Loroi Sexuality continued (no politics this time)

Discussion regarding the Outsider webcomic, science, technology and science fiction.

Moderator: Outsider Moderators

Victor_D
Posts: 188
Joined: Tue Dec 11, 2012 8:46 am
Location: Czech Rep., European Union

Re: Loroi Sexuality continued (no politics this time)

Post by Victor_D »

Charlie wrote:
Yiuel wrote:I don't know if Arioch has some explanation for the Loroi's physical shape, but I would like to see a reasoning behind it. Especially since humans are so crappy. Who placed the theather right next to the sewers, as would say some engineer.
Or that we can choke to death while eating.
It's an acceptable trade off for being able to articulate sounds :) For that, our larynx needs to be down(ish) in the throat - humans are the only animals with that configuration. It gives us a 'resonance chamber' which helps produce a much wider variety of sounds (which we need to create complex languages), but also the risk of choking to death on food.

I guess that is why my mother always told me to keep quiet while eating ;)

User avatar
Charlie
Posts: 257
Joined: Tue Jan 22, 2013 9:04 pm
Location: Somewhere in Middle Lane
Contact:

Re: Loroi Sexuality continued (no politics this time)

Post by Charlie »

Victor_D wrote:
It's an acceptable trade off for being able to articulate sounds :) For that, our larynx needs to be down(ish) in the throat - humans are the only animals with that configuration. It gives us a 'resonance chamber' which helps produce a much wider variety of sounds (which we need to create complex languages), but also the risk of choking to death on food.

I guess that is why my mother always told me to keep quiet while eating ;)
What if we had a second set of the digestive parts of our mouth closer to our stomach while the in take and out take of air remains at our throat.

Having nearly died by marshmallow, I can attest to the logic of having a close mouth with a reasonable amount of food in it.
No sorcery lies beyond my grasp. - Rubick, the Grand Magus

Suederwind
Posts: 772
Joined: Thu Jul 05, 2012 8:55 pm

Re: Loroi Sexuality continued (no politics this time)

Post by Suederwind »

After thinking about it for a while, I have a question for Arioch (somehow my phone must have eaten my first post :cry: ):

Are the skulls of a human and a loroi different in any way or are they identically? If they are different, in which way?
Forum RP: Cydonia Rising
[RP]Cydonia Rising [IC]

Victor_D
Posts: 188
Joined: Tue Dec 11, 2012 8:46 am
Location: Czech Rep., European Union

Re: Loroi Sexuality continued (no politics this time)

Post by Victor_D »

Suederwind wrote:Are the skulls of a human and a loroi different in any way or are they identically? If they are different, in which way?
They look pretty much the same as human skulls to me:
SpoilerShow
Image

Suederwind
Posts: 772
Joined: Thu Jul 05, 2012 8:55 pm

Re: Loroi Sexuality continued (no politics this time)

Post by Suederwind »

They look pretty much the same as human skulls to me:
Well, thats what my questions is leading up to: are those Loroi skulls? Or am I just a bit overreacting? ;)
Forum RP: Cydonia Rising
[RP]Cydonia Rising [IC]

Jericho
Posts: 251
Joined: Fri Dec 21, 2012 11:11 am

Re: Loroi Sexuality continued (no politics this time)

Post by Jericho »

discord wrote:more like 275 thousand years, minimum, since that was when the soia fell, but that is still neanderthal times, and if you saw one of those walking down the street wearing modern clothes you would probably not notice'im.

hollywood has made the difference seem bigger than it is, silly i know, where did the neanderthal go? look in the mirror it's your ancestor.
Actually it is 75 thousand years. The loroi BCE (before common era) is the same as BC in our calender and mankind according to the sources i've learnt from first arose on the planes of africa around 200.000 years BC :geek: .

And yes you would notice them. they were short and very broad by comparison to modern human. Probably because they evolved from European icelands (the climate of the region not the country) and we evolved from africa. Imagine gimli walking down the streets, you'd think there would be children staring.
Suederwind wrote:Well, thats what my questions is leading up to: are those Loroi skulls? Or am I just a bit overreacting? ;)
What else would they be. I don't think the loroi have seen anything with remotely similar features to them at all. And given Arioch habit for varid designs for aliens
(rather than the star trek version of slap some ridges on it and tell it to go play) i sincerely doubt that those are anything but loroi.

In fact it's been stated that it's quite special in outsider for there to be two alien races to look alike.
Yiuel wrote:Our Neandertal friend could be easily recognized, but considering how human brain works, he could as well hide himself well enough if his behavior is close to human standards. We don't tend to recognize oddballs in a crowd. However, if Neandertal sightings were common enough, we would be able to point them out, look at them, discriminate them and who-knows-what-stupidity we could do.
On the contrary Humans are quite good to pick out people who don't belong to the group. All that is needed is a slight abnormality and the individual can be named a freak (and there would be a lot of difference in neanderthals).
Yiuel wrote:I don't know if Arioch has some explanation for the Loroi's physical shape, but I would like to see a reasoning behind it. Especially since humans are so crappy. Who placed the theather right next to the sewers, as would say some engineer.
Sexy space babes what more of an explanation do you people need 8-) .

Actually that would be a hard blow to the loroi's image of themselves as a warrior species if even human civilian engineers could demonstrate just why they arent fit for the job.

Sorry ladies you're just too much like us to be taken seriously as warriors. :lol:
If nothing else works, a total pig-headed unwillingness to look facts in the face will see us through. General C.H Melchett commander of some unknown british regiment in the western front.

Victor_D
Posts: 188
Joined: Tue Dec 11, 2012 8:46 am
Location: Czech Rep., European Union

Re: Loroi Sexuality continued (no politics this time)

Post by Victor_D »

Jericho wrote:
discord wrote:And yes you would notice them. they were short and very broad by comparison to modern human.


If properly clothed, you'd hardly recognize them by their figure. It's not like hey were dwarves, they were just a bit shorter and stockier, but nothing too outlandish. There are people with similar physique among modern humans and they're hardly being stared at by stupid people all the time.

(They'd probably wipe the floor with most modern human men if it came just to raw physical power, though; I read that their musculature was far superior to that of Homo Sapiens.)
Probably because they evolved from European icelands (the climate of the region not the country) and we evolved from africa. Imagine gimli walking down the streets, you'd think there would be children staring.
[/quote]

All humans are from Africa; Neanderthal ancestors simply arrived to Europe a bit earlier. They separated from the common ancestor (H. Heidelbergensis? I never could spell it properly) around 350-500 thousand years ago. Neanderthals lived also in the Middle East, where they clearly intermingled with the newly arriving Homo Sapiens very early after they left Africa.
Last edited by Victor_D on Sat Feb 09, 2013 10:35 am, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
Yiuel
Posts: 57
Joined: Sat Jan 05, 2013 5:18 am
Location: Toyama, Japan

Re: Loroi Sexuality continued (no politics this time)

Post by Yiuel »

Jericho wrote:
Yiuel wrote:I don't know if Arioch has some explanation for the Loroi's physical shape, but I would like to see a reasoning behind it. Especially since humans are so crappy. Who placed the theather right next to the sewers, as would say some engineer.
Sexy space babes what more of an explanation do you people need 8-) .

Actually that would be a hard blow to the loroi's image of themselves as a warrior species if even human civilian engineers could demonstrate just why they arent fit for the job.

Sorry ladies you're just too much like us to be taken seriously as warriors. :lol:
The Soia Empire might have been good fan-service providers, then.

[deadpan]Rule 34 in outer space. How enjoyable[/deadpan]
la nɔtʀʏltsɪmœ ʀɛv, dɛ ʒã puʀ la pʀɔtɛʒe
nu vœnõ dõkœ dœ tupaʀtu, puʀ ɛtʀœ sa ɡʀãdaʀme
dœ la site pʀɔtɛktœʀ, dœ sœ ʀɛvœ defãsœʀ
ynjõ dœ la fɔʀsœ dœ tus, nu vwasijalɔʀ lɛzɔʀiɔnɪt

- The Chant of A Certain Army

Jericho
Posts: 251
Joined: Fri Dec 21, 2012 11:11 am

Re: Loroi Sexuality continued (no politics this time)

Post by Jericho »

Victor_D wrote:
If properly clothed, you'd hardly recognize them by their figure. It's not like hey were dwarves, they were just a bit shorter and stockier, but nothing too outlandish. There are people with similar physique among modern humans and they're hardly being stared at by stupid people all the time.

(They'd probably wipe the floor with most modern human men if it came just to raw physical power, though; I read that their musculature was far superior to that of Homo Sapiens.)
Yes they are you just don't notice it.

It is very hard to determine neanderthals strength as we know that the were short and compactly built but not muscel mass or muscle efficiency.
Victor_D wrote: All humans are from Africa; Neanderthal ancestors simply arrived to Europe a bit earlier. They separated from the common ancestor (H. Heidelbergensis? I never could spell it properly) around 350-500 thousand years ago. Neanderthals lived also in the Middle East, where they clearly intermingled with the newly arriving Homo Sapiens very early after they left Africa.
Yes But the neanderthals adapted to the climate in europe primarily and later emigrated south when the ice age became too severe. by the time we encountered them they were a practically native to Europe. This is supported by the fact that the densest population is located in europe and only few small settlements are found in the middle east or spain were we are supposed to have shared space with them for an extended time.
Yiuel wrote: The Soia Empire might have been good fan-service providers, then.


For which clientele?

This actually brings up a new question. Who finds the loroi beautiful?

If you look at the registry of blue people the loroi are known for their beuty. Ok but only two other alien races could possible find them beautiful. The golim who are their pets and humans who are physically similar enough to appreciate them but only one human has actually seen one so far (as far as we know).

So where are the other who adores them?
If nothing else works, a total pig-headed unwillingness to look facts in the face will see us through. General C.H Melchett commander of some unknown british regiment in the western front.

discord
Posts: 629
Joined: Thu Mar 24, 2011 7:44 am
Location: Umeå, Sweden

Re: Loroi Sexuality continued (no politics this time)

Post by discord »

jericho: 250 thousand years ago is pretty much when homo sapiens starts to pop up... and 275 thousand years ago was the fall of the soia....so it could theoretically be soia induced genetics experiment....

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_evolution <--- at least check wikipedia before stating things.

and for who finds them drop dead gorgeous? the viewers of course! *doh*.

Jericho
Posts: 251
Joined: Fri Dec 21, 2012 11:11 am

Re: Loroi Sexuality continued (no politics this time)

Post by Jericho »

discord wrote:jericho: 250 thousand years ago is pretty much when homo sapiens starts to pop up... and 275 thousand years ago was the fall of the soia....so it could theoretically be soia induced genetics experiment....

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_evolution <--- at least check wikipedia before stating things.
Bah ha ha ha ha :lol: . I would suggest you read the same article twice before suggesting it to others. Archaic Homo Sapiens does not refer to modern humans it refers to the missing links between us and the other breeds of humanity not to our species. Our species evolved from these ancestors around 200.000 years ago. Really it's written just one row from the text that you base your argument from. Also "Atleast read alternative sources than wikipedia before lecturing to others" .

In fact if you'd just clicked the blue text that read Archaic Homo Sapiens you would have seen that.
WikiPedia wrote:Archaic Homo sapiens, the forerunner of anatomically modern humans, evolved between 400,000 and 250,000 years ago.[10][11] Recent DNA evidence suggests that several haplotypes of Neanderthal origin are present among all non-African populations, and Neanderthals and other hominids, such as Denisova hominin may have contributed up to 6% of their genome to present-day humans.[12][13][14] Anatomically modern humans evolved from archaic Homo sapiens in the Middle Paleolithic, about 200,000 years ago.[15] The transition to behavioral modernity with the development of symbolic culture, language, and specialized lithic technology happened around 50,000 years ago according to many anthropologists[16] although some suggest a gradual change in behavior over a longer time span.[17]
If nothing else works, a total pig-headed unwillingness to look facts in the face will see us through. General C.H Melchett commander of some unknown british regiment in the western front.

Suederwind
Posts: 772
Joined: Thu Jul 05, 2012 8:55 pm

Re: Loroi Sexuality continued (no politics this time)

Post by Suederwind »

That whole "Archaic Homo Sapiens" debate is a very wide field, just like the whole human evolution and it can change very fast. Just a few new dates and fossils are enough to change the whole human tree.
I personally think the paleoanthropologists (and archaeologists) tend to overcomplicate things and like to create new names for the same thing. To me, it makes no sense to create a (or more) new terms or names, if those fossils fit well into the range of Homo erectus. Especially if you take the findings of Java and Demanisi in the account. You can add the various lithic technologies to that picture: not much difference till the first neandertalensis and (later) sapiens sapiens arrived.
However, whats more important: we do not have the full picture, just various puzzle pieces that don´t always fit well together and who ever is reading about that topic should be aware about that.
Coming back to our favorite comic, the insider states that the Soia Empire established itself around ~500,000 years ago. If the Soia (whoever they are) stumbled over earth, I think they would most likely encounter an earlier form of Homo than us. That would explain the sexual demorphism for example.
Forum RP: Cydonia Rising
[RP]Cydonia Rising [IC]

User avatar
Mr Bojangles
Posts: 283
Joined: Sat Mar 03, 2012 1:12 am

Re: Loroi Sexuality continued (no politics this time)

Post by Mr Bojangles »

Suederwind wrote: Coming back to our favorite comic, the insider states that the Soia Empire established itself around ~500,000 years ago. If the Soia (whoever they are) stumbled over earth, I think they would most likely encounter an earlier form of Homo than us. That would explain the sexual demorphism for example.
How? On average, male primates are larger and more aggressive than female primates. Unless that general trend was swapped in the distant past (possible), I don't think the Soia coming across an earlier Homo variant would explain the Loroi's sexual dimorphism.

Or do you mean that the Loroi even have sexual dimorphism, period?

Victor_D
Posts: 188
Joined: Tue Dec 11, 2012 8:46 am
Location: Czech Rep., European Union

Re: Loroi Sexuality continued (no politics this time)

Post by Victor_D »

Suederwind wrote:However, whats more important: we do not have the full picture, just various puzzle pieces that don´t always fit well together and who ever is reading about that topic should be aware about that.
I especially love how the media misinterpret human evolution ;) (Or any other complicated subject that has the inconvenience of being impossible to sum up in one sentence below the headline.)
Coming back to our favorite comic, the insider states that the Soia Empire established itself around ~500,000 years ago. If the Soia (whoever they are) stumbled over earth, I think they would most likely encounter an earlier form of Homo than us. That would explain the sexual demorphism for example.
Depends on how soon they got there. If it was around 300 kya, there's a possibility something physically resembling homo sapiens might have been around.

Then, if the 'made in our image' hypothesis is correct, it depends on what motivation the Soia had, which is kind of hard to guess considering we know almost nothing about them, both in and out universe. They could have been created for fun and giggles, they could have been an addition to a Soia zoo, they could have been a grand experiment with parallel evolution, they could have been cattle for eating, and so on and so forth.

Hm, it just occurred to me that they might have been created to be a sort of intermediaries. Something like the teleoperated bodies in Avatar, used to communicate with the natives, which would explain both their physical similarity to humans and their psionic abilities. Maybe they were meant as a tool to uplift humans? (Let's face it, blue alien babes will always work better than a big black domino-shaped monolith ;) ).

Jericho
Posts: 251
Joined: Fri Dec 21, 2012 11:11 am

Re: Loroi Sexuality continued (no politics this time)

Post by Jericho »

Okey here's the problem with "Shaped in our image hypothesis". It's cronologically not possible and other than that not logical.

Even if they used one of our earlier homo species the loroi look too much like us for that to be possible.

What did the soia pick up a random ancestor and decided to improve upon it's design and in the end created something that superficially looked remarkably caucasian?

I could be wrong here because i'm not good at translating drawn features to real people. But with many loroi we have encountered the pattern is sharp pointy features like their noses and cheekbones. But there are exceptions of course. That gren haried loroi, whats her name in page 86.
Not features you will see very often in our african brethren which the loroi would look more like if they where based on our species.

Please don't take this the wrong way but when i look on the loroi eyes i imagine them being well :oops: more oriental than european, is this only me? I'm not trying to offend anyone that's just how i see them.



And where are the soia remains?


I apologize in advance to anyone offended by this post. I know that discussing racial features of humanity can be a very sensetive topic and i have no intention of causing distress to anyone.
If nothing else works, a total pig-headed unwillingness to look facts in the face will see us through. General C.H Melchett commander of some unknown british regiment in the western front.

Victor_D
Posts: 188
Joined: Tue Dec 11, 2012 8:46 am
Location: Czech Rep., European Union

Re: Loroi Sexuality continued (no politics this time)

Post by Victor_D »

Don't be oversensitive ;)

Loroi look Europoid (I resent the term Caucasian) because, well, that's how they've been drawn - to appeal to a certain audience ;) I wouldn't infer from that that the Soia modelled them after Europeans who certainly at the point of their creation didn't even exist.

I'd also point out that what we consider "racial" features (skin colour, hair, facial features) are all in fact pretty recent changes in human appearance. For instance the East Asian subtype is what, 10-15,000 years old? The Loroi might have experienced similar differentiation/evolution on Deinar on their own. What I mean to say is that the ancient Soia-era Loroi might have looked very different from the "today's" ones, and that their present "Europoid" looks might be simply an accident.

Jericho
Posts: 251
Joined: Fri Dec 21, 2012 11:11 am

Re: Loroi Sexuality continued (no politics this time)

Post by Jericho »

Victor_D wrote:Don't be oversensitive ;)
Sorry it's a swedish thing.
Victor_D wrote:Loroi look Europoid (I resent the term Caucasian) because, well, that's how they've been drawn - to appeal to a certain audience ;) I wouldn't infer from that that the Soia modelled them after Europeans who certainly at the point of their creation didn't even exist.


I'd also point out that what we consider "racial" features (skin colour, hair, facial features) are all in fact pretty recent changes in human appearance. For instance the East Asian subtype is what, 10-15,000 years old? The Loroi might have experienced similar differentiation/evolution on Deinar on their own. What I mean to say is that the ancient Soia-era Loroi might have looked very different from the "today's" ones, and that their present "Europoid" looks might be simply an accident.
Oh my you're right :oops: but it's interesting that you would mention accident as it's the conclusion i've been getting to regarding the similarities between our species.

I don't think that the loroi where modelled after us or our ancestors. they could have just as well been modelled after some other species and then accidently evolved into a shape similar to ours.
If nothing else works, a total pig-headed unwillingness to look facts in the face will see us through. General C.H Melchett commander of some unknown british regiment in the western front.

Victor_D
Posts: 188
Joined: Tue Dec 11, 2012 8:46 am
Location: Czech Rep., European Union

Re: Loroi Sexuality continued (no politics this time)

Post by Victor_D »

Jericho wrote:I don't think that the loroi where modelled after us or our ancestors. they could have just as well been modelled after some other species and then accidently evolved into a shape similar to ours.
That would be too much of an accident, whereas developing mildly "Europoid" features due to random responses to environmental pressures is at least plausible if you start with a common shape.

For example, Alex notes that the Loroi shoes he's given fit perfectly the shape of his feet. Incidentally, the feet are the part of the human body which has changed the least in the last million years. Even the primitive Homo Erectus had feet almost the same as modern humans - in fact, most of their body below the neck were quite close to that of modern humans.

So, hypothetically:

~300,000 years ago, the Soia find Earth and its primitive sentient hominid species on their way to full intelligence. They study them and then for reasons unknown create a "copy" using the Soia-class biochemical template. These proto-Loroi are perhaps used to contact the early humans, communicate with them, study them, or even 'uplift' them. Or perhaps the Soia are interested in experimenting with parallel evolution, who knows. One way or another, the Soia collapse around 275,000 years ago and the Loroi are left to their own devices. When they are set to the primitive hunter-gatherer stage of development, they experience similar evolutionary pressures as humans which in the end result in their "present"-day looks.

Or, the Soia could extrapolate the rough course of human evolution*, and made Loroi not in the image of what humans looked then, but in the one of what they would become.

(* - bigger forehead, smaller jaw, disappearance of supercilliary ridges, the squaring of the skull, etc.)

One way or another, unless Outsider descends into the Star Trek-level of space opera-ness, there is no way the Loroi could have naturally evolved to resemble humans so perfectly. No way, the odds against that are literally astronomical.

SpoilerShow
Or, the Loroi are a Historian joke created hundreds of thousands of years following the Soia collapse ;)

Jericho
Posts: 251
Joined: Fri Dec 21, 2012 11:11 am

Re: Loroi Sexuality continued (no politics this time)

Post by Jericho »

Victor_D wrote:
That would be too much of an accident, whereas developing mildly "Europoid" features due to random responses to environmental pressures is at least plausible if you start with a common shape.


For example, Alex notes that the Loroi shoes he's given fit perfectly the shape of his feet. Incidentally, the feet are the part of the human body which has changed the least in the last million years. Even the primitive Homo Erectus had feet almost the same as modern humans - in fact, most of their body below the neck were quite close to that of modern humans.


So, hypothetically:

~300,000 years ago, the Soia find Earth and its primitive sentient hominid species on their way to full intelligence. They study them and then for reasons unknown create a "copy" using the Soia-class biochemical template. These proto-Loroi are perhaps used to contact the early humans, communicate with them, study them, or even 'uplift' them. Or perhaps the Soia are interested in experimenting with parallel evolution, who knows. One way or another, the Soia collapse around 275,000 years ago and the Loroi are left to their own devices. When they are set to the primitive hunter-gatherer stage of development, they experience similar evolutionary pressures as humans which in the end result in their "present"-day looks.

Or, the Soia could extrapolate the rough course of human evolution*, and made Loroi not in the image of what humans looked then, but in the one of what they would become.

(* - bigger forehead, smaller jaw, disappearance of supercilliary ridges, the squaring of the skull, etc.)

One way or another, unless Outsider descends into the Star Trek-level of space opera-ness, there is no way the Loroi could have naturally evolved to resemble humans so perfectly. No way, the odds against that are literally astronomical.

SpoilerShow
Or, the Loroi are a Historian joke created hundreds of thousands of years following the Soia collapse ;)
Though your logic is good. I'll still refrain from believing it untill god tells me to :D .
If nothing else works, a total pig-headed unwillingness to look facts in the face will see us through. General C.H Melchett commander of some unknown british regiment in the western front.

User avatar
Arioch
Site Admin
Posts: 4486
Joined: Sat Mar 05, 2011 4:19 am
Location: San Jose, CA
Contact:

Re: Loroi Sexuality continued (no politics this time)

Post by Arioch »

Suederwind wrote:Well, thats what my questions is leading up to: are those Loroi skulls? Or am I just a bit overreacting?
Tempest is treading on Loroi skulls there. How would you expect a Loroi skull to look different from a Human skull? The major difference in in the ears, and I wouldn't expect any noticeable skull features there.

As has been mentioned, the "tree" of hominid evolution has had anthropologists confused for a long time, and that's understandable if what you're looking for is a clear tree of species, because I don't think there is one. Anatomically modern homo sapiens date back at least 200,000 years, but earlier homo erectus have existed in Africa, Europe and Asia for more than a million years, and they had very distinctive regional features that modern humans share today. The conclusion (which seemed obvious to me, but was resisted for a long time) that the various early hominids constantly moved and interbred with each other over millions of years is now being confirmed by DNA analysis. In the various migration events (such as "Out of Africa"), newer hominid strains moved to new regions but found older populations already living there, and they interbred extensively. The hominid "tree" is more of a trellis, and there's no clear dividing line of speciation between h. erectus and h. sapiens, or any of the subgroups such as neanderthalensis.

Image
Victor_D wrote:I'd also point out that what we consider "racial" features (skin colour, hair, facial features) are all in fact pretty recent changes in human appearance. For instance the East Asian subtype is what, 10-15,000 years old?
I don't believe that this is correct. My understanding is that earlier hominids such as homo erectus pekinensis from 750,000+ years ago had distinctive, recognizably Asian skull features.
Victor_D wrote:Or, the Soia could extrapolate the rough course of human evolution*, and made Loroi not in the image of what humans looked then, but in the one of what they would become.
But would such extrapolation be necessary? If humans have changed in 200,000+ years, would not the Loroi have done so also? And is it unreasonable to assume that given similar environment, such evolutionary paths might be similar?

Post Reply