Hexaped Technobabble
Greywolf
probably not going to continue participating in anyway, a little problem arose
in that I have a planet that happens to have a few genetically-engineered
hexaped furry-types... and one of the project heads, who does *not* care for
'taurs, hexapeds or whatever you call them, can't see why anyone would want to
genetically engineer 'taur-type critters.
Also, he was highly critical of how that would even be possible.
Any recommendations from 'taur-folk, or any offerings of some technobabble I
could use to explain away such a phenomenon? =)
--
-Jordan .. PEACO...@iscsvax.uni.edu
.OO. Jordan Peacock (Jordan Greywolf)
O/\O (New Address): 1610 Parker
-- Cedar Falls, IA 50613
Simon Raboczi
>...one of the project heads, who does *not* care for
>'taurs, hexapeds or whatever you call them, can't see why anyone would want to
>genetically engineer 'taur-type critters.
Simple; it's a practical way of building a very strong creature. Assuming you
use something resembling normal tissue to build your anthropomorphs, strength
is going to depend on how much muscle the creature carries. Carrying a lot of
muscle mass implies a large creature. NOT building a 'taur presumes some sort
of biped. (?) Big bipeds with short legs aren't particularly mobile. With
long legs OTOH, they're unstable and quite likely to break those legs in a fall.
As a final drawback, they've got a social impediment in not being able to deal
with normal hominids face-to-face or feasibly use existing human-size facilities.
Hexapeds avoid these problems and would really come into their own if they were
to operate in flat, open terrain rather than the standard urban setting.
--
,-_|\ Simon Raboczi (rab...@s1.elec.uq.oz.au)
/ * Department of Electrical Engineering
\_.--_/ University of Queensland, St Lucia
v Brisbane, Australia
SRONCE, FRANK T
Well, I don't know much technobabble, but it probably depends upon WHY they're
being genetically engineered... I mean, what's it for? If it's for colonization,
'taurs would be a good compromise between two-legged critters (who fall down
and go splat too often) and four-legged for high gravity planets.
If you want customized slave-critters, you've just combined the farmhand and
the farmhorse into one... congratulations.
And if it's a "humanity's on its way out, let's make something new before we
go", then anything goes.
Kiz
ps - There's a story I've plotted but will probably never write which involves
furries of a zillion assorted types, all of whom are (genetically) normal
humans.
It's really quite simple. Put a tribe of humans on a magical world. Wait until
they discover that they can use magic to change themselves into any shape they
want, and that (because of the invasive nature of magic) their children will
tend to resemble the assumed shape. Leave. Come back after a 1,000 years.
Think you'll recognize the locals?
Greywolf
> peaco...@iscsvax.uni.edu (Greywolf) writes:
>
>>...one of the project heads, who does *not* care for
>>'taurs, hexapeds or whatever you call them, can't see why anyone would want to
>>genetically engineer 'taur-type critters.
>
Thanks! =) Nice to get such a prompt and detailed (well, enough for *my*
purposes) response -- Thanks to the other folks who offered me some advice as
well. =)
jde...@desire.wright.edu
there, but some reasons for having 'Tuar type creatures would possibly include:
A) stability, 4+ legs give a good stable center of gravity.
b) speed, 4+ legs can give you a good deal of speed.
c) stamina/staying power, A 'taur may have more muscle mass since a 'taur's
body is shaped diffrently, many of his organs would be placed in a difrent
location, leaving more area for muscle mass.
These are simply some ideas as for why they would be created, and may not be
accurate concepts, still they seem logical enough.
Ray Rooney
There was an SF story, "Call Me Joe", about an artificial centaur
created for work on heavy-gravity environments published in Analog
(perhaps when it was still "Astounding") in the mid-late fifties.
The basic theory was that a massive body was needed to withstand and
move around in the high gravity. Four legs were best. On the other hand,
it had to be able to handle and maniulate tools and other objects. Arms
and hands were added. Voila! Centaur.
Hope this helps.
Ray (still on painkillers) Rooney
* SLMR 2.1a * Coming Soon: Kimba Meets The Aztec Mummy
James Davis Nicoll
>In a story I've been working for for a shared-universe project that I'm
>probably not going to continue participating in anyway, a little problem arose
>in that I have a planet that happens to have a few genetically-engineered
>hexaped furry-types... and one of the project heads, who does *not* care for
>'taurs, hexapeds or whatever you call them, can't see why anyone would want to
>genetically engineer 'taur-type critters.
>
>Also, he was highly critical of how that would even be possible.
>
>Any recommendations from 'taur-folk, or any offerings of some technobabble I
>could use to explain away such a phenomenon? =)
Need the hexapeds be furries in the sense of mammals or other
quadrupeds?What about organisms like arthropods? If you could use something
like that youwouldn't have to worry about how to endow them with 6 limbs from
a 4 limb base. Obviously, you'd have to give the buggers lungs so the
square-cube law doesn't suffocate them. There are *spiders* with lung-like
organs: maybe you can use their adaptations as a guideline. You have to work
with the strength of their exoskeleton as well: internal struts perhaps.
You can also modify some of the mouth components to give them
very delicate 'fingers' for detail work.
Their suite of behaviors probably won't map all that well onto
ours: I suspect insects like Preying Mantises would find our Western
traditions of romance amusing if they suddenly became intelligent. I
think E.O. Wilson (of sociobiology (in)fame) has a number of books
on insect behavior that could provide hints.
James Nicoll
Greywolf
> In article <1992Oct18....@iscsvax.uni.edu> peaco...@iscsvax.uni.edu (Greywolf) writes:
>>genetically engineer 'taur-type critters.
>>
{deleted}
>>Any recommendations from 'taur-folk, or any offerings of some technobabble I
>>could use to explain away such a phenomenon? =)
> square-cube law doesn't suffocate them. There are *spiders* with lung-like
square-cube law? Sorry, could you please explain?
> traditions of romance amusing if they suddenly became intelligent. I
Oog. =P
JOHN MARTIN KARAKASH
|>> square-cube law doesn't suffocate them. There are *spiders* with lung-like
|>
|>square-cube law? Sorry, could you please explain?
|>
is on. Ahem.
When you double the height of a creature (a mouse let's say) and
double the width and length too, you get a mouse with 8 times the mass
but only 4 times the surface area. (you can check this out with simpler
structure like cubes and spheres but it works for nearly anything). That's
where the square-cube part comes in. When you double the length, you
multiply the surface area by 4 (2 squared) and the volume/weight by 8
(2 cubed).
The problems that arise are numerous, but three are most common.
1) The amount of heat produced by a creature would tend to be proportional
to its weight, while the surface area available radiates the heat. So if
you increase a mouse by 1000 times the weight, the poor sucker only has
100 times the surface area and would fry in his own.... well you get the
picture.
2) The structures that support the creature, legs in this case, are
proportional to the cross section of the leg (an area measure). So the
supporting structures are being increased by the square of the increase
in linear length but the weight is still going up by the cube of the
linear increase. (That's why elephants have wide stumpy legs.)
3) Spiders have a method of breathing that happens to work dandy on a
small scale, (I forget the details, but it involves the surface area
of some special structures in their body where oxygen diffuses through).
When you blow them up though, the amount of body mass the spider needs
to support goes up by the cube, but the area of the structures only
goes up by the square.
So there's the square-cube law in a nutshell. There's a quote,
who's author I cannot remember, that goes something like this, "If you
redesign a mouse to be big as an elephant, you'll have an elephant."
-john-
Greywolf
>
> |>> square-cube law doesn't suffocate them. There are *spiders* with lung-like
> |>
> |>square-cube law? Sorry, could you please explain?
> |>
> This is a teeny-tiny bit technical, so make sure your seat belt
> is on. Ahem.
Interesting stuff, and I think I might even understand it? =) Wow! Imagine
that! So, this means that "Honey, I Blew Up the Baby" just *might* not be a
technically accurate movie, eh? =) (Imagine that!) Thanks!
Simon Raboczi
plausible creatures, I'd like to recommend the following book:
AUTHR: Vogel, Steven, 1940-
TITLE: Life's devices : the physical world of animals and plants
illustrated by Rosemary Anne Calvert. --
PUBLR: Princeton, N.J. : Princeton University Press
YEAR : 1988
DESCR: xii, 367 p. : ill. ; 24 cm
ISBN#: 0-691-02418-9 (pbk.)
ISBN#: 0-691-08504-8
SUBJT: Biophysics, Biomechanics
It's a very readable introduction to biomechanics, covering
both the physics and biology background in a very friendly
way. The painless way to put the techno into your babble! :)
Kay.S...@f524.n102.z1.fidonet.org
JD> Their suite of behaviors probably won't map all that well
JD>onto
JD>ours: I suspect insects like Preying Mantises would find our
JD>Western
JD>traditions of romance amusing if they suddenly became
JD>intelligent. I
JD>think E.O. Wilson (of sociobiology (in)fame) has a number of
JD>books
JD>on insect behavior that could provide hints.
Side note in re preying mantises - further study has shown that if you
don't half starve the poor things first, the female does NOT feel it
necessary to devour the male.
It WOULD be interesting devising an insect society; most if not all of what
extant insects do is hardwired, whereas sapience involves being able to
make software changes, sometimes very quickly.
Incidentally, with what we currently know about
Drusophila melanogaster (the common fruit fly - those nearly invisible
gnats with the big reddish eyes that turn up in your kitchen if you
let the bananas go too long) and it's genetics, it is possible to
turn one out with four wings instead of two. Of course the poor
thing can't fly as the programming for USAGE of four wings to fly is not,
alas, present, but this problem could also be solved, I would imagine.
Duplication of lower segments may be easier than we think...
--- msged 2.06
James Davis Nicoll
>On <Oct 20 07:10>, James Davis Nicoll (1:103/208) wrote to All:
>
>
>Side note in re preying mantises - further study has shown that if you
>don't half starve the poor things first, the female does NOT feel it
>necessary to devour the male.
Hee hee. Bet there are fewer non-support-paying fathers among
divorced sentient Preying Mantises.
>It WOULD be interesting devising an insect society; most if not all of what
> extant insects do is hardwired, whereas sapience involves being able to
>make software changes, sometimes very quickly.
Insects are working with substancial mass limits, so it isn't
like they have the space mass to devote to CNSes like ours. I'd imagine
that free will increases with 'intelligence', although you might get
interesting situations where the regions of behavior that are hardwired
in sentient bugs does *not* overlap with whatever is hardwired in Humans:
both could regard the other as hopeless slaves of their instincts.
James Nicoll
Silver
>Wouldn't having a spine with the shape required make the back weak or
> really suspectible to back/back muscle problems?
>-- Tygress
To my understanding, where the upper spine meets the lower, they're
joined with a ball and socket joint, with the spinal cord running right
through the center. This allows for a surprising ammount of flexibility,
and support. At least, this is what I've learned of Keshantti. Other
*'taurs may be structured differently. If anyone knows better than this,
feel free to correct me, as I'm not too sure.
-Kimi
'Wanna ribbon?' 'Kimi! Aiee!' -- Bunnell
Laura Holmbeck
Richard Chandler
> joined with a ball and socket joint, with the spinal cord running right
> through the center. This allows for a surprising ammount of flexibility,
> and support. At least, this is what I've learned of Keshantti. Other
> *'taurs may be structured differently. If anyone knows better than this,
> feel free to correct me, as I'm not too sure.
> -Kimi
A ball and socket joint would be a bad choice. And I don't see how you could
run a major nerve bundle through one. To work, the ball must be perfectly
smooth, so it shouldn't have a hole through it. Besides, that hole would not
maintain alignment with the corresponding hole in the socket when the critter
flexes the joint. Severing one's spinal cord is a bit harsh of a punishment
for not maintaining proper posture. :-)
I figure that for hexapeds, the "middle" legs are supported by a pelvis like
structure rather than a shoulder. If you don't think that is flexible
enough, look at a cat's tail, there's a pelvis with spine on both sides.