Low Berth vs Fast Drug

Discuss the Traveller RPG and its many settings
phavoc
Cosmic Mongoose
Posts: 4028
Joined: Tue Nov 04, 2008 6:13 pm

Re: Low Berth vs Fast Drug

Postby phavoc » Fri Nov 03, 2017 2:08 am

legozhodani wrote:
Thu Nov 02, 2017 9:29 pm
What about animals that naturally have 'slow' drug systems? Such as hibernating bears, brumnating lizards or amphibs' that survive on being frozen. There is a chemistry they are looking in to that may make it possible for us. I assume these creatures have a way around the metabolic problems.
They do. Hibernation requires a lowering of body temperature. Bears don't technically hibernate, they go into a deep sleep. There are some flaying animals that hibernate, and even fish. Fast drug simulates the same condition, but without the lowering of the body temperature (and you stay awake, which hibernating animals typically don't. I'm not sure if fish 'sleep' in the same manner as we are talking about here).
Condottiere
Chief Mongoose
Posts: 5514
Joined: Mon Sep 23, 2013 8:23 pm

Re: Low Berth vs Fast Drug

Postby Condottiere » Fri Nov 03, 2017 11:31 am

The point in Dumarest was that the fast drug allowed passengers to slow down the aging process and minimize the time experienced onboard ship; low berth was a way to cheaply recreate this.

In both instances, this would be a minimal draw on onboard resources.
Sigtrygg
Lesser Spotted Mongoose
Posts: 767
Joined: Sat Aug 12, 2006 9:23 am

Re: Low Berth vs Fast Drug

Postby Sigtrygg » Fri Nov 03, 2017 5:41 pm

phavoc wrote:
Fri Nov 03, 2017 2:08 am
They do. Hibernation requires a lowering of body temperature. Bears don't technically hibernate, they go into a deep sleep. There are some flaying animals that hibernate, and even fish. Fast drug simulates the same condition, but without the lowering of the body temperature (and you stay awake, which hibernating animals typically don't. I'm not sure if fish 'sleep' in the same manner as we are talking about here).
Actually the latest research is that bears do hibernate:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_ ... ibernation
tzunder
Stoat
Posts: 66
Joined: Sat Nov 18, 2006 11:16 am
Contact:

Re: Low Berth vs Fast Drug

Postby tzunder » Thu Nov 23, 2017 9:47 pm

Low berth death rates are simply silly.
They wouldn't exist, be allowed or use except in the most dire emergency.
So change the game rule and reduce the statistical chance of death.

Don't model the Universe on a silly dice rule..
Tom Zunder
Running: Traveller: Darrians
Playing: 13th Age, D&D 5e
Planning: RuneQuest and Blue Planet and Traveller and Doctor Who and Atlantis 2nd Age
http://gamingtavern.eu
Sigtrygg
Lesser Spotted Mongoose
Posts: 767
Joined: Sat Aug 12, 2006 9:23 am

Re: Low Berth vs Fast Drug

Postby Sigtrygg » Fri Nov 24, 2017 6:47 am

The cold berth death rate is taken directly from the Dumarest series and is a setting detail for the early OTU. If you don't like it don't use it, but it is there in the 3I setting.

As to how silly - ocean voyages used to be very dangerous, that didn't stop people from getting into ships and facing the Atlantic. Isn't there a celebration of some sort around now...
baithammer
Banded Mongoose
Posts: 366
Joined: Wed May 31, 2017 2:21 am

Re: Low Berth vs Fast Drug

Postby baithammer » Fri Nov 24, 2017 11:29 am

Not to mention current space travel is extremely hazardous.
phavoc
Cosmic Mongoose
Posts: 4028
Joined: Tue Nov 04, 2008 6:13 pm

Re: Low Berth vs Fast Drug

Postby phavoc » Fri Nov 24, 2017 4:25 pm

Sigtrygg wrote:
Fri Nov 24, 2017 6:47 am
The cold berth death rate is taken directly from the Dumarest series and is a setting detail for the early OTU. If you don't like it don't use it, but it is there in the 3I setting.

As to how silly - ocean voyages used to be very dangerous, that didn't stop people from getting into ships and facing the Atlantic. Isn't there a celebration of some sort around now...
As society has progressed technologically it has stopped accepting such a cavalier attitude towards safety. And people used to be owned by other people, but there's been a few wars and documents written on that. And not just slavery, but serfdom. We see it as silly today but it was a real thing ( and still is for millions).

If you accept drug testing rules for safety, and seat belts, and air traffic control, how is it silly to require high standards to avoid death by travelling?
baithammer
Banded Mongoose
Posts: 366
Joined: Wed May 31, 2017 2:21 am

Re: Low Berth vs Fast Drug

Postby baithammer » Sat Nov 25, 2017 12:27 am

And yet all the seat belts in the world don't stop the carnage of ground vehicle accidents. There is a balance between safety and utility, ie we need to be able to travel but we have to expect a certain degree of risk doing so.
phavoc
Cosmic Mongoose
Posts: 4028
Joined: Tue Nov 04, 2008 6:13 pm

Re: Low Berth vs Fast Drug

Postby phavoc » Sat Nov 25, 2017 1:48 pm

baithammer wrote:
Sat Nov 25, 2017 12:27 am
And yet all the seat belts in the world don't stop the carnage of ground vehicle accidents. There is a balance between safety and utility, ie we need to be able to travel but we have to expect a certain degree of risk doing so.
Nor do laws against driving while intoxicated, or flying while intoxicated. Nor do regulations stop ship owners from skimping on maintenance that cause shipwrecks, etc, etc, etc. I don't suppose you have looked into the amount of time and effort tbhat NASA put into safety for astronauts if you want to bring up risk vs safety. Even the Russians invested in safety, thought they where much more likely to avoid safety, but that was more because they didn't have the tech to do it.

Notice a pattern there? There are penalties associated with all of the above acts. The scenario you describe is just throwing your hands up because it's too hard, or costs money, or whatever to stop potentially bad things. That's not how society works over the long term. Look at public drunkenness laws around the world. They've been in place for a very long time in some places - and people still get drunk.

If people die with that sort of frequency because of the use of low berths because it's a cheap and acceptable way of travelling, then that would be a reverse of safety laws that originated in the modern age. Even countries where life is cheap have laws on the books again't overt dangers - not that people don't try to avoid the laws and still make a buck. But they are there and in most places there are attempts to at least reign in the more egregious practices. And death would be one of those things that would get regulated (as opposed to cake, unless there is a run on cake that was not expected, then death is acceptable to the inquisition ).
Sigtrygg
Lesser Spotted Mongoose
Posts: 767
Joined: Sat Aug 12, 2006 9:23 am

Re: Low Berth vs Fast Drug

Postby Sigtrygg » Sat Nov 25, 2017 1:55 pm

How many die trying to cross the med to get to Europe?
How many refugees have died crossing from Burma to Bangladesh.

People in the Dumarest/OTU that take a nap in coldberths - designed for transporting animals not humans in the novels - are the desperate willing to take the risk.

People on their nice democratic, rich, welfare state run planets who want for nothing either don't travel or pay the equivalent of a lifetime's wages of those desperate souls to travel in relative safety (there is still the risk of jump kraken after all)...
Linwood
Stoat
Posts: 63
Joined: Thu Jun 29, 2017 12:41 am

Re: Low Berth vs Fast Drug

Postby Linwood » Sat Nov 25, 2017 3:46 pm

There are two aspects that would come into a discussion of safety. One would center on the effects of the technology itself - does it work well with all species, does it have potentially harmful side effects, does damage to the body accumulate over time, etc. This is usually what people mean by safety.

The other part is reliability - does the equipment involved perform its intended function(s) time after time after time for the design life of the system. Governments tend to regulate safety more than reliability - they focus more on trying to ensure a design is safe rather than on ensuring it works for years and years. (Certain safety-related products - like elevators - are exceptions).

So you could have cold berth systems that are very safe - as designed they work equally well for everyone - but are not inherently reliable without calibrations, cleaning, preventive maintenance, etc. Or you may have systems that are so robust they rarely if ever have equipment or operator issues, but are not as accommodating to small differences in physiology or other factors. In the first case society would like mandate specific training operators, regular inspections and service intervals. In the second case society may have chosen to accept a degree of risk in the tech (which knowingly or not we do daily with surgery) but might require that the operator takes care to inform the prospective passenger of the risks, sign a release, or similar.
phavoc
Cosmic Mongoose
Posts: 4028
Joined: Tue Nov 04, 2008 6:13 pm

Re: Low Berth vs Fast Drug

Postby phavoc » Sat Nov 25, 2017 3:55 pm

Sigtrygg wrote:
Sat Nov 25, 2017 1:55 pm
How many die trying to cross the med to get to Europe?
How many refugees have died crossing from Burma to Bangladesh.

People in the Dumarest/OTU that take a nap in coldberths - designed for transporting animals not humans in the novels - are the desperate willing to take the risk.

People on their nice democratic, rich, welfare state run planets who want for nothing either don't travel or pay the equivalent of a lifetime's wages of those desperate souls to travel in relative safety (there is still the risk of jump kraken after all)...
How many people dies before antibiotics, or the concept of sterilization? We created those to save lives. As tech progresses safety gets added to it.

As to your assertion that people on high tech world's don't travel...umm, do you look at travel statistics at all? The Titanic sunk and changed safety at sea forever.

History says the reverse of what your postulate.
Sigtrygg
Lesser Spotted Mongoose
Posts: 767
Joined: Sat Aug 12, 2006 9:23 am

Re: Low Berth vs Fast Drug

Postby Sigtrygg » Sat Nov 25, 2017 4:17 pm

I think you are totally missing my point, perhaps it is too subtle. The health and safety police are not standing on the coast in Libya checking the seaworthiness of the inflatable bananas the desperate are trying to cross the med on. Despite all the healthcare available in the western world and all of our health and safety legislation a good proportion of the world's population today will risk life and limb for a better life and they face the risk of death - even Mexican illegal immigrants tot he US face the danger of being shot in the desert. The improvements to liner safety in the aftermath of the Titanic are not a concern for refugees on a raft...

Desperate people will take risks. Coldberth travel in the OTU is a risk taken by desperate people, you don't do it if you can work your passage or afford a middle passage. You could try being a stowaway but the penalty for that is worse than the lowberth %...
phavoc
Cosmic Mongoose
Posts: 4028
Joined: Tue Nov 04, 2008 6:13 pm

Re: Low Berth vs Fast Drug

Postby phavoc » Sat Nov 25, 2017 4:30 pm

Not missing your point at all. The people travelling in dinghies to get out of Africa are desperate. But you notice those that can afford it buy life jackets. And you'll notice all official passenger transports typically carry safety equipment. The exception being those places that have very lax laws, standards or corruption.

Unless you are trying to say the Imperium is like that. Which everything in canon says otherwise.

I reject your pointment because history does not support it. The instances you cite are times when that was the only tech available. When it came availabe it was usually adopted - though sometimes it took a great loss of life. And if you pay attention to warfare you will notice the industrialized nations don't like to incur troop losses like they used to.

My argument is against the cavalier nature that some are making to support the casual loss of life. Admittedly there are many modern examples of societies doing terribly stupid and shortsighted things when it comes to life. But travel safety is one of those things that nearly all societies do relatively well once they reach a certain point. History has repeatedly shown this to be true.
Sigtrygg
Lesser Spotted Mongoose
Posts: 767
Joined: Sat Aug 12, 2006 9:23 am

Re: Low Berth vs Fast Drug

Postby Sigtrygg » Sat Nov 25, 2017 5:12 pm

Canon says you run a risk of not waking up if you travel low...

Like I have said to others every time this comes up, if you want safe low berth in your TU then go ahead, but the OTU 3I has the risk of death. If you are desperate you may risk it. I don't think I have very had a character try it.
AnotherDilbert
Duck-Billed Mongoose
Posts: 2456
Joined: Wed Dec 23, 2015 2:49 pm
Location: Sweden

Re: Low Berth vs Fast Drug

Postby AnotherDilbert » Sat Nov 25, 2017 7:10 pm

It's not a question of technology, but of poverty.

Poor people routinely use unsafe transportation, e.g.:
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-braz ... SKCN1B4220


Normal people can't afford Mid Passage, so if they need to travel Low Passage it is...


In most editions after CT Low Passage is not all that dangerous, with a good doctor, medical facilities, and TL12+ low berth you can make the survival roll near automatic. With Medic +3, EDU +1, skill augmentation +1, computer +1, med bay +1, and TL +1 you get a total DM +8 for automatic success even with a negative patient END mod.
phavoc
Cosmic Mongoose
Posts: 4028
Joined: Tue Nov 04, 2008 6:13 pm

Re: Low Berth vs Fast Drug

Postby phavoc » Sat Nov 25, 2017 7:43 pm

Sigtrygg wrote:
Sat Nov 25, 2017 5:12 pm
Canon says you run a risk of not waking up if you travel low...

Like I have said to others every time this comes up, if you want safe low berth in your TU then go ahead, but the OTU 3I has the risk of death. If you are desperate you may risk it. I don't think I have very had a character try it.
Canon also said computers took up tons of space... and that changed when it was realized that mainframes-in-space was wrong. Other rules that don't well reflect modern times have changed as well.
AnotherDilbert wrote:
Sat Nov 25, 2017 7:10 pm
It's not a question of technology, but of poverty.

Poor people routinely use unsafe transportation, e.g.:
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-braz ... SKCN1B4220


Normal people can't afford Mid Passage, so if they need to travel Low Passage it is...


In most editions after CT Low Passage is not all that dangerous, with a good doctor, medical facilities, and TL12+ low berth you can make the survival roll near automatic. With Medic +3, EDU +1, skill augmentation +1, computer +1, med bay +1, and TL +1 you get a total DM +8 for automatic success even with a negative patient END mod.
Which should mean that revival of low berth pods would be overseen by medical personnel with quick access to emergency transport rather than some trader dude flipping a switch and seeing if he gets to keep all your stuff.

But, with that being said, poverty and travel has nothing to do with safety. People who couldn't afford mid passage on ocean liners took steerage transport and lived to tell the tale - well, on most trips anyways. People flying economy still get seat belts and flotation cushions - just like the people in first class. This was acknowledged up-thread - but there are limits. People dying from passage to high-tech worlds at Class A starports makes no sense. People dying transported by claptrap starships to low-tech, class E starports would fit within the paradigm that has been acknowledged and shared.

I have no issue with the idea of low passage. But the increased deadliness of this does not match what you should be expecting from a society that is on thousands of worlds.
AnotherDilbert
Duck-Billed Mongoose
Posts: 2456
Joined: Wed Dec 23, 2015 2:49 pm
Location: Sweden

Re: Low Berth vs Fast Drug

Postby AnotherDilbert » Sat Nov 25, 2017 8:59 pm

phavoc wrote: Which should mean that revival of low berth pods would be overseen by medical personnel with quick access to emergency transport rather than some trader dude flipping a switch and seeing if he gets to keep all your stuff.
Ships with low berths require medics, but I agree the average run-down free trader does not offer optimal conditions, but the starport might.

phavoc wrote: But, with that being said, poverty and travel has nothing to do with safety. People who couldn't afford mid passage on ocean liners took steerage transport and lived to tell the tale - well, on most trips anyways.
Survivors of the Titanic - Passengers
61% - the percentage of First Class passengers who survived.
42% - the percentage of Standard Class passengers who survived.
24% - the percentage of Third Class passengers who survived.
http://www.titanicfacts.net/titanic-survivors.html
Safety for lower class passengers were not much of a consideration...

In poor countries people use overloaded, unsafe ferries that capsize all the time. The technology to make the ferries safe is easily available, but not affordable. Granted, that does not mean a 10% risk of death...

Sweden has something like 3.5 deaths in traffic accidents per billion vehicle km, less safety conscious countries like the US double that (~7), and Brazil perhaps 55 [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_c ... death_rate]. So for each km driven you run a 15 times higher risk of dying in Brazil than in Sweden, despite the same technology available.
Sigtrygg
Lesser Spotted Mongoose
Posts: 767
Joined: Sat Aug 12, 2006 9:23 am

Re: Low Berth vs Fast Drug

Postby Sigtrygg » Sat Nov 25, 2017 10:13 pm

phavoc wrote:
Sat Nov 25, 2017 7:43 pm


Canon also said computers took up tons of space... and that changed when it was realized that mainframes-in-space was wrong. Other rules that don't well reflect modern times have changed as well.
I would argue that supercomputers would be needed to operate starships - running a multi gigawatt fusion power plant, controlling the environment (grav, temperature, atmosphere etc) while all the while running the avionics and flight controls, sensors, and being able to plot hyperdimensional n-body problems in real time, not to mention obtaining firing solutions on targets at light second ranges - not something you are going to do on an i-pad. Quantum computers are not small...


I have no issue with the idea of low passage. But the increased deadliness of this does not match what you should be expecting from a society that is on thousands of worlds.
There was an interesting discussion over at CotI before the board update wiped the last three days - the value of life in the Imperium.

The consensus view was that the Imperium places very little value on life.
phavoc
Cosmic Mongoose
Posts: 4028
Joined: Tue Nov 04, 2008 6:13 pm

Re: Low Berth vs Fast Drug

Postby phavoc » Sun Nov 26, 2017 12:14 am

AnotherDilbert wrote:
Sat Nov 25, 2017 8:59 pm
Survivors of the Titanic - Passengers
61% - the percentage of First Class passengers who survived.
42% - the percentage of Standard Class passengers who survived.
24% - the percentage of Third Class passengers who survived.
http://www.titanicfacts.net/titanic-survivors.html
Safety for lower class passengers were not much of a consideration...

In poor countries people use overloaded, unsafe ferries that capsize all the time. The technology to make the ferries safe is easily available, but not affordable. Granted, that does not mean a 10% risk of death...

Sweden has something like 3.5 deaths in traffic accidents per billion vehicle km, less safety conscious countries like the US double that (~7), and Brazil perhaps 55 [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_c ... death_rate]. So for each km driven you run a 15 times higher risk of dying in Brazil than in Sweden, despite the same technology available.
It was the sinking of the Titanic that caused the next major shift in passenger safety regulations:

1) After the Titanic disaster, recommendations were made by both the British and American Boards of Inquiry stating, in part, that ships would carry enough lifeboats for those aboard, mandated lifeboat drills would be implemented, lifeboat inspections would be conducted, etc. Many of these recommendations were incorporated into the International Convention for the Safety of Life at Sea passed in 1914.

2) Following the inquiries, United States government passed the Radio Act of 1912. This Act, along with the International Convention for the Safety of Life at Sea, stated that radio communications on passenger ships would be operated 24 hours along with a secondary power supply so as not to miss distress calls. Also, the Radio Act of 1912 required ships to maintain contact with vessels in their vicinity as well as coastal onshore radio stations.

3) The Titanic disaster led to the convening of the first International Convention for the Safety of Life at Sea (SOLAS) in London, on 12 November 1913. On 30 January 1914, a treaty was signed by the conference that resulted in the formation and international funding of the International Ice Patrol, an agency of the United States Coast Guard that to the present day monitors and reports on the location of North Atlantic Ocean icebergs that could pose a threat to transatlantic sea traffic.

4) Following the Titanic disaster, ships were refitted for increased safety. For example, the double bottoms of many existing ships, including the RMS Olympic, were extended up the sides of their hulls, their waterlines, to give them double hulls. Another refit that many ships underwent were changes to the height of the bulkheads. The bulkheads on Titanic extended 10 feet (3 m) above the water line. After the Titanic sank, the bulkheads on other ships were extended higher to make the compartments fully watertight.

Source - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Changes_i ... MS_Titanic

The disaster caused a change in the laws and regulations that enhanced safety. Which is the point I've been making. All of this cost money - a LOT of money. And yes, even the poor people benefited!

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Yahoo [Bot] and 14 guests