(C&C) Q&A Thread - Quick questions go here

Discussions about constructed worlds, cultures and any topics related to constructed societies.
User avatar
Pabappa
sinic
sinic
Posts: 368
Joined: 18 Nov 2017 02:41
Contact:

Re: (C&C) Q&A Thread - Quick questions go here

Post by Pabappa »

Zekoslav wrote:
08 Jun 2019 13:39
So, I've got another climate question (maybe I'm just overthinking this). I've got this rough sketch of a planet:

Image

All I'm entirely certain about is that there will be a circumpolar current around the north pole and a circum-equatorial current which doesn't exist on Earth. I'm not quite sure how the gyre in the northern temperate region will interact with the circum-polar and equatorial currents, though, and neither I'm sure what will happen in the ocean between the two continents.

The northern continent looks bound to be very humid, unless there's a serious rain shadow involved (and I plan not to have one). I wonder what the climate on it's southern coast will be like. It's common knowledge that east coasts have a humid subtropical, and west coasts a mediterranean climate around that latitude... but what about the center? They way the continents are spaced, it looks like there may be a permanent belt of high pressure south of the northern continent. This would likely cause northward winds when the continent becomes low pressure in summer... but would these winds carry moisture, or would the southern coast be more arid?
i post somewhat rambling, disordered comments, so apologies for the mess ... and sometimes i edit them later.

Your map is almost exactly identical to my own planet Teppala. Right down to the little continent on top, big one on the bottom (and nothing else anywhere), the equatorial current, and the shapes of the landmasses. Amazing coincidence, really, so i feel i should post something here but .... even though I love weather, i prefer Teppala's climate to change rapidly as the planet switches from one orbital pattern to another, triggering mass population movements .... so I dont really follow the rules that govern the climate of Earth.

the south coast of the northern continent is one of the focus points of my world, and i agree from the looks of the map it will be humid but probably not too hot. the water temp will determine a lot .... how hot is the sea on your planet? are there mountains anywhere nearby? you can play around here. if the sea is hot, there will be a monsoon ... weaker than Asia's but stronger than America's. however, the monsoon on the south continent will be much, much stronger. You can get pockets of warmer/cooler water here and there that can make some areas drier than one might otherwise expect. I think even deep-sea topography can affect this .... shallow seas get hotter than deep ones. c.f. https://eoimages.gsfc.nasa.gov/images/i ... 52_lrg.jpg and note that the yellow is, oddly enough, the hottest temperature. so if you have shallow sea near the 0-30N area (perhaps due to the continents being united in the past?) the sea water might be extra hot, and therefore very rainy summers even on the small continent, but especially on the big one.

its worth adding that while naively, one might expct a small continent to be wetter than a big one, this is not always true, because the larger continent will be hotter in summer and therefore have a much greater pull during its monsoon season. thats why africa's rainforest isnt that big compared to S America's, and why even the lowlands of India get lots of rain in summer (and the highlands much more). and why pacific & caribbean islands arent as wet as one might think, even very close to the equator.

so 3 basic questions that might affect things:
1) are there mtn ranges near the coasts?
2) how deep is the sea between the continents?
3) is the avg temperature of this planet comparable to Earth? at least near the areas youre focused on?

more later if i can find time.
I'll take the theses, and you can have the thoses.

Salmoneus
MVP
MVP
Posts: 1874
Joined: 19 Sep 2011 19:37

Re: (C&C) Q&A Thread - Quick questions go here

Post by Salmoneus »

Zekoslav wrote:
08 Jun 2019 13:39
So, I've got another climate question (maybe I'm just overthinking this). I've got this rough sketch of a planet:

Image

The northern continent looks bound to be very humid, unless there's a serious rain shadow involved (and I plan not to have one). I wonder what the climate on it's southern coast will be like.
Immediate guess: it may be fucked up.

OK, so you'd have to do some complicated maps to really work it out. First of all, it would really help to have some specific latitudes marked and some basic axial tilt info. Size of continents/planet, rotation speed, temperature...

I'm assuming, given that those lines don't look equally spaced, that the lines either sides of the equator indicate the tropics.

That being the case, what happens at the spring equinox? The ITCZ is probably dipped a bit down into that southern continent - it's attracted by land. We'll assume (incorrectly, but in the interests of simplicity) that around the equinox there is minimal pressure difference per se between land and sea. If the line is the tropic, and the atmospheric cells are similar to earth, the horse latitudes (~30-35 on earth) will be over the lower half of the continent. That means a big high pressure zone with hot, dry air heading to the earth, splitting, and heading north and south. On the south coast of the continent, that means hot, dry winds pushing south from the interior, over the shore and out to sea. So, spring is likely to be very dry, and very clear (the offshore winds helping to push away any wandering storms).

So what happens as the hemisphere warms up and the planet tilts? There are three effects to bear in mind here: differential warming, axial tilt and absolute warming.

First, the land will warm up more than the sea. This will reduce those hot desert winds from the interior.

Second, the subtropical high will push north. It'll still be located over the continent, but now it'll be further north in it. As this pushes north, and the land keeps heating up, you may develop a small low pressure area over the southern part of the continent, between the high pressure and the coast, which could draw in some humid air from the sea in early summer.

However, the ITCZ will also push north. In theory it should lie on the tropic at midsummer. In fact, it's held back by sea, but also attracted by land. I don't know exactly where it would fall, and I suspect it would be different year to year.

If the ITCZ stays off to sea (a cold year), then the big push from the subtropical high combined with the big pull from the ITCZ offshore will mean that the prevailing winds continue to be dry, hot, interior winds blowing from land southward out to sea. The land will heat up quicker than the sea, which normally means low pressure, but it'll be

If the ITCZ hangs over the coast, then the coast will have all the fun of being a tropical rainforest for a little while. It'll chuck it down.

If the ITCZ manages to push further north, dragged up by the low pressure developing over land in a particularly hot year, then it'll be north of the coast, and the coast will be subjected to hot but very wet winds being sucked off the sea to its south, heading up to the ITCZ. It'll still chuck it down - in fact, it might even be even wetter, because it's being fed by wet winds off the sea.

But then you've got the other problem, which is that that big hot circumequatorial ocean will be breeding gigantic hurricanes. And as the ITCZ moves north, the hurricanes will too. Most of these will hit the east coast, but some may be thrown into the south coast.



And then the autumn? Gradually reset to the condition in spring: dry winds from the interior (but maybe also occasional hurricanes, as the seas are now hotter than in spring).


From there into winter, the opposite processes develop. the ITCZ gets further away, and the high pressure band moves south, passing over the soth coast - at that point, you'll go from "hot dry winds from the interior" to just "hot, windless days". But it'll carry on, and rest over the sea to the south. That high pressure off the south coast will tend to push wet, warm winds over the coast. This won't be torrential, tropical rain, but it'll be steady.

The tendency will be for the land to cool faster than the sea, and hence to develop a high pressure zone. However, it not being a very big continent, I suspect this wouldn't get nearly as high as the subtropical high off the south coast. However, maybe in a really cold year it would, blocking that rain. On the other hand, in a really cold year the polar front might push further south and you might have some freak rain-and-windstorms from that.


Overall, though, my guess would be:
Spring: hot, dry desert winds from the interior
Late spring, early summer: unpredictable; could be stronger desert winds sucked south by ITCZ, or could be milder as a little low pressure area develops briefly
Summer: variable. At first, probably very dry with more winds from the interior, and some years it might stay that way (that also means it getting very hot, due to the clear skies!). Most years, however, a torrential rainy season.
Autumn: heading back to hot dryness, but with chance of occasional hurricane.
Early winter: clear, still
Winter: steady drizzle off the sea
Late winter/early spring: clear, still


Or, to put it another way: I think you're looking at basically the sahel, only more unpredictable, with wetter rainy seasons, probably a secondary, less rainy rainy season in midwinter.


But I don't know.

User avatar
Zekoslav
sinic
sinic
Posts: 340
Joined: 07 Oct 2017 16:54

Re: (C&C) Q&A Thread - Quick questions go here

Post by Zekoslav »

Thank you both!

I apologize for not giving enough information. I've only just got rough ideas about the conworld, but I could have made a more precise map with more topography (and explicitely said that the lines are supposed to be the Equator, Tropics and Polar circles). As for size, tilt and temperature, assume it's identical to Earth.

I realize that having a very un-earthlike placement of the continents makes things difficult. In my head I imagined a smallish continent located in the northern hemisphere, separated in two halves by a west-to-east mountain range. The northern half would be temperate and as humid as the westerlies allow (considering the continent's small size, there probably wouldn't be cold steppes anywhere). The southern half would be warmer and drier, but not exactly tropical: I imagined it being positioned somewhat like the mediterranean coast of Europe, maybe a little bit more to the south. However, due to there not being a gigantic continent over the northern tropic like on Earth, I wasn't sure if it would really be winter wet and summer dry like the mediterranean. Instead of Sahara, we have and ocean here... and you've confirmed my suspicions that there would probably be summer storms too. The big continent was invented to draw the ITCZ and the high pressure belt southward in winter to guarantee winter wetness on the northern continent.

With the understanding that the relevant coast on the northern continent is positioned roughly 40-30 degrees north (I may make it more oblique in the end), would it be less likely that the ITCZ will hit the continent in summer? It looks like you've understood (and this is my fault!) that the blue line was the northern tropic, while I understood it to be the horse latitudes, i.e. a little bit northwards...
Languages:
:hrv: [:D], :bih: :srb: [;)], :eng: [:D], :fra: [:|], :lat: [:(], :deu: [:'(]

A linguistics enthusiast who occasionally frequents the CBB.

- Guide to Slavic accentuation

User avatar
Pabappa
sinic
sinic
Posts: 368
Joined: 18 Nov 2017 02:41
Contact:

Re: (C&C) Q&A Thread - Quick questions go here

Post by Pabappa »

Are the blue lines 60N-30N-0-30S-60S? Just making sure .... thats what my first impression was. I figured its meant to be a Mercator projection or something similar.

I see similarities with Europe & Africa and also with the USA. You might be able to model the equatorial sea after the Caribbean. Although we have Mexico & Central America blocking the cool Pacific water from the warm Atlantic water, if the equatorial sea is shallow enough, the cold water will never get to the south coast, and it can be fully as warm, or even warmer than, the warm current off the east coast. Note that cold currents appear on west coasts not just because they are arriving from poleward latitudes but also because of the http://enwp.org/Ekman_spiral which causes cold water to bubble up from the deep as the surface waters are forced further away from the coast. Thus, the cold water cannot meaningfully mix with the tropical gyre, and water there should be very warm.
I'll take the theses, and you can have the thoses.

User avatar
Zekoslav
sinic
sinic
Posts: 340
Joined: 07 Oct 2017 16:54

Re: (C&C) Q&A Thread - Quick questions go here

Post by Zekoslav »

The ocean between the two continents is supposed to be deep: there would be a mid-oceanic ridge there, and the two continents would be separating. This is just in the early stages, and shapes and positions will probably change. My goal is to have the northern continent's southern half be semi-arid (ideally winter wet like the Mediterranean), and the northern half be wet. What I'm wondering is how to stop tropical cyclones from hitting the southern coast in summer like Sal suggested would happen at least some years.
Languages:
:hrv: [:D], :bih: :srb: [;)], :eng: [:D], :fra: [:|], :lat: [:(], :deu: [:'(]

A linguistics enthusiast who occasionally frequents the CBB.

- Guide to Slavic accentuation

Keenir
mayan
mayan
Posts: 2296
Joined: 22 May 2012 03:05

Re: (C&C) Q&A Thread - Quick questions go here

Post by Keenir »

Zekoslav wrote:
10 Jun 2019 10:42
The ocean between the two continents is supposed to be deep: there would be a mid-oceanic ridge there, and the two continents would be separating. This is just in the early stages, and shapes and positions will probably change. My goal is to have the northern continent's southern half be semi-arid (ideally winter wet like the Mediterranean), and the northern half be wet. What I'm wondering is how to stop tropical cyclones from hitting the southern coast in summer like Sal suggested would happen at least some years.
strong inland winds striking seawards, perhaps? (may or may not be polar as the best option, depending on where mountains are)
At work on Apaan: viewtopic.php?f=6&t=4799

User avatar
Zekoslav
sinic
sinic
Posts: 340
Joined: 07 Oct 2017 16:54

Re: (C&C) Q&A Thread - Quick questions go here

Post by Zekoslav »

Well, if in summer the horse latitude belt of high pressure moves north over the southern coast of the continent, and the ICTZ stays in the ocean, then that's exactly what would happen...

Basically, I've understood the difference between west and east coasts in these latitudes thus: in the northern hemisphere, winds around the high pressure zone in the horse latitudes blow clockwise. On the west coast this means they blow from the northwest, bringing cold polar water, while on the east coast they blow from the southeast, bringing warm tropical water. When the continent heats up in summer the low pressure on land draws in all that moisture from the warm tropical water and there's a bunch of rain. Now, my coastline would be exactly above the high pressure zone, which would mean that when there isn't a field of low pressure on land, winds would most likely be parallel to the coast. In summer, either the high pressure zone moves onto land and things stay that way, or the land heats up so much that a low pressure zone appears and there's tropical cyclones. In winter, the high pressure zone moves south and the land gets hit by westerlies, so there's winter rain. Basically, it would be either mediterranean or a somewhat wetter variant. That's what I'm going for and I hope it's realistic.
Languages:
:hrv: [:D], :bih: :srb: [;)], :eng: [:D], :fra: [:|], :lat: [:(], :deu: [:'(]

A linguistics enthusiast who occasionally frequents the CBB.

- Guide to Slavic accentuation

User avatar
sangi39
moderator
moderator
Posts: 2697
Joined: 12 Aug 2010 01:53
Location: North Yorkshire, UK

Re: (C&C) Q&A Thread - Quick questions go here

Post by sangi39 »

So, while working on my Minecraft world, which is based, loosely, around my conworld Yantas, I got started on thinking about military structures and hierarchies.

The hierarchy I'm settling on is based around something similar to the one used by the Romans. The smallest "meaningful" unit is made of 10 soldiers, accompanied by 2 servants, which for the moment I'm calling a "squad".

Beyond this, further units are either "half-sized" or "full-sized" depending on their main function. Full-sized units are usually infantry, especially those comprised of citizens, while half-sized units are mostly "urban units", as well as cavalry, archers, and non-citizen units (which do not have a complement of servants at any level), which fall under the term "auxiliary units".

5 "squads" (50 soldiers and 10 servants) make up a "half century", and 5 "half centuries" (250 soldiers and 50 servants) make up a "half cohort"

On the other hand, 10 squads (100 soldiers and 20 servants) make up a "full century", and 5 "full centuries" (500 soldiers and 100 servants) make up a full "cohort".

Cohorts are the largest combined force for "urban units" and "auxiliary units", while infantry units are combined in various forms to make up "legions", with 5 cohorts (2500 soldiers and 500 servants) making up the basis for standard legion.

Legions, when on campaign, are often supplemented with 1 or 2 half cohorts each of archers, cavalry and "non-citizen" soldiers, such that a fully formed legion numbers between 3250 soldiers, 250 horses, and 600 servants and 4000 soldiers, 500 horses, and 700 servants.



I'm still working on the exact hierarchy between soldiers, but I'm thinking that units, as they combine at each level, either "elect" a leader or nominate one for appointment (I'd say that "squads" elect a leader, while "centuries" nominate leaders from amongst the century leaders, and leaders of cohorts are appointed without nomination depending on the "rank" of the various centuries. Legions are led by various individuals who do not make up the larger army, e.g. non-serving nobility.)



What sorts of systems do other people use in their concultures, if there's even a strict order to their militaries at all?
You can tell the same lie a thousand times,
But it never gets any more true,
So close your eyes once more and once more believe
That they all still believe in you.
Just one time.

User avatar
LinguoFranco
greek
greek
Posts: 478
Joined: 20 Jul 2016 17:49
Location: U.S.

Re: (C&C) Q&A Thread - Quick questions go here

Post by LinguoFranco »

How would you handle multiple magic systems? My world has alchemy, but I'm also toying with enchanted items and maybe even wild magic.

One of my ideas are bullets created from alchemy, so kinda like "magic bullets" but I think gunpowder was a product of alchemy, so maybe there wouldn't be much of a functional difference.

The alchemy of my world is pretty mundane, more like real world alchemy.

I thought about treating magic like languages. There are several varieties of magic (alchemy, divination, necromancy, etc), and a mage can learn any of them and even more than one type, but each requires a ton of dedication to master, so most would master one type and maybe know just enough about another kind to supplement their main magic or have a back up.

Could any of this be made to work?

User avatar
eldin raigmore
korean
korean
Posts: 5504
Joined: 14 Aug 2010 19:38
Location: SouthEast Michigan

Re: (C&C) Q&A Thread - Quick questions go here

Post by eldin raigmore »

If they’re like languages, then once one has mastered three or four of them, it should become a lot easier to master another. (Until about age 50 or so, maybe.)

Also, anyone who’s lucky enough to be natively bimagical, should have an advantage at learning other magics that aren’t their native magic.

And any new magic they didn’t start learning until they were 17 or so, they’ll always have an accent; whereas any magic they learn before about 15, they’ll cast like a native spell caster.
(What’s an “accent” when it comes to magic?)

—————

Who will be their magical analogs of Chomsky and Greenberg? And what will they be like?

Keenir
mayan
mayan
Posts: 2296
Joined: 22 May 2012 03:05

Re: (C&C) Q&A Thread - Quick questions go here

Post by Keenir »

eldin raigmore wrote:
15 Jun 2019 00:23
(What’s an “accent” when it comes to magic?)
casting a spell to rain vipers on your enemies...and leaves fall all over them instead, because of a noun case difference of one dipthong.
:)
Who will be their magical analogs of Chomsky and Greenberg? And what will they be like?
I'm not sure what'd be scarier...a magical Chomsky or a magical Everett.
LinguoFranco wrote:
14 Jun 2019 18:46
How would you handle multiple magic systems? My world has alchemy, but I'm also toying with enchanted items and maybe even wild magic.

One of my ideas are bullets created from alchemy, so kinda like "magic bullets" but I think gunpowder was a product of alchemy, so maybe there wouldn't be much of a functional difference.
given the level of secrecy the between and within the schools of alchemy, there may not be a functional difference (if thats what you opt for), as there would be a knowledge difference: people who know how to alchemically create gunpowder probably won't be in the know for things like alchemically creating bullets.
The alchemy of my world is pretty mundane, more like real world alchemy.
only moreso, as there, the RL alchemy would actually work.
I thought about treating magic like languages. There are several varieties of magic (alchemy, divination, necromancy, etc), and a mage can learn any of them and even more than one type, but each requires a ton of dedication to master, so most would master one type and maybe know just enough about another kind to supplement their main magic or have a back up.

Could any of this be made to work?
sure it could - you're the god of that universe, so what you say goes.
At work on Apaan: viewtopic.php?f=6&t=4799

User avatar
LinguoFranco
greek
greek
Posts: 478
Joined: 20 Jul 2016 17:49
Location: U.S.

Re: (C&C) Q&A Thread - Quick questions go here

Post by LinguoFranco »

What are realistic reasons for humans abandoning earth. I have an idea for a Terran diaspora, but I have been told that people wouldn't abandon earth even if it became a harsher place to live on because humans are stubborn. However, I don't want earth to be completely destroyed, and people leaving because it can't support life seems kinda cliched.

Keenir
mayan
mayan
Posts: 2296
Joined: 22 May 2012 03:05

Re: (C&C) Q&A Thread - Quick questions go here

Post by Keenir »

LinguoFranco wrote:
29 Jun 2019 20:48
What are realistic reasons for humans abandoning earth. I have an idea for a Terran diaspora, but I have been told that people wouldn't abandon earth even if it became a harsher place to live on because humans are stubborn. However, I don't want earth to be completely destroyed, and people leaving because it can't support life seems kinda cliched.
quick question: all humans, or just some humans? because the latter could have a number of reasons...deliberately being the first human diaspora (as one of several goals), or to find a world thats less crowded, or to actively go out to find neighbors in the cosmos (rather than just listening and broadcasting), or...

thats all i have at the moment; sorry.
At work on Apaan: viewtopic.php?f=6&t=4799

User avatar
eldin raigmore
korean
korean
Posts: 5504
Joined: 14 Aug 2010 19:38
Location: SouthEast Michigan

Re: (C&C) Q&A Thread - Quick questions go here

Post by eldin raigmore »

LinguoFranco wrote:
29 Jun 2019 20:48
What are realistic reasons for humans abandoning earth. I have an idea for a Terran diaspora, but I have been told that people wouldn't abandon earth even if it became a harsher place to live on because humans are stubborn. However, I don't want earth to be completely destroyed, and people leaving because it can't support life seems kinda cliched.
First, I like Keenir’s response.

Second, I once read a story about a group who left in order to be able to educate their children in real, evidence-based science and critical thinking, rather than the conformity mandated by the world government.

Another story had them wanting to get away from “the trillionaires”.

And, it’s highly unlikely that any disaster would ever be harsh enough to make the people who could fit on the ships leaving Earth outnumber those who stayed behind. If there were such a disaster, it would likely make it even harder to build enough ships.

To make all surviving humans no longer live on Earth, some disaster would have to befall the stay-at-homes after the others leave. Maybe they left in anticipation of such a disaster in, say, another century, but it actually came to pass in a decade?

———

If you look at actual diasporas in RL Earth’s history, nearly none of them were voluntary.
Jews didn’t leave Israel of their own free will.
African slaves didn’t go to the Americas because they wanted to.
I don’t know about the Chinese diaspora.

There have been other migrations and colonisations, not labelled “diasporas”, that were more voluntary.
Many of the people who first settled Britain’s North American colonies did so in order to practice their own religions as they saw fit, which was difficult at home in Britain. They didn’t necessarily want people in other colonies, with other religious habits, to come for a visit.
Other people migrated to escape debt, or some other economic or legal difficulty.
Others migrated for opportunity.

I don’t think there were many in which an entire population — nor even a majority of a population — migrated just because they thought life might be better somewhere else. It seems that if most of them left, they were usually driven out.

So, if you really want a Terran diaspora, rather than just a pretty big migration, I think you’re going to have to go with some alien species conquering Earth and then just not wanting all those pesky humans around fucking up the place.

———

I could be wrong,

Keenir
mayan
mayan
Posts: 2296
Joined: 22 May 2012 03:05

Re: (C&C) Q&A Thread - Quick questions go here

Post by Keenir »

eldin raigmore wrote:
29 Jun 2019 23:02
LinguoFranco wrote:
29 Jun 2019 20:48
What are realistic reasons for humans abandoning earth. I have an idea for a Terran diaspora, but I have been told that people wouldn't abandon earth even if it became a harsher place to live on because humans are stubborn. However, I don't want earth to be completely destroyed, and people leaving because it can't support life seems kinda cliched.
First, I like Keenir’s response.
thank you.
To make all surviving humans no longer live on Earth, some disaster would have to befall the stay-at-homes after the others leave. Maybe they left in anticipation of such a disaster in, say, another century, but it actually came to pass in a decade?
...or never came to pass ("wait, isn't that the asteroid...dangit!")
:)
There have been other migrations and colonisations, not labelled “diasporas”, that were more voluntary.
maybe humanity (on-Earth and offworld) call it a diaspora, regardless of how well it fits the dictionary definition?

or maybe, instead of alien invasion, the aliens come by and ask "okay, who wants a ride to habitable planets in their lifetime?"
(interstellar spaceflight may be invented few times, but passed on and inherited much more often)
Many of the people who first settled Britain’s North American colonies did so in order to practice their own religions as they saw fit, which was difficult at home in Britain. They didn’t necessarily want people in other colonies, with other religious habits, to come for a visit.
Other people migrated to escape debt, or some other economic or legal difficulty.
Others migrated for opportunity. [/quoe

I don’t think there were many in which an entire population — nor even a majority of a population — migrated just because they thought life might be better somewhere else. It seems that if most of them left, they were usually driven out
what about the Indian diaspora in East Africa? (well, I've always heard it called a diaspora)
At work on Apaan: viewtopic.php?f=6&t=4799

Tanni
greek
greek
Posts: 597
Joined: 12 Aug 2010 02:05

Re: (C&C) Q&A Thread - Quick questions go here

Post by Tanni »

LinguoFranco wrote:
29 Jun 2019 20:48
What are realistic reasons for humans abandoning earth. I have an idea for a Terran diaspora, but I have been told that people wouldn't abandon earth even if it became a harsher place to live on because humans are stubborn. However, I don't want earth to be completely destroyed, and people leaving because it can't support life seems kinda cliched.
There might not be just one reason, but many: alien invasion which caused additional environmental pollution and new and deadly illnesses, the own government wanting to cull the population, deadly autonomous killer robots out of control ... and an offer to easily leave the planet, see Perry Rhodan-Heftroman 2436: Die Teletrans-Weiche.

In this fictional world, the local group (Milky way, Andromeda and (new) Hangay) is attacked by a multiversal organisation called Terminale Kolonne Traitor.
www.perrypedia.proc.org/wiki/Die_Teletrans-Weiche wrote: Beides erweist sich als falsch, als nach kurzer Zeit eine Silberkugel die Hyperperforation verlässt und sich von Bord Lotho Keraete, der Bote von ES, meldet. Dieser spricht mit Bull und unterbreitet das Angebot von ES, alle Menschen des Solsystems zu einem fernen und sicheren Ort zu evakuieren.

Bull ist enttäuscht, da er sich von ES eher direkte Hilfe im Kampf gegen TRAITOR erhofft hatte und keine Evakuierung. Die Menschen sollen durch die Hyperperforation, die als Teletrans-Weiche bezeichnet wird, zu den Fernen Stätten der Superintelligenz in das Stardust-System gebracht werden. ... Das Angebot ist einmalig und gilt für 88 Tage, dann will ES die Teletrans-Weiche abschalten. Somit gibt es dann keine Rückkehrmöglichkeit mehr nach Terra.
Lotho Keraete, the messenger of ES talks with Reginald Bull and submits the offer of ES to evacuate all humans of the solar system to a secure place far away.

Bull is disappointed, as he rather expected direct help in the struggle against TRAITOR instead of an evacuation. The humans are supposed to be brought through a hyper perforation called Teletrans-Weiche (Teletrans Track Switch) to the Far Away Sites of the superintelligence into the Stardust system. ... It is an one-time offer for 88 days, then ES will switch off the Teletrans Turnout. Thus, there is no possibility to return to Terra any more.
Last edited by Tanni on 30 Jun 2019 15:22, edited 1 time in total.
My neurochemistry has fucked my impulse control, now I'm diagnosed OOD = oppositional opinion disorder, one of the most deadly diseases in totalitarian states, but can be cured in the free world.

User avatar
LinguoFranco
greek
greek
Posts: 478
Joined: 20 Jul 2016 17:49
Location: U.S.

Re: (C&C) Q&A Thread - Quick questions go here

Post by LinguoFranco »

eldin raigmore wrote:
29 Jun 2019 23:02
LinguoFranco wrote:
29 Jun 2019 20:48
What are realistic reasons for humans abandoning earth. I have an idea for a Terran diaspora, but I have been told that people wouldn't abandon earth even if it became a harsher place to live on because humans are stubborn. However, I don't want earth to be completely destroyed, and people leaving because it can't support life seems kinda cliched.
First, I like Keenir’s response.

Second, I once read a story about a group who left in order to be able to educate their children in real, evidence-based science and critical thinking, rather than the conformity mandated by the world government.

Another story had them wanting to get away from “the trillionaires”.

And, it’s highly unlikely that any disaster would ever be harsh enough to make the people who could fit on the ships leaving Earth outnumber those who stayed behind. If there were such a disaster, it would likely make it even harder to build enough ships.

To make all surviving humans no longer live on Earth, some disaster would have to befall the stay-at-homes after the others leave. Maybe they left in anticipation of such a disaster in, say, another century, but it actually came to pass in a decade?

———

If you look at actual diasporas in RL Earth’s history, nearly none of them were voluntary.
Jews didn’t leave Israel of their own free will.
African slaves didn’t go to the Americas because they wanted to.
I don’t know about the Chinese diaspora.

There have been other migrations and colonisations, not labelled “diasporas”, that were more voluntary.
Many of the people who first settled Britain’s North American colonies did so in order to practice their own religions as they saw fit, which was difficult at home in Britain. They didn’t necessarily want people in other colonies, with other religious habits, to come for a visit.
Other people migrated to escape debt, or some other economic or legal difficulty.
Others migrated for opportunity.

I don’t think there were many in which an entire population — nor even a majority of a population — migrated just because they thought life might be better somewhere else. It seems that if most of them left, they were usually driven out.

So, if you really want a Terran diaspora, rather than just a pretty big migration, I think you’re going to have to go with some alien species conquering Earth and then just not wanting all those pesky humans around fucking up the place.

———

I could be wrong,
Well, I imagined earth as becoming lost somehow and humans regard it as somewhat mythical like Atlantis, and some aren't even sure it still exists.

Salmoneus
MVP
MVP
Posts: 1874
Joined: 19 Sep 2011 19:37

Re: (C&C) Q&A Thread - Quick questions go here

Post by Salmoneus »

That is indeed the traditional SF set up (cf Foundation, Battlestar Galactica, etc). Usually the reason is that nuclear warfare and/or just nuclear powerplants (depending on how anti-nuclear you are) made the planet uninhabitable.

User avatar
eldin raigmore
korean
korean
Posts: 5504
Joined: 14 Aug 2010 19:38
Location: SouthEast Michigan

Re: (C&C) Q&A Thread - Quick questions go here

Post by eldin raigmore »

“Keenir” wrote:or maybe, instead of alien invasion, the aliens come by and ask "okay, who wants a ride to habitable planets in their lifetime?"
(interstellar spaceflight may be invented few times, but passed on and inherited much more often)
I think that’s an excellent story idea!
Not sure they’d call that a “diaspora”, though.
“Keenir” wrote:what about the Indian diaspora in East Africa? (well, I've always heard it called a diaspora)
I just don’t know much about it, so it slipped my mind. As far as I know it’s as much a “diaspora” as the Chinese being “the Jews of the Orient”.

To me the notion of “diaspora” connotes or implicates ideas of “dispersion”; the majority of the aboriginal or autochthonous or indigenous or native people of some place are uprooted and scattered from there.
They may settle in other places and achieve such success that they outnumber, in their new homes, their original pre-dispersal population; but their stay-at-home remnant never recovers its majority status.
———
If a majority stay home and are always the dominant part of the population in their original habitat, and just having the descendants of the emigrants outnumber those of the stay-at-home remnant qualifies it as a “diaspora”, not only the Chinese and the Indians, but also the Arabs and almost the Romany Gypsies, might be “diasporas”. Unless I’m wrong, which is not too unlikely.

See https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_diasporas
“https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diaspora#Expanding_definition” wrote: William Safran in an article published in 1991,[13] set out six rules to distinguish diasporas from migrant communities. These included criteria that the group maintains a myth or collective memory of their homeland; they regard their ancestral homeland as their true home, to which they will eventually return; being committed to the restoration or maintenance of that homeland; and they relate "personally or vicariously" to the homeland to a point where it shapes their identity.[14][15][16] While Safran's definitions were influenced by the idea of the Jewish diaspora, he recognised the expanding use of the term.[17]

User avatar
LinguoFranco
greek
greek
Posts: 478
Joined: 20 Jul 2016 17:49
Location: U.S.

Re: (C&C) Q&A Thread - Quick questions go here

Post by LinguoFranco »

Okay, an idea I have for a setting is a post-apocalyptic interplanetary setting. There is space travel, but it is confined mostly to our own solar system and society has regressed in some ways, so there is a space version of the Dark Ages.

At its height, we managed to construct a Dyson Sphere and ashes to control the energy of our solar system. We achieved a post-scarcity society supported by worker robots. The worker bots were improved upon so they could accomplish their tasks more efficiently, and this also means their intelligence improved. After awhile, the robots grew displeased with how they were being treated and rebelled, leading to a solar system wide war between the humans and robots.

The humans eventually emerge victorious, but at a great cost as much of their technology and knowledge has been lost and civilization collapses, ending the post-scarcity utopia.

Now I have a few questions concerning the plausibility of this setting.

1) Would this make a space Western setting believable with outlaws and bounty hunters running around, since civilization declined, while still having some tech left over from the Dyson era?

2) Would a robot rebellion be enough to cause such a catastrophic event for an entire solar system?

Post Reply