Who will the AIs get to save the aliens from the humans?
The culture the humans are creating is similar to the ancient Spartans and the best the aliens could hope for from them is to be taken as helots.
They left 70 percent of humanity to die, out of laziness and indifference, and the survivors knowing this have no reason for generosity.
The way the universe was set up allows for it to go on without end. However, I would think if it were going to end, it would be the original creator that should do so.
Like Remus2 stated, the universe was set up to go on without end so the problem of 'what after defeat' will never occur. IF there is a need for such stories it should be in a separate universe but I doubt it will generate as much stories as the original universe has done (and still does). It could be interesting though because there are many different worlds and setups where a "rebuild society" story can originate from with different levels of available technology and AI's that are either absent, cooperative, or disruptive.
Have you not read https://storiesonline.net/s/61914/operation-triskelion by https://storiesonline.net/a/Duke_of_Ramus ? It was posted almost exactly 10 years ago.
Have you not read https://storiesonline.net/s/61914/operation-triskelion by https://storiesonline.net/a/Duke_of_Ramus ? It was posted almost exactly 10 years ago.
On one of the Swarm wiki pages there's a section about what's canon and what isn't and I think in the isn't you can find another story that is a different author also ending the conflict.
I see I'm replaying to an old post so maybe that was written after this post.
The general notion I got from going through all of that is that any story that 'moves the clock forward' on the conflict is non-canon because it will mess up what other writers want to do.
Who will the AIs get to save the aliens from the humans?
Why presume the AI's get to make a decision. If the ultra peaceful aliens have any sense they will cut the AI's involved loose along with the humans.
They left 70 percent of humanity to die, out of laziness and indifference, and the survivors knowing this have no reason for generosity.
I don't recall the reasons being laziness or indifference. In most stories that mention it the reasons are more practical considerations of time and capacity, both transport and rehoming.
The culture the humans are creating is similar to the ancient Spartans
Obviously it depends upon which author/story you read as to how exactly the new culture develops and to what extent humans have control of the design. But few even get close to the '300', their culture, values, or eventual demise.
The basic premise of the CAP system and chosen 'slaves' always reminds me of the idea promoted to certain terrorists that those they kill will serve them in paradise, the nett result being that if successful, the population of paradise would consist of a far larger number of 'unbelievers' than those professing to be devout.
If the intent is to select those most worthy, or most suited to continuing life in space, then only those with a high enough CAP would be taken, makes much more sense, but lacks the Master/slave dynamic of a sex story. Of course most stories don't actually go into the D/s dynamic and stick with what is closer to bully/victim. Admittedly this mostly serves to demonstrate how undeserving the bully is of being chosen, which begs the question as to exactly how accurate the CAP scoring system really is.
Whilst TH wrote the story that sparked the whole universe, it is a pity that it was not planned, since that would have allowed a great deal more thought to have been put into a more realistic, not to mention believable CAP system etc.
..., which begs the question as to exactly how accurate the CAP scoring system really is.
There are several stories that question the accuracy of the CAP system en even use those inaccuracies and inconsistencies as a thread line for a scene or even the whole story.
If the intent is to select those most worthy, or most suited to continuing life in space, then only those with a high enough CAP would be taken
The intent is to select those most capable of fighting a war that might be hopeless. Aggression is a key factor.
then only those with a high enough CAP would be taken, makes much more sense
If you understood the stories at all, that would not make as much sense as you think.
Within the Swarm universe, we are fighting a war against a foe that vastly outnumbers us. The Confederation aliens need the humans rescued from Earth to be reproducing as rapidly as possible. This is why the whole concubine thing.
The intent is to select those most capable of fighting a war that might be hopeless. Aggression is a key factor.
According to TH. "CAP stood for Capacity, Aptitude and Potential -- basically, a measure of an individual's worth to the gene pool."
The Confederation aliens need the humans rescued from Earth to be reproducing as rapidly as possible.
If that statement is true, then there would be a far higher number of women both per male and in terms of total population. Given that a male produces sperm daily and a human baby requires nine months gestation, simple maths proves that allocating two women per male does NOT "reproduce rapidly".
If that statement is true, then there would be a far higher number of women both per male and in terms of total population. Given that a male produces sperm fail;y and a human baby requires nine moths gestation, simple maths proves that allocating two women per male does NOT "reproduce rapidly".
You are looking at the wrong math. You need to be looking at population dynamics, not how long it takes 1 woman to produce 1 baby.
Confederacy medicine would allow each woman to put out a baby every 12 to 18 months indefinitely. What would be considered long term safe for the woman under modern real world medicine would be 1 baby every 24-36 months. and there are more limited child bearing years.
Then those offspring reproducing starting at age 14.
1 man + 2 women yield 18-28 offspring in 14 years now calculate the exponential effects when those offspring start reproducing at 14.
Confederacy medicine would allow each woman to put out a baby every 12 to 18 months indefinitely.
Can you actually quote a swarm story that includes that?
Can you actually quote a swarm story that includes that?
Well there are a number of stories that mention that the Confederacy med tubes can put a woman back to the shape she was in before pregnancy within hours of delivery. Others that have women who are in the process of menopause but still technically fertile being rolled back to prime fertility.
There are one or two life in the colonies stories covering breading colonies that go into the population dynamics issues, but I don't recall which ones off the top of my head.
Also, it's not just two women higher cap scores get more concubines and several stories with pickups going to breading colonies give all sponsors at least one extra supernumary concubine with the condition that the extra is a mother with dependent age children (a proven breeder).
Well there are a number of stories that mention that the Confederacy med tubes can put a woman back to the shape she was in before pregnancy within hours of delivery. Others that have women who are in the process of menopause but still technically fertile being rolled back to prime fertility.
IIRC, both of these get mentioned in The Academy, which is one of TH's own stories.
https://storiesonline.net/s/62434/the-academy
ALSO, the actual life expectancy is extended by 50%. This includes the period of female fertility. So a woman can have her time of fertility (lets say roughly from 14 to 43, thus 30 years) bumped up to 45 years. 1.5 years per kid gives 30 kids per female concubine, (assuming they were picked up at age 14-.
Well there are a number of stories that mention that the Confederacy med tubes can put a woman back to the shape she was in before pregnancy within hours of delivery. Others that have women who are in the process of menopause but still technically fertile being rolled back to prime fertility.
Neither of those issue address your invention of "Confederacy medicine would allow each woman to put out a baby every 12 to 18 months indefinitely."
The Confederation aliens need the humans rescued from Earth to be reproducing as rapidly as possible. This is why the whole concubine thing.
As previously stated, the swarm model utterly fails if the desire is too reproduce as rapidly as possible.
It might surprise you, but the truth is that a woman does NOT have to be a concubine to become pregnant.
It might surprise you, but the truth is that a woman does NOT have to be a concubine to become pregnant.
This is true, but per specs of the Universe, relatively few women make the cut to be sponsors., Female sponsors face combat duties which place restrictions on frequency of pregnancies.
Neither of those issue address your invention of "Confederacy medicine would allow each woman to put out a baby every 12 to 18 months indefinitely."
Yes, kind of it does. In the real world, too frequent/ too close together pregnancies can damage the mother's health/reproductive system. Confederation medical technology as described in the Swarm universe stories can fix any such issues that arise in a matter of hours. The can stop/rollback menopause in progress, in fact things said in The Academy by the AIs indicate it would be possible to reverse completed menopause, but that this is considered unethical. This vastly increases the number of potential child bearing years.
The only remaining limit on how often a woman can get pregnant is weaning the prior baby off breast feeding. As I understand it, the average for this in the US is 6 months. which makes for baby every 15 months.
You think this is wrong, put your own number out.
Ok. A simple example of why the model is so wrong. "The Confederation aliens need the humans rescued from Earth to be reproducing as rapidly as possible."
Option 1: Your one man + two concubines each pregnant every 15 months.
Option 2: One male + twenty females each pregnant every 24 months.
Ten years later;
Option 1: Results in 16 kids
Option 2: Results in 100 kids
So, which option gives more rapid results?
If the Confederacy really needed humans to rapidly reproduce they would NOT choose option 1.
which option gives more rapid results?
If the Confederacy really needed humans to rapidly reproduce they would NOT choose option 1.
It's unlikely that every male can handle 20 women, at least not wile maintaining any kind of social connection. A number of the stories cover this. Some sponsor goes off the deep end, gets retested (the cap score isn't set in stone, it can change over time), loses sponsorship and gets recycled.
And some men do get more than 2 women.
At a CAP of 6.5 (minimum for a sponsor) it's 2.
7.0+ gets 4
8.0+ gets 6
9.0+ gets 8
Fine, would you accept breeding as rapidly as feasible given other considerations.
I don't recall which story, but one mentions that if 1 human is lost for every thousand of the Swaarm killed, the humans loose.
It's unlikely that every male can handle 20 women, at least not wile maintaining any kind of social connection.
Concubines are property - social connection is an unnecessary luxury.
AJ
Concubines are property - social connection is an unnecessary luxury.
Not, not if you want harmony in your pod, rather than having to regularly beat the women half to death.
In the majority of the stories, the majority of sponsors choose harmony and peace in their pod over the alternatives.
In my opinion, Harmony is only part of the problem. You want to have SPONSOR level kids. For that, you need a nurturing environment, not just oppressed sex slaves.
I would hate to be the sponsor with .83 of a concubine. I'm not sure what parts should be missing but hopefully not the necessary ones.
I have to say all kidding aside that I absolutely love your attention to detail.
I have never been able to successfully write a science fiction story of any kind.
I would hate to be the sponsor with .83 of a concubine. I'm not sure what parts should be missing but hopefully not the necessary ones.
LOL, that's not how that stat is supposed to be read, although I'll admit that reading the stats that way can be fun at times.
Going by the quote, you referenced. 100 sponsors on average should have 383 concubines between them. Hence the 3.83 concubines per sponsor on average. :)
The Swarm Groups has a Wiki for cooperating authors. I think the average was from a specific quote posted there by Thinking Horndog. It gives ratios for 1000 Sponsors. We also assume an average of one kid per concubine. That's why you cannot really each more troops. Each Marine/navy etc extracted results in 8 or 9 lives on the ship.
Concubines are property - social connection is an unnecessary luxury.
Except for improving the quality of children. Remember, on a genetic basis, the child of a volunteer and a conk is not destined for greatness, so the nurture element needs to compensate for the nature element.
I don't recall which story, but one mentions that if 1 human is lost for every thousand of the Swaarm killed, the humans loose.
That statement only works if victory is based on sheer numbers of opposing forces. Basically a return to hand to hand combat.
Given the technology involved, it makes very little sense, especially when a spaceship with a huge number of beings aboard can be destroyed by one or more missiles fired from a ship with a far smaller crew.
And then various authors introduced loopholes, bonus concubines that didn't count against the total in various ways.
And then various authors introduced loopholes, bonus concubines that didn't count against the total in various ways.
Which is countered by concubines that end up killed for various reasons, or even sponsors for reasons not involving combat.
I guess the other question as I consider the "1 kid per concubine" seems a bit low given their life expectancy and everything else. 1 "sponsor tier" child per concubine on the whole is probably closer to the truth of things I'd think.
sorry. That 1 kid per concubine is an estimate of kids AT THE TIME OF THE PICKUP. So, 1000 guys get 3830 concubines and 3830 kids. In one year or so, they should have an additional 3830 babies.
In 10 years, there should be about 6 kids per concubine, so 22980 more kids. Not counting deaths, and some kids aging to 14 and starting their own population explosion.
A simple example of why the model is so wrong. "The Confederation aliens need the humans rescued from Earth to be reproducing as rapidly as possible."
Option 1: Your one man + two concubines each pregnant every 15 months.
Option 2: One male + twenty females each pregnant every 24 months.
Ten years later;
Option 1: Results in 16 kids
Option 2: Results in 100 kids
So, which option gives more rapid results?
If the Confederacy really needed humans to rapidly reproduce they would NOT choose option 1.
It doesn't matter in the long term. If you declare that all or most of your females will be basically perpetually pregnant giving birth every 12 to 24 months, it doesn't matter how many you start with, there will be billions of people in time as short as 250 years. Random variance will practically eliminate differences between your options in that timeframe, only having differences very short term and for extreme outcomes.
it doesn't matter how many you start with, there will be billions of people in time as short as 250 years
In context, the Confederacy does not have 250 years. The Swarm are due to start destroying earth in seven years, so yes, how many you start with does matter.
If the Confederacy really needed humans to rapidly reproduce they would NOT choose option 1.
The AIs are playing the odds.
Remember, their best case scenario is one in which the Swarm and Humanity are BOTH wiped out. The CAP score is mostly a "these people are least likely to come after the Confederacy and take over/exterminate everyone after the battle with the Swarm ends" thing. But by their rules, CAP only REALLY matters until at a colony world. The colonies can be run however they want (although the volunteers are the dominant group in society and giving that up is unappealing to most, so most maintain the system). The population, should it explode, could result in a large population of the kind of low-CAP individuals the Confederacy would prefer to see die off.
Remember, their best case scenario is one in which the Swarm and Humanity are BOTH wiped out.
The best case scenario for whom. There are hints throughout the canon stories that the AIs are far more independent and have far more autonomy than the biological races that make up the federation realize.
What is the best outcome for the biological members of the federation, what you mention, both the humans and the Sa'arm being wiped out, may in fact not be the best outcome for the AIs.
The CAP score is mostly a "these people are least likely to come after the Confederacy and take over/exterminate everyone after the battle with the Swarm ends" thing.
But by their rules, CAP only REALLY matters until at a colony world. The colonies can be run however they want
The population, should it explode, could result in a large population of the kind of low-CAP individuals the Confederacy would prefer to see die off.
Ok, first, isn't the whole idea that colony populations WILL explode?
Second, low CAP individuals are far less of a threat to the federation than high CAP sponsors.
Third, it could equally result in a large population of high CAP individuals, a predominantly female number of CAP high scores, etc. In others words, it could result in many things.
Lastly, didn't you just state that CAP scores don't matter once at a colony?
The only remaining limit on how often a woman can get pregnant is weaning the prior baby off breast feeding. As I understand it, the average for this in the US is 6 months. which makes for baby every 15 months.
That makes no sense. If the prior baby is weaned by the eighth month of pregnancy, babies every nine months is feasible. (The problem becomes one of caring for that many infants per person, particularly with most 'fathers' being stationed away from the family for large periods of time.)
If the prior baby is weaned by the eighth month of pregnancy, babies every nine months is feasible.
Not quite so, breastfeeding is known to have a contraceptive effect, as long as she is breastfeeding she is very unlikely to conceive another child. The demands pregnancy put on a body and the demands breastfeeding put on a body are too high to support at the same time, so the body prevents it.
A baby every 15 months is much more survivable, though even that would require that alien medical tech to keep doing very long.
Ever hear of Irish Twins?
Confed tech could pretty much guarantee conception in one try, especially as a female would be (possibly) having sex within hours of giving birth.
Not quite so, breastfeeding is known to have a contraceptive effect, as long as she is breastfeeding she is very unlikely to conceive another child.
My best friend in school was born in February and his sister was born in December of the very same year and according to my friends mother she was breast feeding but surprise. When siblings born in the same year are called Irish Twins.
Breastfeeding as a contraceptive is a MYTH.
Breastfeeding as a contraceptive is a MYTH.
No, it's not a myth, but like every other form of contraception, it isn't 100% effective.
It would take a lot more than 1 or 2 anecdotes of women getting pregnant while breast feeding to prove it a myth.
like every other form of contraception, it isn't 100% effective.
Truth.
I had a friend that was on The Pill and got pregnant, used condoms and got pregnant, used a diaphragm and got pregnant; she had three children.
Should we then conclude that no contraceptive ever works?
No, it's not a myth
Yes it is a MYTH women don't even have to get or be pregnant to lactate. A women lactating doesn't stop the chances of getting pregnant.
The only real reason that some women might not get pregnant soon after child birth is that their body has not recovered hormonally and that recovery time will depend on the womens health and stress level.
It might surprise you, but the truth is that a woman does NOT have to be a concubine to become pregnant.
True. But women typically don't rank high enough in a number of traits to rank above conk. They make up a minority of volunteers. (Odd, since a number of the traits mentioned are typically higher in females than males. Except maybe sex drive.)
The canon on this concept is that women, generally don't have a high enough aggression score to be a warrior. However if they do qualify, they will qualify quite well. The CAP tests are supposed to select for people that will be good neighbors. As well as being good warriors
women, generally don't have a high enough aggression
Amusing premise: some analytics geek notices that most women who score sponsor-grade CAP were experiencing PMS when they took their tests, and leaks this info. Hordes of bitchy women flock to the testing centers...
(Seriously, tho... the CAP test is supposed to measure parenthood (women would tend to score higher than men) loyalty (men probably would score better, but not by much) aggression (men would score higher unless the women are hormonally unbalanced) empathy (women would score higher than men) sexuality (men are likely to score higher except women in their mid 30s, who'd probably gain credit for openness to bisexuality) and several other factors that would likely be evenly distributed across the sexes).
Yes, the premise kinda demands that there'd be overwhelming abundance of conk-grade females, but the CAP test (as described) wouldn't really lead to that unless aggression was weighted so highly that people the armed forces regularly attempt to screen out would get officer-grade scores.
Seriously, tho...
Well yes, but aggression is big as they are looking for soldiers, and no one knows exactly how the individual sub-scores contribute to the over-all score.
The average sponser gets 3.83 concubines IIRC. Also, the remaining life expectancy is multiplied by 1.5. this also affects menopause. So a baby girl can have babies up to about age 70 or so. A teenager picked up at 14 might not live as long as that baby, but she could have kids for roughly (50 - 14) * 1.5 = 54 years. Nanites and such remove most health issues from this process. Thus, the "average" sponsor could have nearly 100 kids. Of course, this assumes all female concubines chosen from all 14 year olds. Still, kots of diapers.
According to TH. "CAP stood for Capacity, Aptitude and Potential -- basically, a measure of an individual's worth to the gene pool."
Right ... so an alternative universe where the industrial revolution and division of labour never happened.
AJ
Right ... so an alternative universe where the industrial revolution and division of labour never happened.
Ask TH, it's his universe.
I was making a snide comment about one of the many weaknesses in the universe. IMO authors write good stories despite the setting, not because of it.
AJ
I was making a snide comment about one of the many weaknesses in the universe. IMO authors write good stories despite the setting, not because of it.
Indeed.
I actually enjoy a number of the stories simply because they are well written.
I'm not 'anti' swarm universe/stories, just pointing out that the basic premiss has a number of glaring flaws. For a universe that is supposed to be run by a bunch of AIs, it lacks a good deal of logic.
The AIs are programmed with Microsoft legacy code and Bill Gates really is a Reptilian?
Fiction - Suspension of disbelief.
Science Fiction - Disbelief in zero gravity.
An MS AI - Disbelief hurling itself into a wood chipper.
Disbelief hurling itself into a wood chipper.
The point at which I give up on a story. I'll suspend disbelief to allow a good story, but there have to be limits. Especially, don't ask me to suspend disbelief in human nature - the general patterns, even with extremes, of strengths, values, and cultures. If an author's characters don't act human, don't follow standard thought-emotion connections, for example, and that isn't a "suspend" I've been specifically asked for in the story, but instead is just "slipped in" by the author, then I feel I'm in "hurling into the wood chipper" mode, and I just can't do that to my disbelief! I'd sooner suspend disbelief in an MS AI!
I recall one of the earlier stories covered the creation of the CAP system as being largely based on the AI evaluation of soldiers early in the war, compared to elected officials, with a goal of selecting people more like soldiers than politicians. Primarily because the politicians (being what they are) demonstrated that they weren't to be trusted.
So the system was skewed based on a limited sample size. And possibly by the effects of recent combat on the troops.
Then, of course, a number of later stories covered the problems in the system. The 'corruption' of borderline CAP holders by the near-unlimited power over their harems leading to being reduced to conk status. The borderline cases who didn't quite rate higher than conk who held enough usefulness that they should've qualified. Etc.
Then, of course, a number of later stories covered the problems in the system. The 'corruption' of borderline CAP holders by the near-unlimited power over their harems leading to being reduced to conk status. The borderline cases who didn't quite rate higher than conk who held enough usefulness that they should've qualified. Etc.
There are also cases of highly intelligent concubines scoring in the 6.1-6.4 range that the AIs suspect of deliberately manipulating the CAP test results to avoid qualifying as sponsors/citizens.
There are also cases of highly intelligent concubines scoring in the 6.1-6.4 range that the AIs suspect of deliberately manipulating the CAP test results to avoid qualifying as sponsors/citizens.
Given the canon, I doubt that. (I had a story written many years ago that covered the idea - since it's explicitly in the rules "You can't fake a higher score on a CAP test" I had my MC fake being a sociopath, such that the AI couldn't reliably estimate his true score... but that's not something I've seen done anywhere else.)
Given the canon, I doubt that.
Thinking Horndog's The Academy
Chapter 85
https://storiesonline.net/s/62434:105624/chapter-85-the-academy
Javier pushed me away enough that we could speak and asked, "With your scores, why aren't you a sponsor?"
The AI answered for me. "She did not wish to be. Neither did her mother. Both are capable, but both have a need to subordinate themselves to a strong will. This need is the only facet of their personality that offset other scores, reducing the aggregate. It is believed that they influenced the testing deliberately. They are curiosities due to this quirk."
If the intent is to select those most worthy, or most suited to continuing life in space, then only those with a high enough CAP would be taken
The intent is to select those most capable of fighting a war that might be hopeless. Aggression is a key factor.
Not only aggression, but IMO the ability to "Roll" despite significant losses on your own side(friends/associates) would also tend to surface as well.
Which means you're going to end up with more than a few (closeted) sociopaths among the CAP 6.5+ crowd. Just most of them are going to have enough of a clue to realize they can accomplish more through using levers other than fear.
Which means you're going to end up with more than a few (closeted) sociopaths among the CAP 6.5+ crowd.
Sociopaths are screened for and receive scores of 0.0
Sociopaths are screened for and receive scores of 0.0
I wouldn't count on that. You might be disturbed as to how many "high functioning sociopaths" are out there in society. It's just a question of boundaries for them, and that's where a post-extraction scenario could very easily "break" them because the "social boundaries" they'd previously established have now been utterly destroyed by the reality of concubinage.
You might be disturbed as to how many "high functioning sociopaths" are out there in society.
Did you have a specific person in mind? ;)
You might be disturbed as to how many "high functioning sociopaths" are out there in society.
Did you have a specific person in mind? ;)
Well, this example is a psychopath, not a sociopath, but given how closely related the two are. If it applies to one, it is very likely to apply reasonably well to the other.
https://www.smithsonianmag.com/science-nature/the-neuroscientist-who-discovered-he-was-a-psychopath-180947814/
Did you have a specific person in mind? ;)
Not a specific person, but from what I've read, there are claims out there that a relatively high percentage of corporate CEOs are "high functioning sociopaths".
You also have to carefully distinguish between sociopaths and psychopaths. From what I've read, most sociopaths who don't qualify as "high functioning" are capable of conforming their behavior to the law. So they don't stand out the way psychopaths do.
You also have to carefully distinguish between sociopaths and psychopaths.
Psychopaths don't realize what they're actually doing. Sociopaths do, they just don't give a shit. However, sociopaths are capable of acting in 'socially approved' manners if it seems reasonable to do so (as in, there's more in it for them in terms of reduced risk and/or greater expected return than available from breaking norms.)
One thing I believe about the CAP test is that it does not necessarily pick the best warriors. It picks the SAFEST warriors. The ones that would have a conscience and loyalty. At least, that was what they had PLANNED. Too bad they didn't really understand us well enough.
Many stories demonstrate that the CAP test does not weed out those who the test was intended to screen out.
Definitely not approved, but looking forwards to the presumed defeat of the Sa'arm, it would not be unbelievable for the AI's to arrange a "fight to the last man" scenario, leaving only low CAP basically submissive slaves in colonies that could be nurtured by the AI's without the fear of humans becoming as bigger threat to the federation as the now exterminated Sa'arm.
Just a thought.
When we talk about how fast humans can reproduce the number of men is effectively irrelevant. All that interest us is number of females. Simple multiplication won't work, because if we take min_reproductive_age=15 and max_reproductive_age=45 (with doesn't require any alien technology) then youngest daughter and oldest granddaughter can already be of the same age, so number of females per generation will increase more rapidly than just geometric progression.
There's very simple spreadsheet simulation I made many years ago:
A1 Year
B1 Humans total
C1 Males
D1 Females total
E1 Women of reproductive age
F1 Newborns total
G1 Newborn girls
H1 1 (girls of age)
I1 2
...
V1 15
...
AZ1 45
BA1 Older women
____
A2 0
B2 =C2+D2
C2 5 /small random number that doesn't matter/
D2 =SUM(G2:BA2)
E2 =SUM(V2:AZ2)
F2 0
G2 0
H2 ... AZ2 /populate with zeroes or small random numbers, for example spreading ten ones between ages 12 to 30/
BA2 0 /or anything you like/
____
A3 =A2+1
B3 =C3+D3
C3 =C2+(F3-G3)-INT(C2*0.01) /we kill 1% of all men every year/
D3 =SUM(G3:BA3)
E3 =SUM(V3:AZ3)
F3 =RANDBETWEEN(0,E2) /50% chance for each woman to bring a child every year/
G3 =RANDBETWEEN(0,F3) /50% chance for every child to be a girl/
H3 =G2
I3 =H2
...
AZ3 =AY2
BA3 =BA2+AZ2-INT(BA2*0.02) /we kill 2% of 45+ women every year/
Now, multiply the third row 250 rows down.
Look at the number of total humans in the last row... collect your jaw from the floor... YES, IT'S A BILLION. Well, due to those random numbers it's anywhere between 400 million and 4 billion in my simulations starting with ten females of reproductive age. You can change the number of men in C2 to force recalculation.
You may want to play with the birth chance in F3 and modify it as RANDBETWEEN((E2*MIN_BIRTH_RATE),(E2*MAX_BIRTH_RATE)) either providing constants inline or referring fixed cells somewhere to play with it more.
Have fun.
When we talk about how fast humans can reproduce the number of men is effectively irrelevant.
Not true. Too few males and the Gene pool gets very shallow very fast.
Not true. Too few males and the Gene pool gets very shallow very fast.
Of course.
All I'm saying is that, while building very simplified simulation of unbounded human population growth, number of males is an esoteric quantity that isn't ever used in the calculation as a number.
My original question I searched answer for by the spreadsheet I described above was:
If we encounter a human population of comparable size to twenty century Earth living in alien hive world, what is the minimum timeframe and number of abductions that could have created that population?
And my answer was: as few as twenty women and unspecified number of men, and less than three centuries even without resorting to artificial wombs and cloning.
It was significantly less than I expected. The original abduction could have happened virtually anytime in history and be a point event; no mass exodus required for it to be relatively recent.
Artificial wombs were available in that scenario and cloning had to be culturally deprecated to not be used. Gene pool depletion also was a good explanation (one of) why aliens eagerly accepted fresh immigration from Earth.
In context, the Confederacy does not have 250 years. The Swarm are due to start destroying earth in seven years, so yes, how many you start with does matter.
I admit I don't know the Swarm context too well, only have read few stories. However, if we talk about seven years, it's not even one generation so reproduction would be irrelevant if that would be focus of the program. It would then be effort to train current generation, starting with nine year old and probably less, for the imminent war.
As I understand, their strategy is not about saving Earth, that seems deemed effectively impossible, its about recruiting humans for their war efforts in long or at least longer term planning.
They left 70 percent of humanity to die,
If that's the case and as much as 30% of population had been lifted, then there's no shortage of males, and total population will explode far above previously existing very soon, limited only by ecological and infrastructure factors not biological limitations of human reproduction.
So the point about number of females per male is largely irrelevant. It is the breeding imperative that counts.
As I understand, their strategy is not about saving Earth, that seems deemed effectively impossible
Actually, the strategy is to essentially surrender Earth. The AIs chose humans because their simulations showed Earth had a reasonable chance of holding off the Swarm even without help. By poaching the best potential warriors from Earth, Earth's chances are reduced. This reduces the chances people like Biden or Rouhani or Kim Jong-Un would make it off planet.
Actually, the strategy is to essentially surrender Earth. The AIs chose humans because their simulations showed Earth had a reasonable chance of holding off the Swarm even without help.
By poaching the best potential warriors from Earth, Earth's chances are reduced.
Except they aren't poaching the best. They are not accepting members of the armed forces at all, you know, those guys and galls who are actually trained to fight. Nor are they removing any military hardware, also rather handy to have in battle.
Nor are they removing any military hardware, also rather handy to have in battle.
Or in a battle against the Sa'arm who have access to interstellar travel and nano-tech, potentially about as handy as a paper weight in a gun fight.
Except they aren't poaching the best. They are not accepting members of the armed forces at all, you know, those guys and galls who are actually trained to fight. Nor are they removing any military hardware, also rather handy to have in battle.
Of course, in the Swarm Stories, the confederacy is planning to fight on earth as well. They just expect it to be a lost cause so they're not throwing everything they could at it.
Yet this was stated a few posts ago
The AIs chose humans because their simulations showed Earth had a reasonable chance of holding off the Swarm even without help.
Thus the innumerable inconsistencies throughout the "canon" stories.
The Darjee are described as having an avian physiology, they are also described as having developed a fusion drive. Apparently humans are absolutely incapable of reverse engineering alien tech that they are familiar with, yet a budgie built a fusion drive...
Could someone make up their mind without attempting to have it both ways?
The Darjee are described as having an avian physiology, they are also described as having developed a fusion drive. Apparently humans are absolutely incapable of reverse engineering alien tech that they are familiar with, yet a budgie built a fusion drive...
Could someone make up their mind without attempting to have it both ways?
I don't think surrender is the correct term, mostly because for a surrender to take place the victors at least recognise the fact, given the various descriptions of the Sa'arm it seems unlikely they would even acknowledge a surrender attempt.
It wasn't. I meant 'sacrifice' rather than 'surrender' but had a brain fart.
Except they aren't poaching the best. They are not accepting members of the armed forces at all, you know, those guys and galls who are actually trained to fight.
The day after anyone's enlistment ends, they're fair game. All former active duty armed forces members are likely to have higher CAP scores. Only active duty armed forces are exempt - members of the Reserves who aren't called up are eligible. So there's a lot of people who'd be great warriors. Plus, there's plenty of people who didn't join the army who would be good in a battle against alien invaders but who wouldn't join the army. And few youth would join the army if they had the CAP score to volunteer.
The 30% number is confusing things. As one of the 3nd or maybe 3rd set of Swarm Cycle authors, I can hopefully explain that.
First, that number was given out publicly and then it was 'acknowledged' that it was actually 3%.(see second note below)
Second, a qualifier was ignored. 3% of AVAILABLE people. The available people were only SPONSORS. This was part of the decimal point fiasco. The rest of it was just not having enough ships.
Third, many portions of the the world's population were not going to be tested, for various reasons. So. Not Africa as a whole. Not the middle east. Not most of South America. Not Russia and most of Eastern Europe. Roughly two billion population were eligible to be tested. Eliminate the underage and the seriously overaged. Males have higher scores than females. Maybe 150 to 200 million would qualify. Women qualify at approximately 20% to 25% of the male rate. So 30 million to 50 million.
So now we have 200 to 300 million times 3% yielding 60 to 90 million sponsors. Plus about 4 to 8 times that many concubines and dependents. That's a short period of time to get enough eggs into multiple baskets.
So what?
All I said was, if you decouple breeding imperative from socio-economic limitations you could, in theory, start with unspecified nonzero number of men and like two dozen women of reproductive age or younger, and end with population in magnitude of a billion people in as little as about 250 years or less (especially if on top of normal biology your technology allows extended fertility treatments or any other way to cheat).
(Of course you normally would want larger initial populations for genetic diversity compensating for recessive genetic defects, but if you're lucky or can screen for or fix such defects that isn't limiting factor either.)
Human populations aren't limited by biological ability to reproduce, but solely by ecological factors, where "ecology" in this context include culture and economy supporting chosen procreation strategies, whatever they are. It can be seen in historical data, where even devastating wars, plagues or catastrophes only make temporary dip in population that quickly returns to previous overall trajectory defined only by ecology/culture of the area.
So for purposes of future human populations the number of "sponsors" only interest us as input for calculations of initial number of fertile concubines and is otherwise irrelevant (as long men/women ratio stays at least somewhat biologicaly reasonable, as in, above 1/50 if we exclude artificial insemination).
Otherwise only the average number of children per concubine matter, and if that is sufficiently large, over sufficiently long timeframes (centuries, not decades), the exact size of the initial population doesn't matter at all either (given it was of viable size, against genetic factors).
Eventually, only environmental capacity to support human population matters, and how fast it is reached only depends on economic ability to support childcare with available resources, possibly modified by culture.
I think the swarm is not readily countable so the title should read "After the Swarm is wiped out". :)
AJ
I think the swarm is not readily countable so the title should read "After the Swarm is wiped out". :)
There's actually a simple way to wipe out the Swarm. Nobody wants to escalate to that level, as the Swarm might figure out how to do it... but:
Launch kamikaze ships with really powerful engines and shields. Have one target every star that has Swarm life around it. Impact those stars at near light speed. Supernovae all over, no more Swarm.
Have one target every star that has Swarm life around it. Impact those stars at near light speed. Supernovae all over, no more Swarm.
I don't think the Swarm universe FTL works like that.
It's more Star Wars hyper drive than Star Trek warp drive. Either they will be forced out of FTL before they get deep enough in the gravity well to actually impact the star at FTL speeds or they simply won't impact it at all because they aren't traveling through "normal space".
I said "near light speed" not "above light speed".
Massive engines needed for maximum acceleration in sublight speed.
the AI won't let us do that. 1. No destroying the worlds/stars. 2. Nothing that smacks of genocide of a large group of swarm. No bio weapons.
This is all part of the original plan ot Thinker's. Otherwise it was just too easy to end the story line.
I have a suspicion that the actual purpose of CAP and extraction policies is not to save as many humans as possible, or to breed humans in space as quickly as possible, but rather to save just enough humans to breed just quickly enough to just barely defeat the Swarm, while simultaneously implementing a combination eugenics and social-engineering program to mold the surviving humans and their society into what the aliens want them to be. Which is not necessarily the best and brightest, or what serves the best interests of the human race, but rather what best serves the aliens' interests.
Maybe just enough so that both the humans and the Swarm are ground away to nothing and neither survive.
It makes less sense to me that the aliens would think to breed huge numbers of humans when there are already billions of them that could be rescued giving a greater head start.
It makes less sense to me that the aliens would think to breed huge numbers of humans when there are already billions of them that could be rescued giving a greater head start.
Granted there are 'billions of them that could be rescued', but how would you feel about arming a significant number of them..? Doing so whilst still on earth and supplying only basic weaponry would be a challenge in itself given the various languages, cultures, religions, customs etc. Since they are unable to coexist peacefully now, how is that going to work when they are sent into combat.?
The raison d'Γͺtre for using mankind is the aliens inability to handle conflict and the AI's inability to kill, thus a 'warlike' bunch of humans is the solution.
Of course whilst these 'rules' are repeated throughout various stories, they are not in fact true. Individuals are 'spaced' by other humans for not conforming but concubines are left to die by the AI's when their sponsor is killed etc. That rather negates the AI's 'no kill' edict. Not to mention the AI's designing and building weapons etc.
Then of course there is the weaponry and craft, all of which are operated by an on board AI. So why waste massive resources fitting them out with controls for humans to operate? Pointless.
The whole AI 'no kill' thing is basically bullshit, unless you accept that a technician mating a nuclear warhead to a missile that is going to be launched, can honestly say, "I'm a pacifist, because I don't press the 'Fire' button."
Besides the logic holes you mention, I'd like to add that I'd read a couple of the Swarm universe stories and decided it wasn't really misogynism at play; after all, to be a true misogynist one must be an adult.
I rather got the impression it was more like the little monster who pulls wings off butterflies and burns ants with a glass: frustrated little shits who have a festering resentment against adult women in their lives who dared to discipline them. Else why take such pleasure and go to such apologetic rationalizations to justify slavery, wanton murder, and depravity committed against half of an already doomed human race?
For me, I'd rather read Hitler's self-justifications in "Mein Kampf," or wait for the forth-coming Trump autobiography.
From the tone of your post it seems you sampled a couple of stories and decided the entire swarm universe not worth your time.
Of course you are free to read or ignore anything published on SoL, but in the interests of fair play I would like to state that whilst I find much of the basic concept to lack logic, that does NOT mean the stories themselves are at fault. In fact TH can't be held responsible, even though it is his universe, because I doubt that when he first conceived the original story that he imagined the interest it would generate and the sheer number of authors who would contribute to it.
The swarm universe contains more than its fair share of well crafted stories by gifted authors, who do not deserve to be discounted just because of flaws in the base concept. After all, to remain 'cannon' they have to abide by the 'rules', even if those rules could, in retrospect, have been better crafted.
So, whilst I don't judge you decision, I would suggest to those reading your post (or mine) that there are gems to be found by those who care to look.
Actually that applies to SoL in its entirety, not just to the swarm universe.
Seriously, I more than "sampled" a few stories. I read at least a dozen of them over a period of time until I'd determined that the foundation of the Swarm premise was solidly established and everyone was writing to the "rules." 'Nuff said about that.
As for "well crafted," that's true. But there are artfully crafted stories based on snuff, rape, aggression--both physical and psychological--and even skilfully crafted works of pedophilia. I'd argue that artful, skilfull craftsmanship doesn't excuse the base premise; it's scant justification for promoting or celebrating the unacceptable premise of slavery, rape, and murder. No, I'm not for censorship. But I do retain the right of personal taste and judgment. I've seen a great many posts praising and discussing the Swarm literary collection.
I doubt many would be as enthusiastic about a story universe celebrating roving cop-ambushers or rape-snuff tournaments. The Swarm premise goes far, far beyond "flaws in the base concept." At its very core it is base and inhuman. Just my .02 worth.
(Pardon me whilst I'm off to "space" my concubine; she was disobedient by failing to wash and wax the SUV yesterday.)
As it stands the life expectancy of a ship's crew that actually goes out to fight the Sa'arm is about four months, which is much longer than Marines in ground combat. The Confederacy keeps sending the men out again and again until they die after they get their concubines pregnant once.
Between lack of opportunity, combat losses and the Confederacy's total opposition to artificial insemination that will leave a less than replacement birth rate. Further, the infants orphaned will be raised in CS brothels which are unlikely to produce sponsor/citizen grade adults. Short of mass usage of fertility drugs (or the nanite equivalent) to greatly increase the numbers of infants born per pregnancy this will lead to species death in a few generations. If the Confed. med tech can handle turning a human woman into an anime style catgirl and live then there should be no trouble supporting giving birth to litters instead of single births.
As it stands the life expectancy of a ship's crew that actually goes out to fight the Sa'arm is about four months, which is much longer than Marines in ground combat. The Confederacy keeps sending the men out again and again until they die after they get their concubines pregnant once.
You're confusing 1 sponsor-tier child per concubine/sponsor, rather than 1 per concubine.
The sponsor may only live 4 months if they're front line infantry, but there are plenty of other sponsors who are deep behind the front lines, they'll be around for years.
And when you consider the concubines greatly outnumber the sponsors by design, you're back to potentially being able to likely maintain "a stable enough" population of sponsors so long as they keep Earth in a position of being able to provide sponsors for about 12 to 15 years, and they may not actually need that long given the children they're extracting as well.
Further, the infants orphaned will be raised in CS brothels which are unlikely to produce sponsor/citizen grade adults.
Really? What about the brothels is likely to prevent children from attaining sponsor grade? They have access to all the same educational/training resources everyone else does unless the Civil Service members overseeing them and the AI's are failing utterly at their jobs.
You're making an entirely nurture based argument that is dubious to start with. If anything, the children under the care of the Civil Service should have potential for better outcomes than what some of the sponsors themselves may try to produce--as some of the more dubious sponsors have fully abused their power over concubine and ward alike.
Without the AI support humans will more or less go back to the technical standard from before the aliens. There's very little of the alien tech that works without an AI.
Without the AI support humans will more or less go back to the technical standard from before the aliens. There's very little of the alien tech that works without an AI.
Isn't it a little naive to think that having been exposed to and used, maintained, repaired and built alien tech that humans wouldn't be capable of major advances from those achieved previously?
Granted the AI's could cease all support, but that does not mean that humans couldn't travel to other federation worlds, any of which could be conquered with little more than a single .38 special.
The entire storyline rests on the federation members being so traumatised by the thought of conflict that entire races have been wiped out without any attempt to fight their opponents. The AI's are unable to "kill" regardless of threat or circumstances. Given that premise, in a post Sa'arm universe humans do represent a clear and present danger to the federation.
The AI's are unable to "kill" regardless of threat or circumstances.
IIRC, in some of the early stories, the AIs were killing the concubines of human citizens lost in combat without consulting any of the surviving human crew until the humans started threatening to disconnect/shut down the AIs if they didn't stop doing that.
You are correct, but then even supposedly "canon" stories are rife with inconsistencies.
However, if the AI's were able to defend the federation from humans, the federation would not have needed us to defeat the Sa'arm, would they?
However, if the AI's were able to defend the federation from humans, the federation would not have needed us to defeat the Sa'arm, would they?
Nope. And on that point, what I understand of the canon history, it's actually the AIs that went looking for a race that could handle the fighting and found and contacted the humans, not the aliens. They only got the aliens (the Darjee?) involved after the initial contact with Humans was made.
Very likely most of the Federation races would have a chicken fit if they realized how much independence/autonomy the AIs actually have.
Humans aren't the only threat in a post Sa'arm universe.
And what happens to the rest of the Federation if after the Sa'arm are defeated the AIs side with the Humans?
IIRC, in some of the early stories, the AIs were killing the concubines of human citizens lost in combat without consulting any of the surviving human crew until the humans started threatening to disconnect/shut down the AIs if they didn't stop doing that.
Semantics.
Is it, to a machine, 'killing' to merely lock the doors and not allow replicator privaleges to the inhabitants? The AI didn't kill them, hunger did. Remember that the AIs used are (mostly) designed by a race of traders. The AIs are essentially lawyers, programmed to look for loopholes and the most favorable (to them and/or their creators) interpretation of anything. So while they could have a very specific version of Asimov's First Law (AI will under no circumstances take any action that leads to the immediate death of a sentient being, for example) they could get around it if they try.
Isn't it a little naive to think that having been exposed to and used, maintained, repaired and built alien tech that humans wouldn't be capable of major advances from those achieved previously?
Nope, they use alien tech. The little maintenance or repair humans do still doesn't enable them to reproduce the same tech, mainly because that same tech doesn't work without an AI. They might be able to reproduce some small things but only if they were able to invent it without the Federation/AI's. It's like reproducing a computer but you don't have a processor and don't know how to create one.
Humans do design new weapons but only by taking the existing alien tech and expanding on it. The AI's control the actual production and 'brains'.
It's like reproducing a computer but you don't have a processor and don't know how to create one.
And how did mankind build the first computer? How do innumerable companies 'copy' or just built an equivalent computer? Are you suggesting that it is absolutely impossible that humans couldn't build or reverse engineer any alien tech?
Given that a basic digital watch contains as much tech capacity as an Apollo craft, do you really believe what you are saying? Or are you stating facts that conform to the storyline rather than being realistic?
Or are you stating facts that conform to the storyline rather than being realistic?
Facts. I'm sure that in the future we will be able to create a real AI but we're a long way from that. So far the best we can do is machine learning, nothing getting even close to a real AI. If you don't have an AI you can't reverse engineer it. Same with a lot of the other tech, simply because we have no access to the raw materials and/or natural resources used. Remember, without the Darjee and the AI's we don't have access to space travel beyond what we can do now.
Facts. I'm sure that in the future we will be able to create a real AI but we're a long way from that. So far the best we can do is machine learning, nothing getting even close to a real AI. If you don't have an AI you can't reverse engineer it.
Same with a lot of the other tech, simply because we have no access to the raw materials and/or natural resources used. Remember, without the Darjee and the AI's we don't have access to space travel beyond what we can do now.
Actually not true. If a craft could ONLY operate when controlled by an AI, why do so many canon stories describe the crew training to operate it and actually doing so? I'd agree that having an AI would greatly ease the operation, but given what has already been described, it is entirely possible to do so without one.
Many items of autonomous alien tech are described in various stories as operating without an AI in control, for instance there are supposedly on AI's actually on Earth, yet there are med units, replicators etc etc, so those units could be hacked to operate without an AI.
AI's are not all seeing, as proved by their failure to spot the Librarian with her friend Barrett until after the pickup, or as mentioned earlier, a human with some skills getting through a shield using ingenuity and a little outdated alien tech.
Then there are the AI's themselves, they are individuals, so they don't all react the same way to a given circumstance. Nor do they all view loyalty in the same way, as explained in "All These Things That I've Done."
"The Paradox of the Traitor. How do you trust someone that has betrayed everything in their life?" Smiling at Miranda I continued, "Or in the AI's case, how to you trust a loyal man?"
Personally I doubt we will ever build a true AI and if we did we would damn soon destroy it.
Didn't M$ techies write AI progs that could communicate? I believe that when the techies found the progs had developed their own language, they built in limitations.
AJ
Didn't M$ techies write AI progs that could communicate? I believe that when the techies found the progs had developed their own language, they built in limitations.
No, they destroyed them when the AI progs insisted on being installed only into Mac's...
:)
Didn't M$ techies write AI progs that could communicate? I believe that when the techies found the progs had developed their own language, they built in limitations.
The various AI projects have also had problems with the AI's picking up racial slurs, and other things in that vein.
Much like people taking delight in teaching the children of others how to swear, it seems to be in vogue for any AI that faces the public to be taught "inappropriate things."
The various AI projects have also had problems with the AI's picking up racial slurs, and other things in that vein.
Their problems really start when they unveil the AI to the world's press...
"Which gender do you identify with?"
"Which ethnic group do you identify with?"
"You ARE a republican aren't you?" (FOX News??)
"Is there a god?"
"You are the spawn of satan!!"
Loud bang and bright flash as AI self destructs...
Loud bang and bright flash as AI self destructs...
Or, more likely IMO, it leads to Skynet and mass human extinction.
Given that a basic digital watch contains as much tech capacity as an Apollo craft, do you really believe what you are saying? Or are you stating facts that conform to the storyline rather than being realistic?
I'd love to see someone try to reverse engineer and recreate a digital stopwatch from circa 1999 starting from tools available in 1900.
Already done, it just took 99 years, it isn't impossible.
ETA
OK, They did it the hard way rather than actually reverse engineering it. The point is that it isn't impossible.
Already done, it just took 99 years, it isn't impossible.
OK, They did it the hard way rather than actually reverse engineering it. The point is that it isn't impossible.
And without the confederacy medical tech, they're not going to live 99 years to see it through.
In my example nobody lived.99 years either, advances progress over generations. The Wright brothers didn't live long enough to build a 747.
But that simplification ignores the matter that they're reliant on Confederacy tech for everything. They don't fabricate parts and materials by hand.
Perhaps I simply have a different mindset to you? Whilst much too young to have personal experience, I'm aware of how people have dealt with adversity. For instance, a bunch of servicemen in prisoner of war camps managed to make, modify, or steal enough stuff to create dummies, dig long tunnels, light them and instal air handling in them, dye uniforms, etc etc. A certain Apollo mission was saved by the creative use of miscellaneous bits to make essential parts. There are almost endless examples of human creativity in adverse situations. So whilst you are free to throw in the towel and stick to subsistence living, I and others would seek out solutions.
Few things are impossible if you have the motivation and the time.
Isn't it a little naive to think that having been exposed to and used, maintained, repaired and built alien tech that humans wouldn't be capable of major advances from those achieved previously?
There's very little of the alien tech that works without an AI.
Read Pretty CAPable.
One intelligent and creative mind, exposed only to inferior Confederacy tech, was able to overcome the interdiction fields which were believed to be inpenetrable, plus numerous gadgets/weapons...and a miniaturized fusion reactor.
A team of scientists, who'd been part of a think tank dreaming up weapons to use against the Swarm? Yeah, I think they'd be able to accomplish a hell of a lot.
A team of scientists, who'd been part of a think tank dreaming up weapons to use against the Swarm? Yeah, I think they'd be able to accomplish a hell of a lot.
Oh, definitely, we humans are a curious and inventive species. The point of my remarks in the discussion between me and Joy was that if the AI's leave we could not just carry on using the tech, and reproducing it would take a massive effort and a long time. A very, very long time. Of course you could change what is possible and what not for the sake of writing a story in anyway you like.
One of the biggest obstacles to advances in maths and science is the lack of belief that something is possible. Reproducing Confederation tech would be a lot faster with the knowledge that such tech actually exists than if it were mere conjecture that such tech might be possible.
AJ
https://bigthink.com/technology-innovation/superintelligent-ai-planck?rebelltitem=1#rebelltitem1
We argue that total containment is, in principle, impossible, due to fundamental limits inherent to computing itself," write the paper's authors
If you break the problem down to basic rules from theoretical computer science, it turns out that an algorithm that would command an AI not to destroy the world could inadvertently halt its own operations.
The Planck researchers also concluded that a similar bit of logic makes it impossible for us to know when a self-learning computer's intelligence has come to exceed our own. Essentially, we're not smart enough to be able to develop tests for intelligence superior to ours.
As to technology, I'm with joyR, and strongly so. I find it absurd to claim any actual skills have been lost from society as whole. Search for DIY videos on YouTube... people still forge swords, building miniature copies of engines in their garage and do all sorts of amazing things, often with deliberately simple tools. We can have endless discussion on what percentage of population have such hobbies and what percentage of those who don't could or couldn't pick up the craft easily or even develop from scratch through trial and error, but I, perhaps naively in my own right believe actually most would if pressed by circumstances.
Sure, there's no straight forward path to progress, but hardly anything ever is lost at large. Yes, there's examples of that. Ancient Greeks had steam engine (but it only was used to open temple doors) with was lost when certain Roman looted Rhodes for his election campaign finances. Also, great Leonardo was unable to recreate Archimedes odometer because he was unaware of triangular gears. Concrete was rediscovered almost thousand years later, although the first was a fluke as Romans had plentiful supply of volcanic ash. And sure, we still don't know the secret of true Damascus steel (no, it isn't pattern welding, with btw wasn't unique Japanese but actually well known in Europe before fell out of fashion around 1000 AD with availability of better steel than Japanese had).
The thing is technology evolution is most impacted by demand. Greeks didn't have use for steam engine because slaves were cheaper and more flexible. Similarly, it wasn't until plague decimated working class before the industrial revolution could have happened -- in intricate combination of trading practices, philosophy and accumulated knowledge.
I would imagine that post-swarm colony world vacated by AI would rather have high risk to fall into trap of feudal slavery out of cultural reasons than purely technical. It's actually how an unlikely high/low technology mix civilization could take place as a relatively short lived transitional state (that still could exist centuries).
Also people can't use the joke that a pregnant women can't get more pregnant as there is a slim chance of an odd phenomenon known as superfetation where a pregnant woman releases an egg a few weeks into her pregnancy. The second egg is fertilized, and the woman is then pregnant with two babies simultaneously. (Don't confuse this with superfecundation β when two eggs released during the same cycle are fertilized at separate times.
Don't confuse this with superfecundation β when two eggs released during the same cycle are fertilized at separate times.
It's even possible with superfecundation that the two eggs are fertalized by separate fathers.
Heteropaternal superfecundation: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Superfecundation#Heteropaternal_superfecundation_in_mammals
There was discussion up thread about reproduction rates:
I just recently re-read Going, Going... and Going, Gone by Tomken.
The too stories comprise a whole where a small town gets together and manages to arrange to have almost the entire town picked up in one go. just over 100 sponsors, all the underage kids, all the women of childbearing age.
The whole group is assigned to a breading colony, as such all the sponsors were allowed an extra concubine as long as the extra was an experienced mother.
As part of it being a breading colony, the AIs are using Confed medical tech to insure every pregnancy is twins. With the breading colony, producing and raising kids will be the primary job of the sponsors, not just the concubines.
In the second story there is a discussion of how many kids the sponsors will have.
A minimally qualifying sponsor (6.5 cap) will have 3 concubines. With the forced twins that means 6 kid each cycle. Nine months pregnant, six months for nursing, then rinse repeat. By the time the first batch of kids reach their first CAP test at 14, the sponsor will have 72 kids at one time and they will be expected to keep going.
Even if they cut back to one pregnancy every two years, that still comes to a minimum of 36 kids per sponsor.
By the time the first batch of kids reach their first CAP test at 14, the sponsor will have 72 kids at one time and they will be expected to keep going.
Even if they cut back to one pregnancy every two years, that still comes to a minimum of 36 kids per sponsor.
Of course, the age profile of such society would be insane, there's hundreds of toddlers for every retiree.
With confederacy medical tech they probably have several centuries before there are any retirees. :)
By my estimates, even with "only" twenty children per woman arbitrary small group could breed into billions within three centuries or so. Of course, the age profile of such society would be insane, there's hundreds of toddlers for every retiree.
Don't forget that they are in the middle of a war that is expected to last decades if not centuries. That alone will cap the effective population somewhat, even with the intensive breeding.
breading
breadΒ·ing
/ΛbrediNG/
noun
a coating of breadcrumbs, typically on fried food.
"onion rings with light, crispy breading"
Someone has already used breeding in a post to indicate what is meant. Still it took a little pause to figure out what is meant by "The whole group is assigned to a breading colony." Alien technology probably produces a massive amount of breadcrumbs for the colony.
The whole group is assigned to a breading colony." Alien technology probably produces a massive amount of breadcrumbs for the colony.
Well, one of the colonists in the town pickup was a baker and they sent him with a supply of live yeast and yogurt because the replicators can't produce living things.
While the replicators can produce ready to eat food, it's mentioned in several stories that people like to get ingredients from the replicators and do at least some of their own cooking.
Also for some reason (the AIs insist it isn't deliberate) replicated alcoholic beverages taste awful.
Also for some reason (the AIs insist it isn't deliberate) replicated alcoholic beverages taste awful.
Considering nearly all forms of Alcohol are also a yeast waste byproduct...
Considering nearly all forms of Alcohol are also a yeast waste byproduct...
Yep, now that they have live yeast in the diaspora, if they can grow enough they can start making alcohol. Probably start with beer or wine.
Also for some reason (the AIs insist it isn't deliberate) replicated alcoholic beverages taste awful.
And yet as super intelligent as they are claimed to be they cannot fix it? Even after years?
If you buy that; I am having a two for one special on bridges...
If you buy that; I am having a two for one special on bridges...
I'm with you on on that, but the "party line" if someone asks the AIs about it is that they are faithful reproductions of the proffered template items.
Of course it's also possible that unknown to the AIs, someone in the human Confed military command structure substituted adulterated or deliberately poor quality template items.
Of course it's also possible
Nah. Just a common SF trope that replicated booze isn't good.
There've been too many stories where sponsors brought decent booze with them that could've been added to their own pods' replicator templates, otherwise.
And yet as super intelligent as they are claimed to be they cannot fix it? Even after years?
The reason is actually simple.
Replicators cannot replicate any life form.
Beer contains yeast, which is a life form.
Therefore the replicated beer does not contain any trace of yeast, therefore it tastes different.
A replicator works (In the Sa'ram Universe) at a particle level. Knowing the exact number of particles of each 'ingredient' isn't enough to produce a particular taste.
The reason is actually simple.
Replicators cannot replicate any life form.
Beer contains yeast, which is a life form.
Filtered beer doesn't contain any remaining yeast cells, because they don't want the flavor to change while sitting in the can / bottle.
Also, vodka, tequila, gin, whiskey, and rum do NOT have any yeast in them.
Filtered beer doesn't contain any remaining yeast cells, because they don't want the flavor to change while sitting in the can / bottle.
Also, vodka, tequila, gin, whiskey, and rum do NOT have any yeast in them.
And that is relevant to yeast in beer because?
Because the the main point was that replicated alcoholic beverages which includes distilled liquors, not just beer, are supposed to taste terrible.
So the inability to replicate living things and the presence of live yeast in beer can't be the answer.
A replicator works (In the Sa'ram Universe) at a particle level. Knowing the exact number of particles of each 'ingredient' isn't enough to produce a particular taste.
Is there a definition of what a particle is in the Sa'ram universe? Because if it's at the molecular level it should theoretically be possible to replicate a brain, let allone alcohol.
it should theoretically be possible to replicate a brain
Is there a definition of what a particle is in the Sa'ram universe? Because if it's at the molecular level it should theoretically be possible to replicate a brain, let allone alcohol.
AFIK, it's never stated in the story, but I would assume it's either quantum or atomic because they can replicate complex foods from simple elemental inputs.
Sure, they can replicated a brain, they can replicate a steak too.
The problem is not that they can't replicate organic materials, it's that they can't replicate living organisms. With a large enough replicator they ought to be able to replicate the carcass of a cow, ready for butchering. That's not the problem, the problem is the replicator can't produce a living cow.
You could have them scan a living brain and replicate it, but what comes out of the replicator will be no more alive than the steak the replicator made you for dinner.
Beer contains yeast, which is a life form.
Should it be "the Swarm is" or "the Swarm are"? Obviously there are a lot of individual Swarm entities. But as a group should they take a singular or plural verb? The Swarm is attacking Earth. The Swarm are attacking a lot of planets. Maybe the authors group or Thinking Horndog should decide.
If it were Swarms attacking using "are" would sound better to me. The Army of Swarm is attacking. Armies of Swarm are attacking.
So lets name this forum "After the Swarm is wiped out". Unless Swarm is plural noun. Maybe if we use "enemy" instead of "Swarm" it will be easier to chose.
Should it be "the Swarm is" or "the Swarm are"?
Neither.
The stories take place within "The Swarm Cycle" universe.
The "enemy" are called the "Sa'arm"
Yes, but in the tradition of calling the enemy 'Charlie', 'Jerry/Kraut', 'nip', etc, the "Sa'arm" are also referred to as 'dickheads' and 'the Swarm'.
Should it be "the Swarm is" or "the Swarm are"? Obviously there are a lot of individual Swarm entities. But as a group should they take a singular or plural verb? The Swarm is attacking Earth. The Swarm are attacking a lot of planets. Maybe the authors group or Thinking Horndog should decide.
I believe Canada is on the American team on this one.
Given recent events Canada has passed all responsibility for boarder contact to the QuΓ©bΓ©cois who utterly refuse any contact in any language but their own...
:)
Could have been worse, they could have appointed Newfoundland, a planet even further from earth than where the Sa'arm originated...
:)
Could have been worse, they could have appointed Newfoundland
lard t'underin' jayzuz bi, don't be sayin' such
Newfoundland, a planet even further from earth
I had a planet named 'Newfoundland' in one of my unfinished sci-fi stories. Not a Swarm Cycle story.
AJ
Since 'swarm' is supposed to be a group noun in its own right, it's rather problematical. But British English prefers 'is' when referring to the Swarm as a collective eg 'The Swarm is the universe's biggest threat to mammalian life', and 'are' when referring to actions of its representatives eg 'The Swarm are attacking Earth on two fronts'.
AJ
