Miscellaneous Terran question-and-answer thread

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

Moderator: Outsider Moderators

User avatar
Werra
Posts: 840
Joined: Wed Jun 06, 2018 8:27 pm

Re: Miscellaneous Terran question-and-answer thread

Post by Werra »

Arioch wrote:
Mr.Tucker wrote:Breed 100-1000, and all a country needs is a single one of them to become a Von Braun or Oppenheimer to obtain a substantial edge over it's rivals.
Except that historically, the side with the cleverest boffins often seems to be the one that loses the war.
Apart from WW1+2 I can't think of any example of this. And there it's still arguable.

But it's not even about Oppenheimers or somesuch. It's about the average. A high average IQ in a nation coincides with low crime rates, clean streets, healthy populace, well educated children, low number of smokers, etc. Simply put, intelligence makes everything more efficient. Even just increasing average from 100 to 105 can be huge. That this also moves the bellcurve of IQ as a whole to the right and therefore creates the next big genius, is just a bonus, really.
Strictly speaking, we don't need to know a single gene to achieve this. Simple genealogy over several generations is enough, since according to twin studies, 80% of IQ variance is due to genes.

An actual question regarding Loroi:
How accepted are such breeding programs of gene-tech free eugenics in Loroi society?

User avatar
Zorg56
Posts: 196
Joined: Thu Aug 30, 2018 10:59 am

Re: Miscellaneous Terran question-and-answer thread

Post by Zorg56 »

Arioch wrote:
Mr.Tucker wrote:Breed 100-1000, and all a country needs is a single one of them to become a Von Braun or Oppenheimer to obtain a substantial edge over it's rivals.
Except that historically, the side with the cleverest boffins often seems to be the one that loses the war.
Really?
For example?

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

Re: Miscellaneous Terran question-and-answer thread

Post by Arioch »

Zorg56 wrote:
Arioch wrote:
Mr.Tucker wrote:Breed 100-1000, and all a country needs is a single one of them to become a Von Braun or Oppenheimer to obtain a substantial edge over it's rivals.
Except that historically, the side with the cleverest boffins often seems to be the one that loses the war.
Really?
For example?
Von Braun's side lost. Germany had arguably the best scientific and engineering community in the world (ex-Nazis were still at the top of jet and rocket development for both the US and Soviets well into the 60's), but they still lost the war.

The development of the atomic bomb was a dramatic event that changed world history, but it was not decisive in the war.

Name a list of the most brilliant commanders in history (Napoleon, Caesar, Rommel, Lee), and I'll show you a list of losing sides.

User avatar
Zorg56
Posts: 196
Joined: Thu Aug 30, 2018 10:59 am

Re: Miscellaneous Terran question-and-answer thread

Post by Zorg56 »

Arioch wrote:
Zorg56 wrote:
Arioch wrote: Except that historically, the side with the cleverest boffins often seems to be the one that loses the war.
Really?
For example?
Von Braun's side lost. Germany had arguably the best scientific and engineering community in the world (ex-Nazis were still at the top of jet and rocket development for both the US and Soviets well into the 60's), but they still lost the war.

The development of the atomic bomb was a dramatic event that changed world history, but it was not decisive in the war.

Name a list of the most brilliant commanders in history (Napoleon, Caesar, Rommel, Lee), and I'll show you a list of losing sides.
Being obsessed with stupid superweapons none of which actually works dosent means that you are smarter.
Even Fritz X, the most adequate of this type of weapons had more then questionable efficency.

Napoleon sucessfully installed France hegemony and was stopped only by all world powers united (And all of that with almost no economy), Caesar was killed, not defeated in battle, Rommel was crushed because higher officers was completly mad etc.

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

Re: Miscellaneous Terran question-and-answer thread

Post by Arioch »

Zorg56 wrote:Being obsessed with stupid superweapons none of which actually works dosent means that you are smarter.
Even Fritz X, the most adequate of this type of weapons had more then questionable efficency.

Napoleon sucessfully installed France hegemony and was stopped only by all world powers united (And all of that with almost no economy), Caesar was killed, not defeated in battle, Rommel was crushed because higher officers was completly mad etc.
Yes, wars are won and lost due to a variety of factors. Having more smart people is a good thing, but I'm just challenging the assertion that having more Von Brauns or Rommels on your side is a decisive factor akin to the development of gunpowder.

User avatar
dragoongfa
Posts: 1920
Joined: Mon Jan 26, 2015 9:26 pm
Location: Athens, Greece

Re: Miscellaneous Terran question-and-answer thread

Post by dragoongfa »

Arioch wrote: I'm not convinced that having a few extra super-smart people is really that much of a decisive advantage. Unless you plan on forcing ALL of your people to have gene-enhanced babies... but I don't think any government on Earth has that much control over its population. And I shudder to imagine the dystopian society that would try.
Had a semi-drunken debate about this one day. The only acceptable solution was to skip the baby thing entirely and apply the genetic enhancement directly to the adult populace. The three ways we came up to do that would be
a) To invent teleportation tech and apply the improvements to the teleported copy (Seriously, someone must make a game with this premise)
b) Stem cell modification and implantation throughout the body while also inducing rapid cell growth and replenishment (good luck doing that without fucking up spectacularly with cancer).
c) Simply grow the modified parts in a vat and transplant them cyborg style.

folti
Posts: 66
Joined: Fri May 18, 2018 10:24 am

Re: Miscellaneous Terran question-and-answer thread

Post by folti »

Arioch wrote: Von Braun's side lost. Germany had arguably the best scientific and engineering community in the world (ex-Nazis were still at the top of jet and rocket development for both the US and Soviets well into the 60's), but they still lost the war.
Umm, that's at best debatable, more of a bit of a myth created around them after the war.

Plus it ignores that while Germany had quite a few good engineers and scientists (and a quite few bad too, with the majority who just made the grades), their biggest issues were management, and administration of both their R&D programs, and the way their R&D and manufacturing people cooperated, or the lack of said cooperation, which lead to designs whose manufacturing processes were more resource intensive than the allies' similar programs (something the resources needed for one Tiger have been nearly enough to make 3 T-34s, which, while weren't a direct match, have been able to make up for it by the sheer numbers, and the post-1943 variants could be dangerous to the Tiger from close). It wasn't until Speer became the Minister of Armaments and War Production in 1942, and started to cut down on the waste as much as he could, that they started to rationalize R&D and production, but by that time, it was too little, too late, as they faced a coalition of two industrial juggernauts (the Soviets and the US) who did logistics and war production much better and more thoroughly than they, with the US having the most efficient manufacturing and project management principles of the time.

Having the brightest minds doesn't help you, if you mismanage their capabilities, while doing the boring stuff (management/administration and logistics) right will make your less brightest people outperform them.

User avatar
Werra
Posts: 840
Joined: Wed Jun 06, 2018 8:27 pm

Re: Miscellaneous Terran question-and-answer thread

Post by Werra »

dragoongfa wrote: Had a semi-drunken debate about this one day. The only acceptable solution was to skip the baby thing entirely and apply the genetic enhancement directly to the adult populace.
Wouldn't that just delay the issue by however long it takes the modified adults to procreate?

User avatar
dragoongfa
Posts: 1920
Joined: Mon Jan 26, 2015 9:26 pm
Location: Athens, Greece

Re: Miscellaneous Terran question-and-answer thread

Post by dragoongfa »

Werra wrote:
dragoongfa wrote: Had a semi-drunken debate about this one day. The only acceptable solution was to skip the baby thing entirely and apply the genetic enhancement directly to the adult populace.
Wouldn't that just delay the issue by however long it takes the modified adults to procreate?
Provided that you don't modify the gametes then there should be no issue on the matter.

User avatar
HedAurabesh
Posts: 13
Joined: Sun Jan 06, 2019 12:44 am

Re: Miscellaneous Terran question-and-answer thread

Post by HedAurabesh »

Arioch wrote:Finally, the wisdom of creating a new species to replace your current one has always escaped me. There is a powerful biological drive to perpetuate one's own species; why would people be eager to commit species suicide by artificially creating a "better" new one?
Friedrich Wilhelm Nietzsche would disagree with you there. :D

He basically pointed out the following:
  1. Each generation replaces the next, inevitably, since the parent generation eventually dies.
  2. Since each generation consists of a new set of individuals, it can't be the same as its parent generation.
  3. As such, each new generation is already on the way to be the next species. Maybe only in a miniscule, hardly visible manner with no clearly apparent direction, but it is.
  4. Negating this movement towards a changing humanity is therefore fruitless.
Starting from this realization, he asked himself: If the eventual result is the no-longer-human anyway, why not aim for the super-human?
That is, instead of leaving the result to chance and seek an adaptation merely to our environment, why not give it a clear direction?

Hence: Embrace the super-human and do not mind its destruction of humanity, because even the alternative, the merely no-longer-human, will see humanity destroyed anyway.


Or, in simpler terms:
Nobody asked the dinosaurs if they wanted to turn into birds, but they did.
They lost the land, and gained the sky.
But, given the choice and chance, wouldn't they have preferred to still also control the land, too?

User avatar
icekatze
Posts: 1399
Joined: Sat Mar 05, 2011 8:35 pm
Location: Middle of Nowhere
Contact:

Re: Miscellaneous Terran question-and-answer thread

Post by icekatze »

hi hi
Friedrich Wilhelm Nietzsche would disagree with you there.
He might, if he was alive, but he was also kind of crazy. But if people want to get really existential about it, there's plenty of reasons why one would not want to design the next generation from scratch.

Here are some rebuttals:
1. Each generation must coexist withe the previous for a period of time.
2. People like continuity, and don't generally consider themselves an entirely different person when they go to sleep and wake up again, even though they inevitably change over time.
3. But even if they did, each new generation/person benefits from the accumulated wealth of knowledge as pertains to the previous. Whereas starting from scratch would provide a deficit of applicable experience.
4. While it would be technically possible through science to negate the change in human evolution, no one is actually trying to do this. Evolution, as compared to revolution, is generally less violent.
5. No one chooses to create themselves. They are necessarily created by someone else who will inevitably have a different viewpoint on something.
6. There is no Objective, perfect, ideal form. The value of any changes will be judged not only be the people experiencing the changes, but also be based on the environment they are living in.
7. Nobody asked the dinosaurs if they wanted a giant rock to fall on them.

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

Re: Miscellaneous Terran question-and-answer thread

Post by Arioch »

HedAurabesh wrote:Starting from this realization, he asked himself: If the eventual result is the no-longer-human anyway, why not aim for the super-human?
This is kind of like saying, "You're going to die someday anyway, so why not just blow your own brains out now and get it over with?"

boldilocks
Posts: 669
Joined: Fri Jun 02, 2017 3:27 pm

Re: Miscellaneous Terran question-and-answer thread

Post by boldilocks »

Arioch wrote:
HedAurabesh wrote:Starting from this realization, he asked himself: If the eventual result is the no-longer-human anyway, why not aim for the super-human?
This is kind of like saying, "You're going to die someday anyway, so why not just blow your own brains out now and get it over with?"
Also, alligators and sharks are pretty similar today as to what they were 1 million years ago.

User avatar
GeoModder
Posts: 1038
Joined: Mon Mar 21, 2011 6:31 pm

Re: Miscellaneous Terran question-and-answer thread

Post by GeoModder »

boldilocks wrote:Also, alligators and sharks are pretty similar today as to what they were 1 million years ago.
The devil's always in the details.
Looking alike is a far cry from acting alike. Note the behavioural differences between wolves and dogs, including those species of dogs that still have a wolvish appearance.
Image

User avatar
Zorg56
Posts: 196
Joined: Thu Aug 30, 2018 10:59 am

Re: Miscellaneous Terran question-and-answer thread

Post by Zorg56 »

GeoModder wrote:
boldilocks wrote:Also, alligators and sharks are pretty similar today as to what they were 1 million years ago.
The devil's always in the details.
Looking alike is a far cry from acting alike. Note the behavioural differences between wolves and dogs, including those species of dogs that still have a wolvish appearance.
Nope, sharks and alligators just the same.

And not 1 million year, 37 million years for alligator and 150 millions of years for sharks.

User avatar
HedAurabesh
Posts: 13
Joined: Sun Jan 06, 2019 12:44 am

Re: Miscellaneous Terran question-and-answer thread

Post by HedAurabesh »

icekatze wrote:
Friedrich Wilhelm Nietzsche would disagree with you there.
He might, if he was alive, but he was also kind of crazy.
While he usually gets a worse reputation than he deserves, the truth is that he also was a child of his times. Plenty of things from back then sound crazy today.

Doesn't mean it was all wrong, though. Even a broken clock, etc. pp.

Just as me echoing his point, does not mean that I agree with them. ;)
icekatze wrote:Here are some rebuttals:
1. Each generation must coexist with the the previous for a period of time.
Yes, but that does not change their eventual fate, though. It actually makes the concern more pressing, since they are around to see their children either fail or succeed.

This drives people in one of two directions: Wanting their children to be the same as themselves, but also wanting to see them succeed, where they themselves failed.

The former tends to be stronger in already successful people, the latter tends to be stronger in less successful people. Either case alters what was the norm in the previous generation.
2. People like continuity, and don't generally consider themselves an entirely different person when they go to sleep and wake up again, even though they inevitably change over time.
3. But even if they did, each new generation/person benefits from the accumulated wealth of knowledge as pertains to the previous. Whereas starting from scratch would provide a deficit of applicable experience.
Nobody said the change has to be dramatic or even noticeable. Neither is it stated that the alteration starts from scratch.

Think of it like this: The super-human exceeds and supplants humanity in the same way that knowledge progresses: By standing on the shoulders of those that came before.

Stated like that, what is there to fear? (Barring unreasonable fears, which can't be helped, seeing that they are unreasonable.)
4. While it would be technically possible through science to negate the change in human evolution, no one is actually trying to do this. Evolution, as compared to revolution, is generally less violent.
5. No one chooses to create themselves. They are necessarily created by someone else who will inevitably have a different viewpoint on something.
6. There is no Objective, perfect, ideal form. The value of any changes will be judged not only be the people experiencing the changes, but also be based on the environment they are living in.
None of that argues a point Nietzsche made.

He neither proposed the change would be quick, singular, not related to humanity or created from scratch.
There is a reason why the phrasing is super-human. He acknowledges humanity as the starting point, but also as what has to be accepted as having to be eventually overcome.
7. Nobody asked the dinosaurs if they wanted a giant rock to fall on them.
That is precisely the point.

Given a vast, uncaring universe, stasis eventually means death.


To pick up another point raised in this thread: Sharks survived hundreds of millions of years with few modifications (mostly: size and adaptations to their food) -- but that alone does not guarantee their perpetual fitness to their environment.

When the sun boils off all the oceans in a few billion years, sharks will find their ecological niche --- untenable.

User avatar
HedAurabesh
Posts: 13
Joined: Sun Jan 06, 2019 12:44 am

Re: Miscellaneous Terran question-and-answer thread

Post by HedAurabesh »

Arioch wrote:
HedAurabesh wrote:Starting from this realization, he asked himself: If the eventual result is the no-longer-human anyway, why not aim for the super-human?
This is kind of like saying, "You're going to die someday anyway, so why not just blow your own brains out now and get it over with?"
Not quite.

It is more akin to asking: "If you are going to blow your brains out anyway, why not make sure that you do it properly?"

After all, wouldn't it be terribly inconvenient, if you only managed to blow out those parts that made you not soil your own pants all day? :P

User avatar
icekatze
Posts: 1399
Joined: Sat Mar 05, 2011 8:35 pm
Location: Middle of Nowhere
Contact:

Re: Miscellaneous Terran question-and-answer thread

Post by icekatze »

hi hi
HedAurabesh wrote:It is more akin to asking: "If you are going to blow your brains out anyway, why not make sure that you do it properly?"
I'm afraid your analogy has broken down. People aren't choosing to blow their own brains out.

Also again, "properly," in this context is subjective.

User avatar
SVlad
Posts: 305
Joined: Thu Aug 27, 2015 5:43 pm
Location: Saint-Petersburg, Russia

Re: Miscellaneous Terran question-and-answer thread

Post by SVlad »

HedAurabesh wrote:
Arioch wrote:
HedAurabesh wrote:Starting from this realization, he asked himself: If the eventual result is the no-longer-human anyway, why not aim for the super-human?
This is kind of like saying, "You're going to die someday anyway, so why not just blow your own brains out now and get it over with?"
It is more akin to asking: "If you are going to blow your brains out anyway, why not make sure that you do it properly?"
Stanisław Lem in his book Summa Technologiae summarized the problem into another question:
"Are you ready to adopt an AI?"
Outsider in Russian
Image

User avatar
icekatze
Posts: 1399
Joined: Sat Mar 05, 2011 8:35 pm
Location: Middle of Nowhere
Contact:

Re: Miscellaneous Terran question-and-answer thread

Post by icekatze »

hi hi

I'm not sure if that confuses the issue, since most people aren't ready to adopt regular human children. ;)

Post Reply