Newsgroups: rec.games.frp

v054p8yx@ubvmsb.cc.buffalo.edu (Daniel J Kowalski) writes:

> In article <1992Mar30.013603.12616@watdragon.waterloo.edu>, 
> 	jdnicoll@watyew.uwaterloo.ca (James Davis Nicoll) writes...
>>In article <204090@unix.cis.pitt.edu> seawasp+@pitt.edu (Ryk E Spoor) writes:
>>>
>>>	As a long term reader of SF and a long term gamer, this is the
>>>attitude I most DISAGREE with in the SF  genre.
[...]
>>	Ah, but the excellent jest might be that the reproduction of that
>>particular species only occurs after conditions become hostile; otherwise
[...]
>the plants germinate upon exposure to great amounts of heat (some sort of shell
>which is cracked or something) the heat is most often associated with forest
>fires, these same fires destroy large amounts the forest thus allowing sunlight
>to reach the earth where these seeds are germinating. without this destruction
>the germinating plant would have no sunlight and thus no chance of survival
>this "behavior" would only occur in a very crowded environment ie. there is
>little chance of the offspring suviving without massive wholesale death of 
>the current population. and intelligent race would imho(and authorities
>on such subjects will (hopefully (ie. i recall they do but i can not prove 
>it)tend to back me up) eliminate such competion (or _most_ living things would
>for that matter (survival of the fittest)) 

  You are partially correct.  If you study the plants that require this type
of life cycle you will note that healthy specimens are nearly immune to the
type of fire that starts the germination cycle.  Using the Redwoods as the 
example, the bark is not very susceptable to fire.  The requirement for 
great heat to open the cones clears out the understory, or the shrub growth.
This understory is what will prevent the sunlight and cause competition for
the young whose leaves have not reached high enough to get to the open sun-
light.  So you see, the act of fire only destroys the unhealthy specimens, 
and the COMPETING plant life, not the species itself.
 
> a race which must be mostly eliminated to reproduce would not likely become
> intelligent, as the knowledge could not readilly be passed on (yeah write it 
> down, but if you're dead who will teach the kiddies to read?)
> if this was a viable way of life the the great pines would be the most 
> intelligent creatures on this planet as it is we who live well into the lives
> of our offspring use said pines to sit upon, heat our environment, store 
> information(paper)etc.

  Who's to say that they are not?
 
> the plants in question evolved that way because the environment was so 
> competitive that intelligence was to long term a propositon to be viable
> one would assume that this could be considered an evolutionary law:
>  "if competion is to fierce, intelligence will not develop"
> and would apply everywhere
> defining "to fierce" is then the question, if large portions of the 
> population must be destroyed to ensure suvival (were talking same race here)
> then imho it is "to fierce"!

  Define "to fierce"[sic].  Early life on this planet was MOST uncomfortable
to all life forms.  There was intense competition, some biologists theorize 
that this hostile environment was PRECISELY what promoted intelligence!  Man
is not well optomized to his environment, his intelligence is the deciding
factor.

>>	I can imagine a nice race of ETs who hold incredibly destructive
>>'wars' on regular basis. Perfectly pleasant people but the kids don't 
[...]
>>kids, whatever portions of our social behavior that are dependent on how 
>>we reproduce would be different for ETs.
> 
> but is not that fair chunk what in fact caused us to become an intelligent
> race? there are rules to evolution, you may not know them, i couldnt tell
[...]
> it is my belief that you can not get to far from human culture and still 
> have the proper conditions for developing intelligence
 
  That is a very humanocentric point of view, and as we have encountered no
other intelligent life forms (any life forms at all for that matter), there is
currently no way to know.

> >>	Intelligence will share a lot of hallmarks no matter WHERE it goes.
[...]
> >>likely, and so on and so forth.
> >>
> >>	They may LOOK strange, but I doubt that they will  THINK so
> >>strangely.

  That is an unjustified conclusion based upon an inadequate sample of one.

> >	I expect ETs will think rather strangely, if the context they
> >							James Nicoll 
> 
> but as i have already repeated repeated myself can intelligence evolve
> in very different ways?
> 		dan 

DLC
Organization: Carnegie Mellon, Pittsburgh, PA