Thought experiment - colonisers or refugees

[Stumpydave]

Do you wipe out a world to save humanity or let humanity just die? It is a horrible choice and there is no good answer.

And that's what makes it interesting.
Let's face it if the premise was "You find an inhabitable planet and there are no drawbacks." it would be a pretty dull game.
Hell, the X-Com remakes built most of their tension around "Here are two choices, both of them suck."

 

[sharps54]

And that's what makes it interesting.
Let's face it if the premise was "You find an inhabitable planet and there are no drawbacks." it would be a pretty dull game.
Hell, the X-Com remakes built most of their tension around "Here are two choices, both of them suck."

Reminds me of Wasteland for the C64,

Spoiler: Spoiler for moral dilemma

what do you tell the kid who asks you to save his dog after you find it rabid?

 

[lategamer]

Need more info. Sentient life means nothing, everything is sentient - trees, fungi, ants (as opposed to sapient life, which would be a much more significant consideration). And the question of whether/how to adapt to the ecosystem depends entirely on what that ecosystem is.

Assume sapient. With a culture.

Top of my head - assume pre-industrial.

 

[lategamer]

I mean ideally you would come up with a compromise with the natives and if they are less advanced technologically you may be able to live in a tenuous peace.

The drama is in the minutes. Like the cultural or religious differences.

The problem comes if you have to terraform to survive, that puts you in Zod's position in Man of Steel. Do you wipe out a world to save humanity or let humanity just die? It is a horrible choice and there is no good answer.

It’s deliberately contrived that way. And I can’t imagine it would get any airplay elsewhere.

 

[lategamer]

This reminds me of the beginning of Galactica 80 where they discuss setting down in the Arctic or Gobi desert to not impact on the Earthlings.

So even if we set down, there's no reason why we have to set down in an area that puts us into competition with native species. We just use our tech to make our immediate environs more suitable

I guess a lot depends on how possible it is to integrate. If they’re all diminutive green furred humanoids, it might be difficult to blend in. Being exiled in Antarctica might be a solution so the Referee would have to think up new problems.

.Or my preferred option... 'Nice planet. I'll take it.'

We destroyed another world but created a lot of shareholder value.

 

[TristramEvans]

Assume sapient. With a culture.

Top of my head - assume pre-industrial.

that would mean co-habiting peacefully (as long as the natives are open to peaceful relations) would be possible, well, if we pretend these are all "good" humans in the Ark, and not the normal assholes. A pre-industrial population will feature large areas of land, and presumably any version of future humanity with the technology to take long space voyages possess the ability to render necessary resources plentiful.

So Star Trek version: everything goes OK
Realistic, humans are humans version, we kill or fuck the original inhabitants out of existence in a few generations.

 

[Stumpydave]

If I was the Captain and the future of the human race lies in my hands...sorry green skinned inhabitants, this is not going to be a good day.
But if it's any consolation, we'll start a whole field of academia on recording and exploring your civilisation and our kids will dress up as you on "Colonisation day".

 

[Lofgeornost]

On the gaming side, it seems to me that the initial setup would likely lead to player-versus-player conflict if the players don’t agree. The stakes are so high that the losing side in the debate, vote, or whatever is likely not to accept the answer as final. Which is fine if you want that sort of thing.

 

[lategamer]

So Star Trek version: everything goes OK
Realistic, humans are humans version, we kill or fuck the original inhabitants out of existence in a few generations.

Well, that’s up to the players.

 

[lategamer]

On the gaming side, it seems to me that the initial setup would likely lead to player-versus-player conflict if the players don’t agree.

Perhaps even a split in factions with the “reward” being the million embryos.

The stakes are so high that the losing side in the debate, vote, or whatever is likely not to accept the answer as final. Which is fine if you want that sort of thing.

I see it escalating for sure. It’s not going to make anyone happy.

I do need to curb murderhobos which I think will be simply a lack of weapons on the humanity side. It’s not a military mission. It’s a lifeboat.

 

[TristramEvans]

Well, that’s up to the players.

I assume only up until the point that they unleash the human colony? Or would you do an Ars Magica Grogs type situation?

 

[lategamer]

I assume only up until the point that they unleash the human colony? Or would you do an Ars Magica Grogs type situation?

Well, there's a whole thing about how to raise a million embryos. It's not Culture-level tech we have. Think more like 50-100 years. Like Interstellar.

 

[xanther]

Not enough detail to really respond, but will anyway
It really does depend immensely on the tech level of the inhabitants and their population. Also what their system is like. If their system has an asteroid belt like ours would leave what resources I could there to provide rare metals instead of trying to mine them.

If human tech is like interstellar, then the inhabitants are going to see them coming if they have tech comparable to our own, also they can meet us in orbit or further out. If they are at our 1940's tech level won't take them long to get things in orbit enough to trash the ship; it's not like what they throw into orbit needs to be more than metal chunks.

The inhabitants tech level would have to be substantially lower for a forced colonization (like our own worlds history) to work, as there is no resupply here. There is not millions more humans and products of their industry a few months by ship away. You got a fixed number of humans, a fixed amount of gear, and fixed resources. It's worse than stretched supply lines, you have no supply lines.

I'd doubt they have sufficient fuel to be shuttling food or other resources up from the new world.

We'll just assume for a moment that the food etc. on this world is perfect and ready for humans to eat as is. Which makes our biology incredibly compatible, which means their viruses and bacteria can likely effect us and vice versa. Here is where inhabitant population and population density are critical, yet I'd bet the inhabitants could weather mass plagues better than a limited number of humans, in a densely packed closed system.

Of course humans are foolish and arrogant. That they destroyed their once garden of Eden world and the most cost effective remedy for them is to flee their system to another world speaks volumes. So can well imagine they believe the only path is conflict and control, and arrogantly believe they will just crush the primitive locals, just like Europe did in the Americas.

If the inhabitants are like us, the humans are doomed no matter how primitive they are unless the humans can befriend a large enough number of inhabitants. Even then, one disgruntled faction could do a number on the humans once they figure out what diseases the humans are susceptible to, use their own spies to steal human technology. If the humans are a**hats, and decide they don't need the hearts and minds of the masses, then the inhabitants can easily recruit sufficient help even in the human controlled regions.

Now as an RPG.....
If I was the captain, trust and local support would be my primary goals along with anything could do to resupply the ship. This of course requires information, maps, geological survey (focused on resources to make more shuttle fuel), virology, analysis in detail of the microbes and fungi of the world, and of the inhabitants language, culture, where they live, their politics, what they value, what they want, etc.

All good stuff for PCs to do on the ground with an incredible range of skill sets. PCs focused heavily on social skills, charisma, diplomacy, intuition. PCs focused on understanding biology, etc. There is also plenty for humans to do on ship, to keep it functioning to devise ways to extend supplies, etc. PCs focused on engineering and science. If we did have to plop down, then remote uninhabited island closest to resources we may be able to make shuttle fuel from. Once have shuttle fuel production can resupply.

One overarching challenge is to make sure ones crew does not trigger a war with the inhabitants, and especially not one that riles them up and gets them to unite against you. Heck even crew that would come off as a**hats to the inhabitants (that's why knowing cultural norms will be key) could cause distrust and if you coupled that with the inhabitants ever knowing the full story of why humans are here, bad news.

If I was an inhabitant, learned why they had to come here, and encountered arrogant humans; I'd say we need to wipe out these humans before they do to our world what they did to theirs.

As captain, you may be presented with dilemmas when one of the colonist does something to really piss off the inhabitants that for humans is not a big deal. Do you give up the colonist to local justice or not? Luckily, my captain character is a sci fi fan and has C.J. Cherryl's full Foreigner series, which is pretty much the situation/set-up here, so I'll follow that.

Postscript...
After freeing our world from the attempted human invasion with much blood and violence, of course we would dress up as them on contact day and tell stories of their tragic world and the dangers of their ways as an object lesson to our young; all the while remembering that not all the humans were bad, it is just when you get them in groups they do foolish, arrogant and very bad things, bad enough to destroy a world.

If they had only changed and not kept perpetuating the ways and beliefs that led them to need to flee their world. If they had only objectively looked at themselves and said, why do we think we have the answers, why do we think more of the same thinking that destroyed us will work, look at the mess we made, look how we squandered it all and brought our species to the brink of extinction, and for what, then perhaps they could have lived with us in peace. Alas they did not, almost all of them refused to the end to see any other way, they said they had no choice, it was conquer or extinction, us or them, rule or serve. The few sane ones who surrendered lived out their lives here in peace. No there were no children, we couldn't very well let them reproduce and do to our world what they did to theirs.

 

[lategamer]

Not enough detail to really respond, but will anyway

You did not let that stop you.

Excellent answer. Top marks.

You’re right. Resources are limited (deliberately) to provoke a confrontation (that doesn’t have a to be violent).

Mining asteroids or moons would be possible when humanity is established but right now we need space to grow and deploy our wonderful toys to make room to make more humans.

I’m thinking of series like Earth2 or Outcasts .

That’s a lot of food for thought. Thank you.

 

[Lofgeornost]

If the inhabitants are like us, the humans are doomed no matter how primitive they are unless the humans can befriend a large enough number of inhabitants. Even then, one disgruntled faction could do a number on the humans once they figure out what diseases the humans are susceptible to, use their own spies to steal human technology. If the humans are a**hats, and decide they don't need the hearts and minds of the masses, then the inhabitants can easily recruit sufficient help even in the human controlled regions.

I don't really think that's true. I'm not in favor of forced colonization, etc., but if the local sentients were hunter-gatherers with paleolithic era technology they would not exist anywhere in large numbers and those in the targeted colonization zone would be pretty easily brushed aside or killed. With reasonable extrapolations of our tech--DNA sensors built into the grips of weapons--advanced weapons would be unusable by them even if they stole them. Once the 100,000 sleepers are awakened, humans will outnumber the natives across large regions and once the million embryos have grown up, across a continent or more. And the human population will presumably rise rapidly from there.

 

[lategamer]

I don't really think that's true. I'm not in favor of forced colonization, etc., but if the local sentients were hunter-gatherers with paleolithic era technology they would not exist anywhere in large numbers and those in the targeted colonization zone would be pretty easily brushed aside or killed. With reasonable extrapolations of our tech--DNA sensors built into the grips of weapons--advanced weapons would be unusable by them even if they stole them.

That's a bit higher tech than I was imagining. This is a lifeboat not a warship.

Once the 100,000 sleepers are awakened, humans will outnumber the natives across large regions and once the million embryos have grown up, across a continent or more. And the human population will presumably rise rapidly from there.

I revised it (somewhere in the thread) to remove the sleepers. As that seems like an army-in-waiting? No? 100,000 modern humans even with basic training and comms, with any sort of advanced weapons, would quickly fend off anything native with lower tech.

 

[Lofgeornost]

That's a bit higher tech than I was imagining. This is a lifeboat not a warship.

I revised it (somewhere in the thread) to remove the sleepers. As that seems like an army-in-waiting? No? 100,000 modern humans even with basic training and comms, with any sort of advanced weapons, would quickly fend off anything native with lower tech.

I'll push back a little on the first. The tech I was suggesting is not really military--it's more peacekeeper/police oriented. The idea is to make sure that if somebody grabs the officer's gun, it can't be turned on them. Right now this is possible through handprint sensors--or separate rings or other 'keys' you need to make the weapon function--but by the 22nd century a DNA-reading sensor doesn't seem like much of a stretch.

I missed the revision, but a mission that consists of a crew of 20 (or 100, or 1,000) and 1 million embryos seems badly planned. Establishing a colony is going to require a lot of labor, as will taking care of 1 million youngsters. Unless the plan is to thaw them in generational batches, it would make sense to me to have a pretty big contingent of sleeping adults to take on the mission on arrival. I'm not sure how large that would need to be--maybe 10,000? 50,000? The planners couldn't know how many either, of course.

 

[lategamer]

I'll push back a little on the first. The tech I was suggesting is not really military--it's more peacekeeper/police oriented. The idea is to make sure that if somebody grabs the officer's gun, it can't be turned on them. Right now this is possible through handprint sensors--or separate rings or other 'keys' you need to make the weapon function--but by the 22nd century a DNA-reading sensor doesn't seem like much of a stretch.

Fair. They may have weapons on board or even the ability to replicate coded weapons.

I missed the revision, but a mission that consists of a crew of 20 (or 100, or 1,000) and 1 million embryos seems badly planned.

Not many people plan the apocalypse. As I mentioned it’s a lifeboat not a colony ship.
(Think the Other Plan in Interstellar)

Establishing a colony is going to require a lot of labor, as will taking care of 1 million youngsters.

Well you don’t gestate them all at once for sure. You might start with 10-20 over 20 years. Then the next generation is 100-200 over the next 20. By the time you get to the third generation, your originals are likely in their 70s but let’s say they extend that with cold sleep and anagathics. They might be capable of a third generation meanwhile the first and second are ready to be parents.

The million embryos ensures generic diversity and sustains humanity’s myriad forms so it doesn’t end up everyone being a clone of “Tom” and “Rita”.

Unless the plan is to thaw them in generational batches, it would make sense to me to have a pretty big contingent of sleeping adults to take on the mission on arrival. I'm not sure how large that would need to be--maybe 10,000? 50,000? The planners couldn't know how many either, of course.

Generational is the way to go. Even then without naturalistic reproduction, each generation grows large. Let’s say 50% of the population is tasked with childrearing and 5 kids per adult.

First Gen
10 adults raising 50 first gens over 20 years = population 70 adults.

Second Gen
35 adults raising 165 second gen’s over 20 years = population 235 adults.

Third Gen
120 adults raising 600 third gen’s over 20 years = population 835

Etc

 

[Jax_xds]

have you ever thought if they know about robotics.

 

[lategamer]

have you ever thought if they know about robotics.

Yeah, there are some semi-autonomous drones but they’re likely to be used for construction more than child rearing

 

[Lofgeornost]

Not many people plan the apocalypse. As I mentioned it’s a lifeboat not a colony ship.
(Think the Other Plan in Interstellar)

Well, you don't plan the apocalypse (though it seems like we are, these days) but you do plan the response.

I saw Interstellar once in the theater and don't have much memory of it, beyond being annoyed at the idea that it was so scientifically accurate (according to the hype) when it pretty clearly wasn't.

Well you don’t gestate them all at once for sure. You might start with 10-20 over 20 years. Then the next generation is 100-200 over the next 20. By the time you get to the third generation, your originals are likely in their 70s but let’s say they extend that with cold sleep and anagathics. They might be capable of a third generation meanwhile the first and second are ready to be parents.

The million embryos ensures generic diversity and sustains humanity’s myriad forms so it doesn’t end up everyone being a clone of “Tom” and “Rita”.

I see the need for genetic diversity, but 1 million seems like a pretty high figure to me for that. I'm no geneticist, though, so maybe I'm wrong. Still, if I ran the zoo I'd dump a fair number of those embryos from the plan, if necessary, to leave room and resources on the ship for a larger cold-sleep contingent. Even if you are planning to arrive on a pristine world without much competition, building the initial base and dealing with all kinds of mundane challenges would seem to me to require a bigger crew (hundreds? thousands?) though I suppose advanced robots could do a fair amount of the actual work.

 

[lategamer]

Well, you don't plan the apocalypse (though it seems like we are, these days) but you do plan the response.

Yeah, having a million embryos in status on a space ship is essentially like the Seed Bank. And you need a lot of them randomised to prevent it from just being the blond haired blue eyed club.

It’s estimated that we just need 98 persons to sustain human population but you can imagine that would be minimal diversity. And there would be limitations with no new genetic material.

I saw Interstellar once in the theater and don't have much memory of it, beyond being annoyed at the idea that it was so scientifically accurate (according to the hype) when it pretty clearly wasn't.

It gets good marks. But sadly it’s just a movie aimed at people. Which is why Coop needs relativity and the 3D nature of wormhole portals explained.

I see the need for genetic diversity, but 1 million seems like a pretty high figure to me for that. I'm no geneticist, though, so maybe I'm wrong. Still, if I ran the zoo I'd dump a fair number of those embryos from the plan, if necessary, to leave room and resources on the ship for a larger cold-sleep contingent. Even if you are planning to arrive on a pristine world without much competition, building the initial base and dealing with all kinds of mundane challenges would seem to me to require a bigger crew (hundreds? thousands?) though I suppose advanced robots could do a fair amount of the actual work.

The problem with long term travel is how much space real people take up.

They could dump half the samples but what do you dump? What demographic do you not pick? If all we need is 98, then where would you pick them from.

Anyway. It’s about moral dilemma with incomplete information, insufficient people and the wrong tools.

 

[Mosker]

Rule #1 of all of these situations: What they say about battle plans not surviving the initial encounter...it (always/too often/most likely) applies to good intentions/high moral principles and the first crisis/ugly situation.

 

[lategamer]

Rule #1 of all of these situations: What they say about battle plans not surviving the initial encounter...it (always/too often/most likely) applies to good intentions/high moral principles and the first crisis/ugly situation.

Yup. And that’s why there’s a lifeboat with the last samples of humanity with insufficient resources orbiting an occupied planet.

Best laid plans and everything.

 

[Lofgeornost]

Yeah, having a million embryos in status on a space ship is essentially like the Seed Bank. And you need a lot of them randomised to prevent it from just being the blond haired blue eyed club.

It’s estimated that we just need 98 persons to sustain human population but you can imagine that would be minimal diversity. And there would be limitations with no new genetic material.

I was thinking about this last night, and it seems to me that the setup would almost inevitably lead to a loss of cultural diversity and probably a complete homogenization of the population.

The original small number of adult crew-people will need a common language and the new world and their tasks there will inevitably shape their lifestyle and culture. They might be able to sustain some diversity in religion and outlook, at least for major world religions, if there are multiple adherents in the original crew. If there aren't, then passing that on to later generations, either biologically produced or thawed embryos, would be difficult, I would think.

Assuming no ethnic prejudices or artificial barriers to sex and marriage among individuals, I'd think that pretty rapidly the population would simply be an amalgam of the traits of original crew + whatever embryos are used in the initial generations. Rather like Larry Niven's picture of Earth's population several centuries from now--essentially just one 'race' or whatever one wants to call it.

 

[lategamer]

I was thinking about this last night, and it seems to me that the setup would almost inevitably lead to a loss of cultural diversity and probably a complete homogenization of the population.

That’s our trend right now, alright. I think it would lead to one voice thinking but it’s scientists who packaged up the embryos and they didn’t bring the artists.

That said, they’ll have the entire internet on board in a thumb drive so it will take a few generations for furries to appear.

The original small number of adult crew-people will need a common language and the new world and their tasks there will inevitably shape their lifestyle and culture. They might be able to sustain some diversity in religion and outlook, at least for major world religions, if there are multiple adherents in the original crew. If there aren't, then passing that on to later generations, either biologically produced or thawed embryos, would be difficult, I would think.

Yes. I think they’ll be very functional and mission based until someone has a breakdown and they start casting golden effigies.

Assuming no ethnic prejudices or artificial barriers to sex and marriage among individuals, I'd think that pretty rapidly the population would simply be an amalgam of the traits of original crew + whatever embryos are used in the initial generations. Rather like Larry Niven's picture of Earth's population several centuries from now--essentially just one 'race' or whatever one wants to call it.

Human cultural diversity would re-appear. I’m confident of that.

 

[lategamer]

Tech Levels

The 'spaceship'. Something maybe modelled on The Endurance. A modular ring structure with attachment points for the landers.

Do we have multiple types of lander? Cargo and shuttle? Or just one? A little dose of Handwavium about the fuel required for each?

Drones? Having 'drones like a cross between TARS/CASE and the drones in the Culture seems right. Not filled with Effectors or anything but maybe suitcase sized. Maybe these are brains with multiple bodies?

• A suitcase sized general purpose drone with wheels and limbs (limbs used to help it get up stairs). Designed for on-ship operations
• A Zero G body with small thrusters and tools embedded.
• A spider-like land body. Like a Boston Dynamics dog but with radial symmetry.

 

[Stumpydave]

I liked the ships in District 9 and The Aliens, broken down vessels and not repairable to a space-worthy condition.
Sure you could stay on board but you can't fly off anywhere else.

 

[lategamer]

I liked the ships in District 9 and The Aliens, broken down vessels and not repairable to a space-worthy condition.
Sure you could stay on board but you can't fly off anywhere else.

That’s the vibe. Kinda.

You could live out your life onboard. But humanity dies.

 

[Urdlen's best boy]

I have a few questions
1-is their biology similar to our?
Reason for question : high risk of diseases exchange - and if humanity is very limited + concentrated spacially, that could be the end of it.
2-can they communicate with us?
Reason : if they can't, and there's a war, there's no way to end it. Even w/ superior tech humanity is likely to lose.
3-how compatible are they culturally? Would they accept us living w/ them?

 

[Lofgeornost]

I have a few questions
1-is their biology similar to our?
Reason for question : high risk of diseases exchange - and if humanity is very limited + concentrated spacially, that could be the end of it.
2-can they communicate with us?
Reason : if they can't, and there's a war, there's no way to end it. Even w/ superior tech humanity is likely to lose.
3-how compatible are they culturally? Would they accept us living w/ them?

Not my thread, not my monkeys, but here are a few answers anyway:

1. Has been discussed a bit upthread. Frankly, I think there's a danger in overestimating how likely disease spread may be. We live on a planet with lots of animals very closely related to us, in genetic terms, but most diseases don't infect a wide range of species. One might expect that creatures that have an entirely different evolutionary background would be even less likely to produce pathogens that can live in or on us.
2. Presumably they can, but I'm not sure it is entirely necessary. If the military advantage is large enough, then it may come down to extermination of natives in (or their exclusion from) a given controllable region--say an island--and the others keeping away because they don't want to die.
3. Who knows?

 

[Urdlen's best boy]

Has been discussed a bit upthread. Frankly, I think there's a danger in overestimating how likely disease spread may be. We live on a planet with lots of animals very closely related to us, in genetic terms, but most diseases don't infect a wide range of species. One might expect that creatures that have an entirely different evolutionary background would be even less likely to produce pathogens that can live in or on us.

True, but if there is anything that can affect us we would have no defense against it, so depending on how similar/dissimilar, virus/bacteria mutation rates, exposure, etc, it's not impossible either.

Say the entire world is extremely humid and bacteria/fungi that's potentially toxic to us is everywhere, but the natives are adapted.

Presumably they can, but I'm not sure it is entirely necessary. If the military advantage is large enough, then it may come down to extermination of natives in (or their exclusion from) a given controllable region--say an island--and the others keeping away because they don't want to die.

That's not necessarily the case, when there's only a hundred people. Mass destruction hasn't made ground infantry obsolete, and in the case of a colonization event, I don't see how it could be done with.

What I mean is say this one ship can nuke/lazer destroy their entire civ... ok but now the once habitable world is a barren hellscape/nuclear winter. So some amount of ground control would be necessary for success.

And then depending on how different they are they may also have biological advantages that make that untenable - sheer size, special adaptations, sonic attacks, idk... Or they could be a sort of ant-like hivemind (+some tech) and just send endless hordes of clones and don't care if they die. Or if they have warlike cultures they might simply see us as an invasive threat and set resources etc to defeat us before we are too implanted even if they face a high death toll.

Maybe there could be some sort of technological force wall or something, but even then, being beseiged for ever on an alien planet sounds like a nightmare. And they may still be able to do stuff like divest rivers & other ecological engineering.

That's why I think it would actually be crucial. If we cannot communicate then the abovementioned scenarios are on the table.

 

[Lofgeornost]

True, but if there is anything that can affect us we would have no defense against it, so depending on how similar/dissimilar, virus/bacteria mutation rates, exposure, etc, it's not impossible either.

Say the entire world is extremely humid and bacteria/fungi that's potentially toxic to us is everywhere, but the natives are adapted.

One can imagine this is the case. But I think there is an unacknowledged bias in such imaginings. The natives being adapted to such threats also implies that the pathogenetic organism are adapted to the natives. So they might not be adapted to humans.

To put it another way, discussions of infectious disease often talk about two 'filters' that have to be overcome before an infection can occur. One is the encounter filter, the other is the compatibility filter. The latter could be largely or completely closed on an alien world. What if the native life-forms aren't made of the same proteins that terrestrial life is?

I think we're misled by historical examples here on Earth, like the 'Great Dying' that accompanied expansion into the Americas, or the susceptibility of Europeans to tropical diseases that limited their expansion into Africa until the later 19th century. In those cases, diseases already adapted to human beings were spreading into 'virgin' populations.

That's not necessarily the case, when there's only a hundred people. Mass destruction hasn't made ground infantry obsolete, and in the case of a colonization event, I don't see how it could be done with.

What I mean is say this one ship can nuke/lazer destroy their entire civ... ok but now the once habitable world is a barren hellscape/nuclear winter. So some amount of ground control would be necessary for success.

And then depending on how different they are they may also have biological advantages that make that untenable - sheer size, special adaptations, sonic attacks, idk... Or they could be a sort of ant-like hivemind (+some tech) and just send endless hordes of clones and don't care if they die. Or if they have warlike cultures they might simply see us as an invasive threat and set resources etc to defeat us before we are too implanted even if they face a high death toll.

Maybe there could be some sort of technological force wall or something, but even then, being beseiged for ever on an alien planet sounds like a nightmare. And they may still be able to do stuff like divest rivers & other ecological engineering.

That's why I think it would actually be crucial. If we cannot communicate then the abovementioned scenarios are on the table.

Yes. I'm a bit surprised, though, that everybody in this thread but me is defaulting to the idea that the natives have anything beyond a stone-age technology. Simply going by terrestrial history, one would bet that (1) there actually would be no intelligent natives, since AFAWK intelligent life has only existed for a tiny bit of the Earth's history and (2) that life has stone-age tech, since for most of humanity's existence it has had that and no more.

The natives could be anything, of course, but if they are the rough equivalents of homo sapiens in the Paleolithic, they'll be few on the ground and not organized in more complex groups than small families or clans. Even a few hundred people with modern conventional weapons could probably kill all of them in a limited area (an island appropriate for the original settlement) or expel them from it. I'm not arguing this is the best solution, mind you.

 

[Urdlen's best boy]

One can imagine this is the case. But I think there is an unacknowledged bias in such imaginings. The natives being adapted to such threats also implies that the pathogenetic organism are adapted to the natives. So they might not be adapted to humans.

To put it another way, discussions of infectious disease often talk about two 'filters' that have to be overcome before an infection can occur. One is the encounter filter, the other is the compatibility filter. The latter could be largely or completely closed on an alien world. What if the native life-forms aren't made of the same proteins that terrestrial life is?

I think we're misled by historical examples here on Earth, like the 'Great Dying' that accompanied expansion into the Americas, or the susceptibility of Europeans to tropical diseases that limited their expansion into Africa until the later 19th century. In those cases, diseases already adapted to human beings were spreading into 'virgin' populations.

True but if proteins are completely incompatible, it doesn't bode well for our continued existence there. First there might not be edible food, and second abnormal proteins is the basis of prion disease... It could stand to reason that in the same way we might not be able to eliminate these proteins, leading to build up and then prion disease.

Or it could be the opposite, where these forreign molecules cause severe allegies.

Yes. I'm a bit surprised, though, that everybody in this thread but me is defaulting to the idea that the natives have anything beyond a stone-age technology. Simply going by terrestrial history, one would bet that (1) there actually would be no intelligent natives, since AFAWK intelligent life has only existed for a tiny bit of the Earth's history and (2) that life has stone-age tech, since for most of humanity's existence it has had that and no more.

The natives could be anything, of course, but if they are the rough equivalents of homo sapiens in the Paleolithic, they'll be few on the ground and not organized in more complex groups than small families or clans. Even a few hundred people with modern conventional weapons could probably kill all of them in a limited area (an island appropriate for the original settlement) or expel them from it. I'm not arguing this is the best solution, mind you.

I read earlier in the thread that the condition was "pre-modern", so they could have logistic, armies, metalwork... etc.

And that's assuming they develop the same way as us. A hivemind type colony might have disproportionately better logistics or numbers despite having not even stone age technology. They might just be less reliant on tools. If they can be radically different to the degree of different protein complex etc, there's also a chance that they might be radically different in other areas. Or they could be 20 tons each with skin tough enough to absorb bullets from a rifle or dissipate hand held laser guns & whatnot.

Minor, but idk if that bet works since we don't know the full length of our history - unlikely if we follow the mammal average specie life expectancy of 1 million years, but maybe we carry forward a few million years w/ our tech or better.

Either way I don't think it's granted that it would be like facing say neanderthals in our past, even if tech wise they are limited. Hence the need to communicate or at least investigate - but then investigating without communication might be enough of a casus belli in some scenario or another.

 

[lategamer]

Not my thread, not my monkeys, but here are a few answers anyway:

It's just thoughts so it's yours as much as anyone.

1. Has been discussed a bit upthread. Frankly, I think there's a danger in overestimating how likely disease spread may be. We live on a planet with lots of animals very closely related to us, in genetic terms, but most diseases don't infect a wide range of species. One might expect that creatures that have an entirely different evolutionary background would be even less likely to produce pathogens that can live in or on us.

Biological compatibility with a different evolutionary pathway would definitely mean in possible zoonosis. We may end up getting novel pathogens we have to deal with.

Biological compatibility is kinda more likely than not. Mostly because there are a limited number of configurations for autopoietic origins and once you eliminate the likely paths, there's not much left.

If a pathogen kills us all instantly, it's a short game, but having natural pathogens should be something the PCs have to guard against (and be reminded of by drones). I don't mind the idea of a rampaging natural pathogen that forces the PCs to explore using remote drones while they develop a vaccine or antibiotic.

1. Presumably they can, but I'm not sure it is entirely necessary. If the military advantage is large enough, then it may come down to extermination of natives in (or their exclusion from) a given controllable region--say an island--and the others keeping away because they don't want to die.

I would say that we have superior tech, but we lack numbers and lack numbers of armaments. We can manufacture armaments.
If we choose an isolated isle, that isle might gain a reputation for being haunted or filled with evil gods

1. Who knows?

That's what the players have to discover. I would assume they're close to some human sensibilities because it makes no sense for them to be obligate cannibals or respond to fire with running in a circle. No alien for the sake of alien.

Maybe there could be some sort of technological force wall or something, but even then, being beseiged for ever on an alien planet sounds like a nightmare. And they may still be able to do stuff like divest rivers & other ecological engineering.

It could be a nightmare until there's a breakthrough at either end.

That's why I think it would actually be crucial. If we cannot communicate then the abovementioned scenarios are on the table.

I think communications is a baseline the players have to establish.

Yes. I'm a bit surprised, though, that everybody in this thread but me is defaulting to the idea that the natives have anything beyond a stone-age technology. Simply going by terrestrial history, one would bet that (1) there actually would be no intelligent natives, since AFAWK intelligent life has only existed for a tiny bit of the Earth's history and (2) that life has stone-age tech, since for most of humanity's existence it has had that and no more.

Imagining stone age 'aliens' is easier than imaging the alien development of everything up the steam engine, so it's not surprising.

What if the baseline tech was around 1440AD equivalent - they've just discovered the printing press. They have cannon.
What if the baseline tech was 1765? They've just invented vaccines. They have the steam engine.

 

[Luca]

Man. I'd be an utterly terrible player in this sort of campaign.

If my actions are fundamental to the species' survival, the "moral dilemma" is not even going to register as a blip on my mental radar.

 

[lategamer]

Man. I'd be an utterly terrible player in this sort of campaign.

If my actions are fundamental to the species' survival, the "moral dilemma" is not even going to register as a blip on my mental radar.

See, this is why you'd be a good player in it.

Readers....self identify whether you think this is a moral dilemma or not? I believe we have a spectrum of tolerance. And this conflict leads to roleplay, compromise, friction.

 

[DornKratz]

I have a few thoughts on this:

• In ~10,000 years of civilization, "there are people already living there" has never stopped any settlers.
• Any agency tasked with sending humanity's last hope of survival into space would likely screen and interview tens of thousands of candidates and discard anyone that showed any sign they might put ethical concerns above the mission. Of course, players will have their own opinions.
• The most interesting setup seems to be one where humans have a technological advantage, but can't just land somewhere remote and grow into a million-strong nation before making contact. Some early industrial technology for the natives might work well.
• With that said, landing somewhere remote instead of a populated center might be a great idea. The most inhospitable desert on Earth is still a fantastic spot compared to space, and with limited tech to reach them, initial contact would also be minimal.

 

[lategamer]

I have a few thoughts on this:

• In ~10,000 years of civilization, "there are people already living there" has never stopped any settlers.
• Any agency tasked with sending humanity's last hope of survival into space would likely screen and interview tens of thousands of candidates and discard anyone that showed any sign they might put ethical concerns above the mission. Of course, players will have their own opinions.
• The most interesting setup seems to be one where humans have a technological advantage, but can't just land somewhere remote and grow into a million-strong nation before making contact. Some early industrial technology for the natives might work well.

Yes! Yes! Yes!

The scientists who put together the mission were ethical - but again, with Interstellar as a guide. The "best of us" sometimes isn't good enough.

• With that said, landing somewhere remote instead of a populated center might be a great idea. The most inhospitable desert on Earth is still a fantastic spot compared to space, and with limited tech to reach them, initial contact would also be minimal.

This is one of the problems with Interstellar....and entirely the issue with the plans of billionaires to leave Earth. Earth isn't just a gem or a garden. You will never find a world like it.

Until now. And it's occupied.

 

[lategamer]

Found this wee thing. Nice visuals.