[David Johnston2]

Originally Posted by vicky_molokh

Very difficult path to balance.Of course? That alone is something that will have to be either justified or (at worst) handwaved away.

Society hasn't changed all that much between TL 7 and TL 8. I'm not seeing an issue.

[kdtipa]

@mearrin69
I appreciate the thoughts, and nanotech does make sense (as an artificial disease), but the one further requirement I have is that I'd like the PCs to be able to fight the threat. The comparison to wolves is great (though I agree it's tragic that wolves are hunted). That's part of why I need this animal to be designed in a way that makes them genuinely a threat that's difficult for normal hunters to deal with. Mention of a particularly good method of hiding is an excellent idea... I'll see if I can come up with something, but again... high tech society versus an animal without any tech... it might be difficult to find something to wouldn't over power them. The balance is going to be key.

@Psychotime
Holy crap. I don't know why I didn't think to look at real world numbers of other threats before figuring out my number, but yeah... 56/57 million dying every year... I guess 0.4 million isn't a huge deal. So I need something that will do a bit more, without having a big growth rate. Maybe the animals are territorial enough that they kill each other too...

Oy... this isn't easy. See why I asked? :)

[Psychotime]

From a quick wikipedia search: Your monsters kill about as much people as Alzheimer's, Falls, and Drowning.

For some reason I can't find a number for mauling deaths yet, but I believe that it's so tiny that it's negligible. Your number is at least noticable on a global scale, which should cause some legitimate concern.

[whswhs]

Originally Posted by David Johnston2

Society hasn't changed all that much between TL 7 and TL 8. I'm not seeing an issue.

Excuse me? Shift from the ethic of chastity (especially for women) to the widespread acceptance of nonmarital relationships and even of hookups? Shift from the press conspiring to cover up the private lives of politicians (Kennedy's womanizing, for example) to actively publicizing it?

Change from the active celebration of industry and the fossil fuel economy to environmental suspicion of both?

Growth of a large population dependent on governmental income support, followed by breakdown of the fiscal model that makes that possible, partly as a result of the radical slowdown of population growth?

Breakdown of the retail model in favor of the Internet commerce model, supported by rapid shipping? Export of huge numbers of jobs from the US and Europe to other countries? Partial shift of India and China toward production for the market, leading to their increasingly becoming dominant players in the global economy?

No, no interesting social changes at all.

Bill Stoddard

[kdtipa]

To address the societal change thing: Really... I'm just trying to make things easier on myself, and for the players to have something to connect with. I've already changed technology and added crazy monsters that kill people... no need to go in depth about societal changes for purpose of the story in my mind. Or at least... I'm saying that it hasn't changed in ways that will be relevant to what's going to happen, and the changes that are relevant, I've included as part of the intro material.