dml@loral.UUCP (02/13/87)
In article <1170@husc2.UUCP> chiaraviglio@husc2.UUCP (lucius) writes: >In article <305@netxcom.UUCP>, ewiles@netxcom.UUCP (Edwin Wiles) writes: >> In article <1151@husc2.UUCP> chiaraviglio@husc2.UUCP (lucius) writes: >>> In the Giants trilogy, James P. Hogan postulates (among other things) >>>a world where predators do not exist (except in the deep ocean). I'll skip >>>his theory of how evolution could work out to forbid predation But that's the whole point! The factor that prevents predation also prevents ANY form of aggression. >>> ... something more clear-cut: he says that in the absence of >>>predation, aggression will not exist. This has been shown to be false: some >>>herbivores are among the meanest creatures around. That's not what he says a-tall. Listen very carefully: James P. Hogan postulates a physical, anatomical rationale for the absence of aggression in Minervan animals. Terrestrial animals rely on the primary circulatory system (bloodstream) to dispose of metabolic wastes. Hogan's Minervan animals evolved a secondary circulatory system for this purpose. Since the contents of this secondary system were toxic, no predator could survive an attempt to make a meal of any animal having this system. Over millions of years, the contents of this waste-disposal system became more and more concentrated. Predatory species, which had barely gotten started anyway, vanished entirely. The secondary system also inhibited non-predatory aggression. Any injury, however slight, carried a major risk of contaminating the primary circulatory system with concentrated wastes. Physical aggression was selected out, since even minor injuries would kill BOTH parties. Bone and horn guard plates were formed over joints and other vulnerable areas to minimize the chances of accidental injury. Now I, with my background in this dog-eat-dog (see how thoroughly it colors our outlook?) world of predators and aggressors, can't see any way for these critters to resolve the problem of there's-resources-for-N-animals-and-N+5- animals-want-to-use-them, but that may be more a matter of limited vision than fundamental impossibility. Anybody have ideas? Remember, physical violence is Right Out. ------------------------------- Dave Lewis Loral Instrumentation San Diego hp-sdd --\ ihnp4 --\ sdcrdcf --\ bang --\ kontron -\ csndvax ---\ calmasd -->-->!crash --\ celerity --->------->!sdcsvax!sdcc3 --->--->!loral!dml (uucp) dcdwest ---/ gould9 --/ "You're mad!" "Am I? I've handed the power of life and death back to the people who do the living and dying." -------------------------------
srt@ucla-cs.UUCP (02/16/87)
In article <1371@loral.UUCP> dml@loral.UUCP (Dave Lewis) writes: >I can't see any way for these >critters to resolve the problem of there's-resources-for-N-animals-and-N+5- >animals-want-to-use-them, but that may be more a matter of limited vision >than fundamental impossibility. Anybody have ideas? Remember, physical >violence is Right Out. Not necessarily. I haven't read the Hogan books, but suppose you have two tribes of creatures competing. Tribe A sends a kamikaze into Tribe B. He runs around, kicking, fighting, biting, etc., trying to do as many death-dealing injuries as possible before he dies. If he can trade even 2 for 1 it works out. Keep in mind that the physical changes Hogan postulates would no doubt result in a different psychology that might well make this reasonable. Scott R. Turner ARPA: srt@ucla UUCP: ...!{cepu,ihnp4,trwspp,ucbvax}!ucla-cs!srt DRAGNET: ...!{channing,streisand,joe-friday}!srt@dragnet-relay.arpa
chm@aber-cs.UUCP (02/16/87)
In article <1371@loral.UUCP> dml@loral.UUCP (Dave Lewis) writes: >I can't see any way for these >critters to resolve the problem of there's-resources-for-N-animals-and-N+5- >animals-want-to-use-them How about: the smartest N critters do the best at collecting & hiding food; they all probably go a little hungry till the 5 weakest die of starvation or disease. Corinne Morris
allbery@ncoast.UUCP (02/20/87)
As quoted from <1371@loral.UUCP> by dml@loral.UUCP (Dave Lewis): +--------------- | Now I, with my background in this dog-eat-dog (see how thoroughly it colors | our outlook?) world of predators and aggressors, can't see any way for these | critters to resolve the problem of there's-resources-for-N-animals-and-N+5- | animals-want-to-use-them, but that may be more a matter of limited vision | than fundamental impossibility. Anybody have ideas? Remember, physical | violence is Right Out. +--------------- If they're intelligent, it's simple: throw rocks. That's not physical violence? BTW, this has problems. I bet the Minervan critters have *lots* of odd illnesses which focus on the secondary nervous system. (1) They're liable to be susceptible to anabolic bacteria. (2) Imagine a bacterium which cuts off the secondary circulation system. (3) (a) Cardiac arrest in the heart which pumps the secondary system, or (b) cramps in the muscles which pump it by peristalsis. My point is that there's more to go wrong in this system than in ours. -- ++Brandon (Resident Elf @ ncoast.UUCP) ____ ______________ / \ / __ __ __ \ Brandon S. Allbery <backbone>!ncoast!allbery ___ | /__> / \ / \ aXcess Co., Consulting ncoast!allbery@Case.CSNET / \ | | `--, `--, 6615 Center St. #A1-105 (...@relay.CS.NET) | | \__/ \__/ \__/ Mentor, OH 44060-4101 \____/ \______________/ +1 216 974 9210
chiaraviglio@husc2.UUCP (02/20/87)
In article <1371@loral.UUCP>, dml@loral.UUCP (Dave Lewis) writes: > In article <1170@husc2.UUCP> chiaraviglio@husc2.UUCP (lucius) writes: > >In article <305@netxcom.UUCP>, ewiles@netxcom.UUCP (Edwin Wiles) writes: > >> In article <1151@husc2.UUCP> chiaraviglio@husc2.UUCP (lucius) writes: > >>> In the Giants trilogy, James P. Hogan postulates (among other things) > >>>a world where predators do not exist (except in the deep ocean). I'll skip > >>>his theory of how evolution could work out to forbid predation > > But that's the whole point! The factor that prevents predation also prevents > ANY form of aggression. Not ANY form of aggression. See below. > That's not what he says a-tall. Listen very carefully: > > James P. Hogan postulates a physical, anatomical rationale for the > absence of aggression in Minervan animals. Terrestrial animals rely on the > primary circulatory system (bloodstream) to dispose of metabolic wastes. > Hogan's Minervan animals evolved a secondary circulatory system for this > purpose. Since the contents of this secondary system were toxic, no predator > could survive an attempt to make a meal of any animal having this system. > Over millions of years, the contents of this waste-disposal system became > more and more concentrated. Predatory species, which had barely gotten > started anyway, vanished entirely. > > The secondary system also inhibited non-predatory aggression. Any injury, > however slight, carried a major risk of contaminating the primary circulatory > system with concentrated wastes. Physical aggression was selected out, since > even minor injuries would kill BOTH parties. Bone and horn guard plates were > formed over joints and other vulnerable areas to minimize the chances of > accidental injury. While this rules out hand-to-hand (or the equivalent) combat, it does not do ANYTHING to rule out aggression by means of projectile weapons (no chance of the aggressor injuring itself by making such an attack, although normal chances of the aggressor being injured by return fire from the victim) or treachery (put poison in competitor's food, release poison gas when upwind of a victim, arrange for the victim to have an accident, etc.; no more risky to aggressor than projectile combat). > Now I, with my background in this dog-eat-dog (see how thoroughly it colors > our outlook?) world of predators and aggressors, can't see any way for these > critters to resolve the problem of there's-resources-for-N-animals-and-N+5- > animals-want-to-use-them, but that may be more a matter of limited vision > than fundamental impossibility. Anybody have ideas? Remember, physical > violence is Right Out. Well, cooperation and self-imposed limits on reproduction are possible, but it seems that as long as aggression is possible most life-forms will develop it. I will admit that Hogan's model of Minervan life makes aggression more difficult, but not impossible. -- -- Lucius Chiaraviglio lucius@tardis.harvard.edu seismo!tardis.harvard.edu!lucius Please do not mail replies to me on husc2 (disk quota problems, and mail out of this system is unreliable). Please send only to the address given above.
gallagher@husc4.UUCP (03/02/87)
>> >>> In the Giants trilogy, James P. Hogan postulates (among other things) >> >>>a world where predators do not exist (except in the deep ocean). I'll skip >> >>>his theory of how evolution could work out to forbid predation I haven't read the Giants trilogy, but one point which I think is relevant to your discussion is the high correlation between certain biological characteristics and the predatory lifestyle (in arthropods, cephalopods, and vertebrates). In particular, some biologists propose as an adaptive scenario for the origin of the Vertebrates the shift to active predation: "The earliest structures considered to be vertebrate probably developed during the time of the shift from filter-feeding to more active predation. This mode of life permitted and demanded greater metabolic expenditures at the cellular level, as well as a shift to improved gas exchange and distribution. Predation also provided the selection pressure for the development of major sense organs." (Northcutt, R.G. and C. Gans, The Genesis of the Neural Crest and Epidermal Placodes: A Reinterpretation of Vertebrate Origins, The Quarterly Review of Biology (1983) 58:1-28. Of course, scavengers and herbivores evolved secondarily. Northcutt and Gans may be wrong, but if they are right, it seems that fast-moving organisms with complex and efficient circulatory, digestive, and nervous systems and special sense organs would not evolve among organsims where predation on other animals is impossible. Paul Gallagher