Humans and Sub breeds

[Twi'lekk_Den-keeper]

In my campaign, like most campaigns, Humans are the most populous. However, they were also the first to travell interstellar and thus are the most wide-spread. This has come to my attention because in many sci-fi books, the early colonists on a hostile planet have to just hang in there, and normally for a thousand years or more (due to the fact that early interstellar travel took forever). That normally means that they mutate, and are commonly almost a different species. Then the more advanced settlers come over and terraform and thats that. But this has lead me to want to create human "sub breeds." How different do you suppose I could make them? I read the heavy worlders thread, but I dissagree with the final word there and it has gone off topic.

 

[far-trader]

A thousand years is nowhere near enough time for any significant change. Not without some genetic engineering or seriously weird (magic) environmental pressures. So if you want it to be "natural" it's probably a unique event.

 

[rust]

Based on what theories are there about the Inuit and their adaptation
to the arctic environment, you will probably need a timeframe closer
to 10,000 years for any minor changes in human biology, and much
more time for major changes.

Besides, unless the colonists have somehow lost their technology, they
will use this technology to reduce the environmental pressures (think
of modern arctic research outposts instead of igloos ...), which would
make many adaptations implausible.

 

[EDG]

How different do you suppose I could make them? I read the heavy worlders thread, but I dissagree with the final word there

Genetic engineering is pretty much the only way you'll get radical change. See RPGs like Transhuman Space for loads of ideas on this.

 

[captainjack23]

How different do you suppose I could make them? I read the heavy worlders thread, but I dissagree with the final word there

Genetic engineering is pretty much the only way you'll get radical change. See RPGs like Transhuman Space for loads of ideas on this.

Agreed, but one has to remember that genetic engineering isn't all genome lab and gene splicing stuff; given a thousand years, one could potentially introduce some very significant changes into the human expression by ruthlessly applying very low tech animal husbandry techniques -on the level of showdog breeding, or even cattle, horses, etc.

And, for the low technobabble version of genetic engineering applied to humanity, read brave new world, and remember:
"It is good to be gamma, because to be gamma is good".

 

[TrippyHippy]

Certain environmental factors could increase the rate of gene mutation - which is a rare but natural occurance when the transcription or translation stages of gene replication 'slip' in error. If there was some sort of nuclear level disruption, you could accelerate the rate of this occurance. The problem is that this is not likely to lead to successful evolution - most mutant strains die out quickly, with malignant tumours and the like.

Behaviour patterns do shift comparitively quickly, as Captain Jack suggested too. Things like sheep flocking, rather than scattering as normal animals do, or staying still when rolled on their back are not natural behaviours, but have been conditioned into the species behavioural patterns. Humans too, can do wierd things with certain environmental or cultural pressures. What have been the effects of slavery on human behaviour, for the slaves and the masters? (as Hegel might ask).

Morever, within our own planet there is remarkable focus made upon even the smallest cultural or physical variation - notably on the issue of race - and yet genetically, the actual variation around the world is less than a percent.

I could imagine some significant changes to 'humanity', in the way which different cultures would regard it given a 1000 year timeframe. Whether that would constitute a new 'species' entirely, however, is debatable.

 

[EDG]

Agreed, but one has to remember that genetic engineering isn't all genome lab and gene splicing stuff; given a thousand years, one could potentially introduce some very significant changes into the human expression by ruthlessly applying very low tech animal husbandry techniques -on the level of showdog breeding, or even cattle, horses, etc.

Yeah, but I suspect that given the option (if they have the tech) people would opt more for genetic engineering. That way everyone gets to breed, not just the ones closest to having whatever traits are best for the environment (and everyone's offspring gets altered, and in the quickest time possible. Heck, if you're crazy enough you can make all the changes in a couple of generations).

 

[captainjack23]

Whether that would constitute a new 'species' entirely, however, is debatable.

Simple to determine - cross fertility.

As to the rest - yes, one of the first animals Humans domesticated was themselves. Quite a few genetic traits are extremely sensitive to environmental conditions -the change from wild to domesticated bone structure is an excellent example. In a less threatening environment, investing biological capital in heavy bone structure is a less efficient strategy. We have lots of traits that seem to be hardwired, but in fact are under more of a "slider" type of control -rather than an on/off switch.

 

[captainjack23]

Yeah, but I suspect that given the option (if they have the tech) people would opt more for genetic engineering. That way everyone gets to breed, not just the ones closest to having whatever traits are best for the environment (and everyone's offspring gets altered, and in the quickest time possible. Heck, if you're crazy enough you can make all the changes in a couple of generations).

Well, yes, but I did say ruthless husbandry - and one of the key elements is not letting the stock breed according to its whims; and the stock being manipulated is likely not in charge....

In any case, the point is that it can happen at quite low techs -and with a nasty genetic bottleneck one doesn't even need the ruthless authority to enforce it......

 

[EDG]

Well, yes, but I did say ruthless husbandry - and one of the key elements is not letting the stock breed according to its whims; and the stock being manipulated is likely not in charge....

In any case, the point is that it can happen at quite low techs -and with a nasty genetic bottleneck one doesn't even need the ruthless authority to enforce it......

Sure, but no amount of 'ruthless husbandry' is going to let a human breathe water (for an aquatic world) or have hand-like manipulators on the end of his legs (for a zero-g environment). You need genetic tinkering for that sort of thing.

And I'm assuming that in most cases, if humans are advanced enough to be in a starship over another world wondering how to adapt to its environment, then genetic engineering is going to be an option. And like I said, it's the quickest option by far.

I'd suspect the "ruthless husbandry" option will be viable only in exceptional circumstances and isn't likely to be stable in societal terms. I'm not disagreeing with you that it is an option though.

 

[captainjack23]

Sure, but no amount of 'ruthless husbandry' is going to let a human breathe water (for an aquatic world) or have hand-like manipulators on the end of his legs (for a zero-g environment). You need genetic tinkering for that sort of thing.

Gills, yes. As to the manipulators, they're called "feet".

One could go with Manopedic birth disorders and breed from there, plus, there is plenty of room in the human genome for simply having longer toes and shorter insoles, too, and increased dexterity is a practice effect in any case.
But yes. That was just a bad example you gave; gross physical changes as with gills won't be happening. Although breath holding, cold resistance, and swimming endurance and efficiency could all be enhanced quite a bit.

And I'm assuming that in most cases, if humans are advanced enough to be in a starship over another world wondering how to adapt to its environment, then genetic engineering is going to be an option. And like I said, it's the quickest option by far.

I'd suspect the "ruthless husbandry" option will be viable only in exceptional circumstances and isn't likely to be stable in societal terms. I'm not disagreeing with you that it is an option though.

Well, that is taking a specific situation on your part, also. Plus, I never said it would be common.

As to social stability, I'd have to have a more explanation of why you think that before I took that for granted. Slave owning and exploiting societies have been the norm for most of human history, and have often been very stable; I'm deeply sorry to point to our own antibellum south as an excellent, fairly highly developed example.

Add a basic idea of genetics to a lost world type scenario... there are lots of OTU ow tech planets that have the time to easily develop some kind of hideous breeding /eugenics program....both the Nazi Germans and The Stalinist Russians had human husbandry programs in place, and if either had a accurate idea of inheritance unpolluted by political dogma (and more time) they could well have succeeded. It need not take a thousand years - a dozen or so generations (birth to minimum breeding age type generations -for humans about 12 -14 years) would do the trick. So with 2-3 centuries of low tech but scientific eugenics one could see some serious results.

 

[Twi'lekk_Den-keeper]

The first sub-breed I made was the Khand- humans from a low-grav planet with a high density/tainted atmosphere that is a bit too close to the sun for comfort. My description: Taller than normal humans (low gravity). They also have unusual red skin (odd side effect of the heat/ taint) and have adapted to the unique mix of gases on their planet. Anywhere else they must wear a filter or suffer frequent blackouts (-2 end check). Change in stats: -1 Str +2 End

Comments?

 

[rust]

I think you would need a reason for the Khand-humans to be taller
than normal humans, because low-G alone would hardly be a suffi-
cient explanation.
Being taller (not only slimmer) would have to bring some advantage
under the local conditions, otherwise the additional growth would be
an unnecessary waste of resources.

 

[Twi'lekk_Den-keeper]

Long exposure to low grav= more distributed bone tissue= more hieght at expense of strength with no extra resources used? I meant it to be a handicap outside of the local enviroment.

 

[rust]

Long exposure to low grav= more distributed bone tissue= more hieght at expense of strength with no extra resources used?

I do not think so.

Unless the additional height would bring an advantage, the result of the
long-term adaptation would most probably be to create a body frame that
would be best suited for the survival of the human sub-species.

And since the heart has to work harder, and the stress on the joints in-
creases, with each additional centimeter of height, the disadvantages of
additional height would outweigh any tendency for additional growth cau-
sed initially by the low-G environment.

The entire concept of "adaptations" and "mutations" used in much of the
science fiction literature is based upon the (not always) scientific theo-
ries of the years around 1950. It became a traditional part of science fic-
tion, especially space opera, but it does not have much connection to the
current understanding of the human biology.

So, while it is absolutely okay to use this concept and introduce any mu-
tants you like into your setting, it is almost impossible to do so on a scien-
tific, plausible base.

In other words: Do it and have fun with it, but avoid to look for a rational
explanation.

 

[Twi'lekk_Den-keeper]

I like that answer.

And I already am making use of "ruthless husbandry" :twisted: :lol:

 

[captainjack23]

Long exposure to low grav= more distributed bone tissue= more hieght at expense of strength with no extra resources used?

I do not think so.

Unless the additional height would bring an advantage, the result of the
long-term adaptation would most probably be to create a body frame that
would be best suited for the survival of the human sub-species.

And since the heart has to work harder, and the stress on the joints in-
creases, with each additional centimeter of height, the disadvantages of
additional height would outweigh any tendency for additional growth cau-
sed initially by the low-G environment.

The entire concept of "adaptations" and "mutations" used in much of the
science fiction literature is based upon the (not always) scientific theo-
ries of the years around 1950. It became a traditional part of science fic-
tion, especially space opera, but it does not have much connection to the
current understanding of the human biology.

So, while it is absolutely okay to use this concept and introduce any mu-
tants you like into your setting, it is almost impossible to do so on a scien-
tific, plausible base.

In other words: Do it and have fun with it, but avoid to look for a rational
explanation.

Great observation - I never thought about how much the whole eugenics and scientific Lamarkianism influenced early sci fi, but it goes a way to explain quite a few SF tropes.

Some points to add: keep an eye out on over-assuming that any change has to be beneficial to be maintained - or even expressed. Population drift & isolation can set up a situation where the genetic diversity isn't sufficient to make optimal adaptation. Most alterations are maintained by being effectively neutral , but seem to provide the grist for later adaptations when things do change. Also, an organism does have the ability to compensate for some deficits. Max Human size range currently expresses at over 7', but doesn't show notable Cardio deficits for the heights around 7' at least; taller people have proportionally stronger and larger hearts at adulthood as a result of the constant need to pump blood further.


As to the effect of low grav, the argument has been made that the growth rate of bones would be deregulated, and likely to grow longer than in a standard grav environment, even if calcium uptake is lowered (perhaps - micro g may not be comparable to low G) ; the increase in stress of the heart is probably overassumed here - it is probably not all that great for a few inches or even a foot increase , and the expressed system can compensate for the difference to a point, as noted above.

So, to sum up, I think that the effect would effectively increase the height as long as the increase in heart stress is minimal...which would probably mean that the population average would move significantly towards the current maximum, and possibly a bit beyond.


Additionally, I note that the low grav planet described is potentially hot - and a tall body frame does provide a greater surface area for heat management; equatorial Africa has prompted similar adaptations (perhaps)....but then again, it also has dwarfism regularly expressed in another population. so, again, YMMV.

 

[Tathlum]

So basically, both threads are saying that although both types of environment, common sense would suggest a change in body types. However the degree of change is limited by the effects on a large range of biological systems, that can only take so much strain. What the heart, bloodsystem, lungs etc acts as a hard limit that the environment cannot force past without severely damaging the Human, who will, as a result, be less succesful. So while average members may lean one way or another, individuals wont be forced past what the Human structure can take?

 

[Twi'lekk_Den-keeper]

Tathlum- correct, although the limits of the human body can change over time due to adaption.
Also, on another foot entirely, in my campaign their is an incredibly powerful orginization called the Merchant's guild, the members of which are all bloody rich large buisiness order with SOC 11 or more. They also have a love for genetic and cybernetic modification. I would like to allow chars who want to be a dilettante to be members of the guild through birth rights. This would open the door to chars who can limitlessly perfect their stats. How could I level it, gameplay-wise? Maybe the extra mods need more attention? Or make the chars suseptable to some sort of virius or disease?

 

[captainjack23]

You know, looking back at some old threads for inspiration, I see that this one seems to have missed the most likely cause of a expressed change: small intitial population as mediated by the local environment.

Pitcarn's island has a huge overrepresentation of a very rare blood type - because one of the couple of dozen original settlers had this bloodtype purely by chance. Now, this made no particular difference in survival, so its increased expression is simply the result of the initial percentage of genes being high - thus the probabibilty that it will be expressed in the next generation (or the second if it is purely recessive) goes up.

Now, suppose that that bloodtype gave some survival or other reproductive advantage - we may well see all the population expressing it, or at least being recessive for the trait.

Now, a low grav world settled by a small group in which one member is recessive for, say, acromegaly. One could posit that the lifetime increase in bone growth would be enhanced by the lack of gravity effects on circulation, and might lead to some really unusually tall examples - well beyond the normal potential for the general population. Add in even a small survival advantage (such as heat dispersion) and one could potentially see a very rapid structural change in the descendants.

It's of interest that a fairly small positive bias in any probability based system can produce very unexpected (or distinct) outcomes much more quickly than most people are aware - if you doubt this, try playing Roulette with a wheel with three zeros instead of two. Be sure and take a barrel to wear on your long walk home afterwards....