174-175: Got milk?

[boldilocks]

Perhaps the best way to describe a human-like intellect is
"Would you, as a european or american, feel comfortable cutting this being up and eating it"

[dragoongfa]

Perhaps the best way to describe a human-like intellect is
"Would you, as a european or american, feel comfortable cutting this being up and eating it"

Alright, I know this is meant to highlight the double standard of 'not being able to kill what you eat' that exists in the west. It's just that it ain't that hard to kill something once you get past the squeamishness of the first time. My grandmother, bless her soul, made sure to kick it out of me by having me kill a chicken that we would have a dinner for. Felt sad for an hour and then happily ate it.

[Arioch]

Perhaps the best way to describe a human-like intellect is
"Would you, as a european or american, feel comfortable cutting this being up and eating it"

There are plenty of Europeans and Americans who aren't comfortable cutting up and eating any animal, so I don't think that definition works.

[boldilocks]

Perhaps the best way to describe a human-like intellect is
"Would you, as a european or american, feel comfortable cutting this being up and eating it"

Alright, I know this is meant to highlight the double standard of 'not being able to kill what you eat' that exists in the west. It's just that it ain't that hard to kill something once you get past the squeamishness of the first time. My grandmother, bless her soul, made sure to kick it out of me by having me kill a chicken that we would have a dinner for. Felt sad for an hour and then happily ate it.

The most I ever killed in order to eat was fish.

[orion1836]

Perhaps the best way to describe a human-like intellect is
"Would you, as a european or american, feel comfortable cutting this being up and eating it"

A: How hungry am I?

[Ithekro]

"Carrot juice is murder"?

[sunphoenix]

Yeah, honestly, if I had to kill a cow and 'clean' the carcass and prepare the meat... I too would likely not eat a hamburger.

But... that said, if I had to to live? To survive... depends upon how hungry I get. Could I do it... eventually I think I could... but I would not enjoy it.

And for the record ~ No. I'm not a vegetarian, nor a Vegan.. I eat meat with gusto and enjoyment... but the mess of actually preparing a meat food... just not something I've been exposed to.

Could I learn or enjoy just eating plants? I'd be willing to make a try at it... the only plant I don't really like is spinach.. when its boiled ...but I think steamed would be fine so its probably a texture thing. Boiled spinach seems slimy to me. Don't like that.

[boldilocks]

Alex: "Wow, how do I explain this, do loroi have domesticated animals?"
Beryl: "Well, we call them males..."

[Arioch]

People can get used to almost anything, if they have to.

[boldilocks]

People can get used to almost anything, if they have to.

I don't think that will ever stop surprising me. Well, maybe one day.

[Mr.Tucker]

You must have liked "Footfall" by Larry Niven and Jerry Pournelle.

I...kinda liked it when I was young, but it was pretty ponderous reading. As I got older I liked it less and less. The subplots about cheating hearts and loose pants made me cringe many a times, as well as the somewhat self-aggrandizing view of authors (no, the president would not call on such people in case of alien contact). Seems too...pulpy. Like a vehicle to explore some wondrous technology concepts (which are pretty rock solid and awesome), that tends to leave the characters in a weird state of seeming a bit cardboardish.

WRT the Flithp (not gonna try to spell it right ), the novel is another let down:
1) They are complete and utter morons. I do not like authors that try to make that as a reason as to why they just don't steamroll us. Yes, their society is different...but why? Why did it evolve like that? How did their biology make them like that? Yes, their technology is not their own, but with their level of demonstrated acumen, I'm surprised they ever got anything safely off the ground, reverse engineering or not.
2) If they are aliens, why do they look like elephants? Copying an earth animal with no reasonable explanation is also a bit of a cop.
The starting animal from which my critter would evolved from are the African Forest Elephant. Essentially similar body plan, but more gracile, while similar in height.

I arrived at pachyderms because I did a lot of reading on high-intelligence animals,and chose them (HERE on earth, not in space, where starfish aliens are more likely the norm) because they had both high intelligence, a very rudimentary culture, and the ability for tool manipulation (something that dolphins, for instance do not have; birds might, but with severe limitations). Incidentally, I also found out many small details that make for interesting consequences for a culture. For instance, while elephants seems slow and ponderous, they are, in fact, quite impulsive and emotional, with a clear divide among the sexes. Differently from apes, they are also a keystone species in their environment despite not having technology. All should have an impact on their evolution.

Even if the trunk developed "digits" and became very dextrous, it's very difficult to do any serious work with only one manipulator. I'm reminded of this every time I injure one of my hands. You really need to be able to hold the item you're working on and the tool you're working with; there are no bench clamps in the stone age.

I think that's a bit of bias. When we use our arms, generally one is an anchoring point, and another a combination of manipulator and secondary anchor point. When a human uses a single arm, he has to use a stiff segmented member as bot a manipulator and primary anchor point. Elephants, OTOH, can rely on the flexibility of their trunk (and I can envision it becoming somewhat longer as the animal matures, so as not to hamper their mobility while young; it takes years for them to fully master the hundreds of muscles in their trunks) to allow them to wrap around an item and provide an anchor point while still keeping their "hand" (the end that presents the digits, which should also become longer) free to do manipulation. Their bodies are also better suited to it than ours, given that we become "unbalanced" with one arm, whereas theirs is firmly anchored, with the item right in front of their eyes (and incidentally near the ground if needs be). Some biomechanical things I ponder:
1) Longer and more lithe with shorter digits, or shorter, stronger, with longer digits? (for the moment, I've settled on the first)
2) How much taper? (not that much I'd say)
3) 3 symmetrical, identical digits (in which case, handedness would ensue, as some pachyderms would prefer to pinch with the one on the right, while other would be "left-handed"; elephants already show handedness in the direction they curl their trunks) or two stumpier and one longer?
Thus one becomes an expert in trunks...

[Arioch]

I think that's a bit of bias. When we use our arms, generally one is an anchoring point, and another a combination of manipulator and secondary anchor point. When a human uses a single arm, he has to use a stiff segmented member as bot a manipulator and primary anchor point. Elephants, OTOH, can rely on the flexibility of their trunk (and I can envision it becoming somewhat longer as the animal matures, so as not to hamper their mobility while young; it takes years for them to fully master the hundreds of muscles in their trunks) to allow them to wrap around an item and provide an anchor point while still keeping their "hand" (the end that presents the digits, which should also become longer) free to do manipulation. Their bodies are also better suited to it than ours, given that we become "unbalanced" with one arm, whereas theirs is firmly anchored, with the item right in front of their eyes (and incidentally near the ground if needs be).

I think there's a limited amount of "fine manipulation" you can do with the body of a trunk or tentacle. If you need fine manipulation on two objects at once, as is the case with much tool use (such as knapping flint), I think it would be significant handicap to skill if you have to wrap one of the objects farther up the same trunk.

[Mr.Tucker]

I think there's a limited amount of "fine manipulation" you can do with the body of a trunk or tentacle. If you need fine manipulation on two objects at once, as is the case with much tool use (such as knapping flint), I think it would be significant handicap to skill if you have to wrap one of the objects farther up the same trunk.

Well, they DO have front legs to press on to something (as they already do when breaking fallen branches: https://www.ardeaprints.com/african-ele ... 61909.html ) if needs be.
With stone tools in particular, there is one crucial observation to make: in hominins, they evolved to butcher meat easily. Elephants, OTOH, are herbivores (though I could flex that into more specialised fruit eaters or very selective herbivores). I would expect their stone tools to be more primitive for longer before reaching ground stone technology. Alternatively, there is no reason one can not use a static hammerstone and strike the working piece onto it. This might even lead to an earlier adoption of grinding techniques (which become common in the Neolithic in humans, mostly because it is such a break in kinematics from earlier techniques).

[DCR]

Perhaps the best way to describe a human-like intellect is
"Would you, as a european or american, feel comfortable cutting this being up and eating it"

There are plenty of Europeans and Americans who aren't comfortable cutting up and eating any animal, so I don't think that definition works.

I like Mordin's Rule.

[boldilocks]

Perhaps the best way to describe a human-like intellect is
"Would you, as a european or american, feel comfortable cutting this being up and eating it"

There are plenty of Europeans and Americans who aren't comfortable cutting up and eating any animal, so I don't think that definition works.

I like Mordin's Rule.

Look's like human meat is largely back on the menu, boys!

[RockB]

Perhaps the best way to describe a human-like intellect is
"Would you, as a european or american, feel comfortable cutting this being up and eating it"

How was that supposed to work in any case O_o?
- There may still be cannibals somewhere in the jungle. Not sure about Europeans or Americans...
- Even if not, IMHO humans have done worse to each other than slaughtering and eating each other. Not only in wars.
- Even if you consider only happy, mentally healthy and well-fed Europeans and Americans*, their also well-fed and happy animals also often act human-like and don't eat each other.

There are plenty of Europeans and Americans who aren't comfortable cutting up and eating any animal, so I don't think that definition works.

Indeed

I like Mordin's Rule.

Who was this Mordin again? I know someone of the name Alexander Mordin (sometimes called Almordin) from a short Austrian SF books cycle but I doubt it's him. The character was and is probably not known outside of the German-speaking realm.

Look's like human meat is largely back on the menu, boys!

Was it ever off the menu?
Considering that humans eat about everything that is remotely edible when prepared, I wouldn't suggest to come here to any aliens.
And there is the human habit to "collect" specimens for scientific examination, which involves killing them and taking them apart...
A "human-like intellect" like that might not be very suitable to meet alien species for a diplomatic mission.

*: Why Europeans and Americans specifically? Just curious.


Edit: Found that Mordin. Not even human... Can't be the one I meant. But I kinda like him.

[RockB]

I think there's a limited amount of "fine manipulation" you can do with the body of a trunk or tentacle. If you need fine manipulation on two objects at once, as is the case with much tool use (such as knapping flint), I think it would be significant handicap to skill if you have to wrap one of the objects farther up the same trunk.

Sometimes I want to have four hands. Especially when soldering. Two hands to hold the pieces to solder together, one for the solder and one for the soldering iron.

By the way, what about squids and octopuses? More manipulators than humans with very fine control. Or the small rodents (like rats and mice) or squirrels? They look so cute when they handle seeds and nuts with their little hands...

[Arioch]

By the way, what about squids and octopuses? More manipulators than humans with very fine control. Or the small rodents (like rats and mice) or squirrels? They look so cute when they handle seeds and nuts with their little hands...

Well, like I said, cephalopods would be good candidates were it not for the inherent limitations on the size of their brains.

[RedDwarfIV]

By the way, what about squids and octopuses? More manipulators than humans with very fine control. Or the small rodents (like rats and mice) or squirrels? They look so cute when they handle seeds and nuts with their little hands...

Well, like I said, cephalopods would be good candidates were it not for the inherent limitations on the size of their brains.

Total brain size doesn't neccessarily determine intelligence... otherwise we'd be dumber than whales. Corvids have tiny brains, but they're very smart, with tool use and socialisation.

As noted by the youtuber TierZoo, cephalopods don't live long enough to make good use of the tricks and techniques they learn. If they lived long enough to accrue a lot of knowledge, and had a way of passing the knowledge on to other cephalopods, then you might have the next humanity on your hands.

[boldilocks]

How was that supposed to work in any case O_o?
- There may still be cannibals somewhere in the jungle. Not sure about Europeans or Americans...
- Even if not, IMHO humans have done worse to each other than slaughtering and eating each other. Not only in wars.
- Even if you consider only happy, mentally healthy and well-fed Europeans and Americans*, their also well-fed and happy animals also often act human-like and don't eat each other.

1. That is how it was supposed to work. By european/american moral standards, ie, not according to the moral standard of some stone-age 3rd world savage.
2. And yet we remain unwilling to cannibalize each other.
3. Actually pets have a tendency to eat their dead owners, even in europe and the US. Of course, this is a question of whether someone has a human-like intellect, and we are quite able to tell the intellectual difference between a dog, a cat, a cow and a human.