Random Questions Thread

Is there such a thing a pre-survivors guilt? Knowing that you will survive something that others will not, but being unable to save them yourself?

edited 29th Jan '14 4:25:25 AM by MCE

That seems unlikely to occur in the real world because how would you know that? Also, something that hasnt happened yet seems unlikely to have the same visceral impact as something you personally witness. But there are settings where this might be a thing- pre-cognition might result in this, for example.

Is it possible for an adult character to retain faint freckles from when they were younger?

Yeah, they'd usually show after spending some time in the sun.

Unless you're one of those really freckly people, then they're always there.

Would it be plausible to attempt justifying an intelligent race becoming a Planet of Hats in the distant future via cultural globalization?

From the perspective of someone not from that planet, that's actually quite likely. People actually from there, however, will likely be aware of subtle differences among themselves which really matter to them.

Right. Would the over-arching culture be appropiately called a "meta-culture" that is shared by most if not all of the planet/species' myriad regional/ethnic-specific cultures, in this case? Or would "macro-culture" be a better choice?

edited 29th Jan '14 10:18:50 AM by MarqFJA

Macro.

Picture this, you are protected environment, be it an armoured car or forcefield bubble. In the distance you can see a wave of destruction, smashing up everything in its path. Having experienced something like this before you know your protection can stand it. But you are on a street full of people who have no where to go, no time to run and you cannot offer them any help.

This is the feeling I'm talking about, the feeling before survivors guild, you realisation that your going to have to watch them die.

I think that would be closer to fear or terror, but I see where you're going with it. Guilt seems too nuanced for a situation like that.

It's not.

@Demarquis: What would qualify as "metaculture", then?

On a different note, what could possibly drive the evolutionary direction of an isolated human population to the point where females become the physically dominant sex with large and strong amazonian bodies, and males become the "fair sex" with physically weak and small bodies? (That qualifies as Bizarre Sexual Dimorphism from the POV of modern humans, right?)

Based on evolutionary theory: The point where males expend more energy and resources on the upkeep of the offspring. Generally, I would expect that to happen in a Mr. Seahorse scenario.

But then a Mister Seahorse situation doesn't seem to have a possibility of naturally developing in the course of evolution from hominid stock, does it?

edited 29th Jan '14 3:58:36 PM by MarqFJA

There's a lot of species where the females are bigger and stronger. It's not that implausible.

I know. I'm just trying to think of ways where an ancient human population could naturally develop this way while still starting off from the same state as normal humans — males are bigger and stronger, females are smaller and weaker. And for the record, most cases that I know of animal species where females are the physically dominant sex also has them as the ones who do most if not all caring and nurturing of the offspring.

How about the following scenario: A natural form of limited gendercide — perhaps a combination of one disastrous war with a rival population and an outbreak of a lethal endemic that almost exclusively targets males — having afflicted the population at some point in that greatly diminishes the population's male membership, forcing the females to take up the slack. Over time, and due to the persistence of the aforementioned pathogen, the female majority more or less force the male minority to retire from all dangerously risky tasks like waging war or hunting dangerous animals, lest the population is driven to extinction. Does that seem like a plausible start for the evolution of this natural Amazon race?

PS: When I say "weak", I do not in fact preclude the possibility of having an aptitude for nimble speed and the like.

edited 29th Jan '14 4:01:33 PM by MarqFJA

I would assume that it isnt completely impossible, since female dominance had to evolve at some point, probably from a male dominant species (since those are more common). The question is what set of circumstances might lead to this. To my knowledge, there is no commonly accepted theory in evolutionary biology that explains what those circumstances are. Presumably it would have something to do with overt competition between females of the same species (ie, for some reason females are forced to fight each other for scarce resources, but males aren't so much).

In a Mr. Seahorse scenario, newborns are handed over to the males, presumably so that the females can recover from childbirth more quickly (and return to confrontational activities). The only scenario I can think of where this makes sense is of food is so scarce that female relatives hoard it for themselves (sharing only with sisters and daughters) while the males have adapted to low caloric intake by becoming smaller and less aggressive. Non-related females would engage in aggressive activities, like raiding each other, to maximize their hoard of resources, thus they are selected for size and aggression.

Hope that helps.

Yeah, that last scenario does help, especially if combined with my above scenario.

... Said above scenario does work, right?

Sounds ok, although you dont have to target the males, specifically. Starvation conditions will do that for you.

Why is that in space "up" and "down" are only considered "relative" and "meaningless" but inside and atmosphere or planetoid up and down have meaning?

Inside a gravity well, there's a clear sense of "down" in that gravity plays a rather major influence on...well, everything. In space, the lack of gravity makes that particular directional reference—i.e., "gravity pulls this way"—less useful.

Well, stuff like star systems and galaxies are generaly quite flat/disk-shaped. Just like how we have decided that north is up on maps, it's possible to decide that one side of a disk (starsystem) is up/down. The invariable plane is 0°, +90°/-90° is up/down (or down/up).

Video explaining the disk thingy:

edited 30th Jan '14 12:46:03 PM by m8e

Oh, it'd be logical to have "down" point toward the local star, or toward the centre of the galaxy, or a lot of things. The problem is, it's not as immediate. "Down" on Earth is easily detectable. But when you're several AU out from the primary in a star system, it's a bit harder to tell.

Okay, so which way is down on the solar system? Solar north? Solar south? Magnetic fields flip, you know.

Disc shape doesn't solve anything about reference points, really.

edited 30th Jan '14 12:49:16 PM by Night

Magnetic fields have nothing to to with this.

Right hand rule on the invariable plane in the orbital direction.

is up.

edited 30th Jan '14 1:38:59 PM by m8e