Atlantean Clan Book

[glitterboy2098]

if the typical size is 200, the majority of Atlantean traveling groups are too small to make that viable.. if you want to avoid inbreeding, you need at least 500+, more like 5000+ if you have family groups involved.

Manoa is a group of true atlanteans that didn't flee earth, and thus shouldn't be counted. Alexandria in the 3G's is a post-diaspora community, but we don't know its history. it may well have been a case of it being built by the largest single clan to survive, or by the largest group to escape, who stuck together rather than break up into smaller groups.

the other potential for increasing the population, breeding with non-true-atlanteans, is a difficult prospect to consider, because we don't have info on how the offspring would turn out. would they always be a TA? or do you need both parents as TA's to get a TA kid? or is it one of those % chance things?
odds are, a TA+non-TA does not generate a full TA every time.. so TA's settling with non-TA's would probably preserve the Culture, but not the genetics. (which honestly, is something i'd love to see..)

[kaid]

Actually I think the offspring with others has been updated in the new book. Atlanteans are no longer compatible with humans or likely lemurians for interbreeding.

[RockJock]

With the inbreeding you are assuming that TAs have "normal" genetics. It is made pretty clear that they are basically supermen modified via magic. That magic influence could easily let smaller populations be viable.

TAs can't breed with anyone but TAs, based on the RAW book. Things might have changed in the final.

[Hotrod]

With the inbreeding you are assuming that TAs have "normal" genetics. It is made pretty clear that they are basically supermen modified via magic. That magic influence could easily let smaller populations be viable.

TAs can't breed with anyone but TAs, based on the RAW book. Things might have changed in the final.

They could also get a sperm bank going.

[SereneTsunami]

You could do what Clan Aerihman did, find a dimension where times passes 4 times faster then normal.

[Mack]

Slightly off-topic question (but I don't want to start a new thread)...

A while back the forum had a debate as to which magic weapon tattoos could be combined (such as dripping-flaming-crossed-serpent-wings). Does the new book address that?

[Jorick]

Slightly off-topic question (but I don't want to start a new thread)...

A while back the forum had a debate as to which magic weapon tattoos could be combined (such as dripping-flaming-crossed-serpent-wings). Does the new book address that?

I think it does. There a discussion of the cost when making a weapon with abilities, or adding to the weapon later. I don't know what the debate on the forums was about, but I can see ambiguity in the original. I think it get cleared up when the cost is discussed because one gets an idea of the kinds of combinations the writer is envisioning.

[kaid]

Slightly off-topic question (but I don't want to start a new thread)...

A while back the forum had a debate as to which magic weapon tattoos could be combined (such as dripping-flaming-crossed-serpent-wings). Does the new book address that?

If I recall correctly they did go into more detail on the weapon enhancements and options as well as adding some similar type upgrade options to summoned animals/monsters.

[Pepsi Jedi]

if the typical size is 200, the majority of Atlantean traveling groups are too small to make that viable.. if you want to avoid inbreeding, you need at least 500+, more like 5000+ if you have family groups involved.

Manoa is a group of true atlanteans that didn't flee earth, and thus shouldn't be counted. Alexandria in the 3G's is a post-diaspora community, but we don't know its history. it may well have been a case of it being built by the largest single clan to survive, or by the largest group to escape, who stuck together rather than break up into smaller groups.

the other potential for increasing the population, breeding with non-true-atlanteans, is a difficult prospect to consider, because we don't have info on how the offspring would turn out. would they always be a TA? or do you need both parents as TA's to get a TA kid? or is it one of those % chance things?
odds are, a TA+non-TA does not generate a full TA every time.. so TA's settling with non-TA's would probably preserve the Culture, but not the genetics. (which honestly, is something i'd love to see..)

While not exactly... shouted from the roof tops... "inbreeding' doesn't happen... like most people THINK it does. One instance of inbreeding is unlikely to have discernable ill effects. It's when it happens over and over and over in a limited span.

There are instances where in breeding is actually beneficial.

Now.. this is a TOUCHY Subject when it comes to humans (Sapient beings) but... take a look at your local dog show. 100s of breeds. a few common ancestors. they didn't develop in the 'wild' like that. Modern dog breeds are the results of 100s of years of selective breeding, which very often was done though inbreeding to re-enforce dominant traits and to exaggerate those traits.

Depending on your level of technology, depends on the number of people you need to 'repopulate' viably.

WITH OUT intervention... a colony of 5,000 can 'freely breed' and naturally repopulate. A much larger number than most people think.

_WITH_ Human interaction. About 500 can do so with out any dangers. A simple genetic screening to prevent recessive negative gene parings, and 'over rampant' imbreeding and you're fine. (This option allows for maintained monogomy.)

On the bottom end of the spectrum.. you have numbers about.. 160... down to 80.
THIS option... insures inbreeding will occur.. --for it to be viable-- your people have to be comfortable with..... shall we call it.... "The failure factor"

Meaning.. they breed like rabbits, as many partners as they can, (Males and females) and they 'accept losses'. Babies born with significant defects are euthanized. Screenings after birth look for further 'failures of concept'. (I'm trying to be polite)

If you're comfortable.. having 10+ kids for 3 to be viable and the other 8+ being euthanized at birth or early to mid child hood. you -can- do it with low numbers such as these. As you'll note that even in 'just theory' this has some.... significant hurdles to overcome. Not the least of wich is lack of monogamy for (Humans), and the rapid turn around, multiple/high numbers of children. (( Each person would be responsible for reproducing dozens of times to ensure a minimal number of viable offspring) Easier for the males than the females but still. There's also that reaaaaaly sticky part about killing large numbers of your own offspring for negative breeding results. Something that's going to be a HELL of a hurdle to overcome.

And that's assuming science advanced enough to screen for those problems. With out it, your kids are going to have to live into their teens or higher before it becoems clear if they're fully viable. Some problems don't pop up right away.

In this case, the people we're discussing use laser rifles so there's the assumption that they have enough modern medicine not to have to wait and see of Jr's heart explodes when he turns 14 and gets his first arousal to his sister... Still a dicy situation.

[kaid]

I think one big feature of clan meeting get togethers is probably increasing chances of inter clan marriage to help clans have a big enough gene pool. A lot of atlanteans are pretty nomadic so there is a fair amount of contact between most of the clans although some are more insular than others.

[eliakon]

if the typical size is 200, the majority of Atlantean traveling groups are too small to make that viable.. if you want to avoid inbreeding, you need at least 500+, more like 5000+ if you have family groups involved.

Manoa is a group of true atlanteans that didn't flee earth, and thus shouldn't be counted. Alexandria in the 3G's is a post-diaspora community, but we don't know its history. it may well have been a case of it being built by the largest single clan to survive, or by the largest group to escape, who stuck together rather than break up into smaller groups.

the other potential for increasing the population, breeding with non-true-atlanteans, is a difficult prospect to consider, because we don't have info on how the offspring would turn out. would they always be a TA? or do you need both parents as TA's to get a TA kid? or is it one of those % chance things?
odds are, a TA+non-TA does not generate a full TA every time.. so TA's settling with non-TA's would probably preserve the Culture, but not the genetics. (which honestly, is something i'd love to see..)

While not exactly... shouted from the roof tops... "inbreeding' doesn't happen... like most people THINK it does. One instance of inbreeding is unlikely to have discernable ill effects. It's when it happens over and over and over in a limited span.

There are instances where in breeding is actually beneficial.

Now.. this is a TOUCHY Subject when it comes to humans (Sapient beings) but... take a look at your local dog show. 100s of breeds. a few common ancestors. they didn't develop in the 'wild' like that. Modern dog breeds are the results of 100s of years of selective breeding, which very often was done though inbreeding to re-enforce dominant traits and to exaggerate those traits.

Considering the major, systematic and pervasive health problems surrounding purebred dogs I don't find that to be a rousing endorsement

Depending on your level of technology, depends on the number of people you need to 'repopulate' viably.

WITH OUT intervention... a colony of 5,000 can 'freely breed' and naturally repopulate. A much larger number than most people think.

_WITH_ Human interaction. About 500 can do so with out any dangers. A simple genetic screening to prevent recessive negative gene parings, and 'over rampant' imbreeding and you're fine. (This option allows for maintained monogomy.)

On the bottom end of the spectrum.. you have numbers about.. 160... down to 80.
THIS option... insures inbreeding will occur.. --for it to be viable-- your people have to be comfortable with..... shall we call it.... "The failure factor"

Meaning.. they breed like rabbits, as many partners as they can, (Males and females) and they 'accept losses'. Babies born with significant defects are euthanized. Screenings after birth look for further 'failures of concept'. (I'm trying to be polite)

If you're comfortable.. having 10+ kids for 3 to be viable and the other 8+ being euthanized at birth or early to mid child hood. you -can- do it with low numbers such as these. As you'll note that even in 'just theory' this has some.... significant hurdles to overcome. Not the least of wich is lack of monogamy for (Humans), and the rapid turn around, multiple/high numbers of children. (( Each person would be responsible for reproducing dozens of times to ensure a minimal number of viable offspring) Easier for the males than the females but still. There's also that reaaaaaly sticky part about killing large numbers of your own offspring for negative breeding results. Something that's going to be a HELL of a hurdle to overcome.

And that's assuming science advanced enough to screen for those problems. With out it, your kids are going to have to live into their teens or higher before it becoems clear if they're fully viable. Some problems don't pop up right away.

In this case, the people we're discussing use laser rifles so there's the assumption that they have enough modern medicine not to have to wait and see of Jr's heart explodes when he turns 14 and gets his first arousal to his sister... Still a dicy situation.

I am pretty sure that the what you are discussing would come under the "Diabolic" spectrum.
I am QUITE positive that the Atlantians, as presented, are not going to be inbreeding, then simply writing off 80% or so of the children as 'breakage' in some sort of massive eugenics program.
They are supposed to be heroes, not space Nazis.
I know that is how puppy mills operate... but this isn't dogs we are dealing with.

Oh, and your numbers are...iffy
I can't find any support in the literature for the claim that 500 is a MVP. Do you have a source besides "I want a lower number"?

[Pepsi Jedi]

if the typical size is 200, the majority of Atlantean traveling groups are too small to make that viable.. if you want to avoid inbreeding, you need at least 500+, more like 5000+ if you have family groups involved.

Manoa is a group of true atlanteans that didn't flee earth, and thus shouldn't be counted. Alexandria in the 3G's is a post-diaspora community, but we don't know its history. it may well have been a case of it being built by the largest single clan to survive, or by the largest group to escape, who stuck together rather than break up into smaller groups.

the other potential for increasing the population, breeding with non-true-atlanteans, is a difficult prospect to consider, because we don't have info on how the offspring would turn out. would they always be a TA? or do you need both parents as TA's to get a TA kid? or is it one of those % chance things?
odds are, a TA+non-TA does not generate a full TA every time.. so TA's settling with non-TA's would probably preserve the Culture, but not the genetics. (which honestly, is something i'd love to see..)

While not exactly... shouted from the roof tops... "inbreeding' doesn't happen... like most people THINK it does. One instance of inbreeding is unlikely to have discernable ill effects. It's when it happens over and over and over in a limited span.

There are instances where in breeding is actually beneficial.

Now.. this is a TOUCHY Subject when it comes to humans (Sapient beings) but... take a look at your local dog show. 100s of breeds. a few common ancestors. they didn't develop in the 'wild' like that. Modern dog breeds are the results of 100s of years of selective breeding, which very often was done though inbreeding to re-enforce dominant traits and to exaggerate those traits.

Considering the major, systematic and pervasive health problems surrounding purebred dogs I don't find that to be a rousing endorsement

That's not 'actually' all that true, and actually is germaine to the conversation. What you're describing usually only happens when dogs are --too-- interbred. By their natures 'pure bred' dogs are bread for purpose and design. That doesn't intrinsicly result in health problems.

The ones 'with' health problems are put out there by unscrupulious breeders and puppy mills. I.E. the ones that aren't careful about it, resulting in the problems.

In this case, germaine to the conversation because by their nature they've been selectively bred for purpose but that selection has broken down to the point they're 'overly interbred', with out safety precautions. For the purpose of making money.

I.E. Criminal usage of the science/technology. Not standard.

Depending on your level of technology, depends on the number of people you need to 'repopulate' viably.

WITH OUT intervention... a colony of 5,000 can 'freely breed' and naturally repopulate. A much larger number than most people think.

_WITH_ Human interaction. About 500 can do so with out any dangers. A simple genetic screening to prevent recessive negative gene parings, and 'over rampant' imbreeding and you're fine. (This option allows for maintained monogomy.)

On the bottom end of the spectrum.. you have numbers about.. 160... down to 80.
THIS option... insures inbreeding will occur.. --for it to be viable-- your people have to be comfortable with..... shall we call it.... "The failure factor"

Meaning.. they breed like rabbits, as many partners as they can, (Males and females) and they 'accept losses'. Babies born with significant defects are euthanized. Screenings after birth look for further 'failures of concept'. (I'm trying to be polite)

If you're comfortable.. having 10+ kids for 3 to be viable and the other 8+ being euthanized at birth or early to mid child hood. you -can- do it with low numbers such as these. As you'll note that even in 'just theory' this has some.... significant hurdles to overcome. Not the least of wich is lack of monogamy for (Humans), and the rapid turn around, multiple/high numbers of children. (( Each person would be responsible for reproducing dozens of times to ensure a minimal number of viable offspring) Easier for the males than the females but still. There's also that reaaaaaly sticky part about killing large numbers of your own offspring for negative breeding results. Something that's going to be a HELL of a hurdle to overcome.

And that's assuming science advanced enough to screen for those problems. With out it, your kids are going to have to live into their teens or higher before it becoems clear if they're fully viable. Some problems don't pop up right away.

In this case, the people we're discussing use laser rifles so there's the assumption that they have enough modern medicine not to have to wait and see of Jr's heart explodes when he turns 14 and gets his first arousal to his sister... Still a dicy situation.

I am pretty sure that the what you are discussing would come under the "Diabolic" spectrum.

Ehhh.... depends on how it's implemented really. When it's ---literally--- an attempt to repopulate a species vs drop into extinction.. .and you're euthanizing biologically deficient offspring.... ehh it's a gray area and would highly depend on who you talk to.

A lot can be justified to literally prevent your species from going extinct. Morality may be questions for future generations...

That requires future generations to ponder them.

I am QUITE positive that the Atlantians, as presented, are not going to be inbreeding, then simply writing off 80%

Oh I doubt that very seriously as well. I was addressing 're-population' with 'limited numbers' in general. And the numbers required to successfully pull it off. Even at the low end of teh spectrum, the Atlanteans have sufficient numbers to do so with out going to that extreme.

or so of the children as 'breakage' in some sort of massive eugenics program.

Again. I agree it's not like them. but even with their limited numberrs they're not so short of peopler they'd have to.

They are supposed to be heroes, not space Nazis.

Well again. 1) I stipulated that this topic is TOUCHY for ALOT of people. On many accounts. but 2) if you're talking about --literally-- saving your entire species... 'morality' often takes a back seat to 'reality' and pragmatisim. You don't have to be a space nazi to reduce it to a simple mathmatical equation. "We have X people.. to save the species we need to breed like bunnies, this will result in many 'negative results' to maintain resource level and species 'gain' we must mitigate those 'negative results' before they result in resource drain, and keep trying"

It sucks, but it wouldn't be REMOTELY the worst thing, even humans have ever done to survive.

I know that is how puppy mills operate... but this isn't dogs we are dealing with.

No. It's not. in the hypothetical though, we would be talking about literally bringing a sapient speices back from the brink of extinction. (The Atlanteanians aren't that close, that part was hypothetical, but it 'could' happen)

Oh, and your numbers are...iffy
I can't find any support in the literature for the claim that 500 is a MVP. Do you have a source besides "I want a lower number"?

Not trying to be funny, but you can google it as easy as I can.

I've read studies on it in the past. I googled it this afternoon to double check my own memory but I didn't jot down sources.

Type in "Minimum number needed for repopulation of earth"

In the top 5 results you'll find it. Two or three of them will show a 'ten generation' space trip. Those aren't what you're looking for but they address some of the biological issues. The numbers I found will be in the top 5 results or so.

[Jorick]

The book explicitly stated that the Atlantean have genetically engineered themselves to remove genetic defects/disorders, congenital disease, etc. Thus they can't breed successfully with other humans and they have the long life span etc.

You can read that a number of ways that are relevant to the discussion. I don't have the book in front of me, but I feel like it's at least implied that the genetic engineering is magical (even magical transformation doesn't work on them...though they can become supernatural beings with enough tatoos). At least, it's beyond our scientific/technological abilities, obviously.

So maybe the negative consequences possible when inbreeding do not occur for them (because their genetic code is so exact no matter what). Or if it is possible for Atlantean to have mutations at all, they have enough control over the process that it doesn't matter.

[eliakon]

if the typical size is 200, the majority of Atlantean traveling groups are too small to make that viable.. if you want to avoid inbreeding, you need at least 500+, more like 5000+ if you have family groups involved.

Manoa is a group of true atlanteans that didn't flee earth, and thus shouldn't be counted. Alexandria in the 3G's is a post-diaspora community, but we don't know its history. it may well have been a case of it being built by the largest single clan to survive, or by the largest group to escape, who stuck together rather than break up into smaller groups.

the other potential for increasing the population, breeding with non-true-atlanteans, is a difficult prospect to consider, because we don't have info on how the offspring would turn out. would they always be a TA? or do you need both parents as TA's to get a TA kid? or is it one of those % chance things?
odds are, a TA+non-TA does not generate a full TA every time.. so TA's settling with non-TA's would probably preserve the Culture, but not the genetics. (which honestly, is something i'd love to see..)

While not exactly... shouted from the roof tops... "inbreeding' doesn't happen... like most people THINK it does. One instance of inbreeding is unlikely to have discernable ill effects. It's when it happens over and over and over in a limited span.

There are instances where in breeding is actually beneficial.

Now.. this is a TOUCHY Subject when it comes to humans (Sapient beings) but... take a look at your local dog show. 100s of breeds. a few common ancestors. they didn't develop in the 'wild' like that. Modern dog breeds are the results of 100s of years of selective breeding, which very often was done though inbreeding to re-enforce dominant traits and to exaggerate those traits.

Considering the major, systematic and pervasive health problems surrounding purebred dogs I don't find that to be a rousing endorsement

That's not 'actually' all that true, and actually is germaine to the conversation. What you're describing usually only happens when dogs are --too-- interbred. By their natures 'pure bred' dogs are bread for purpose and design. That doesn't intrinsicly result in health problems.

The ones 'with' health problems are put out there by unscrupulious breeders and puppy mills. I.E. the ones that aren't careful about it, resulting in the problems.

In this case, germaine to the conversation because by their nature they've been selectively bred for purpose but that selection has broken down to the point they're 'overly interbred', with out safety precautions. For the purpose of making money.

I.E. Criminal usage of the science/technology. Not standard.

Ummmm
no
just no
Lets deal with the real world please
in the real world the various species of 'purebreed' dog have issues not because of some mythical evil breeders but because of the nature of the breed itself.
These range from congenital auto-immune disorders to endo-skeletal problems to joint problems and so on.
It is not a 'new thing' but a facet of the whole 'selective breeding' issue and is widely known.

Depending on your level of technology, depends on the number of people you need to 'repopulate' viably.

WITH OUT intervention... a colony of 5,000 can 'freely breed' and naturally repopulate. A much larger number than most people think.

_WITH_ Human interaction. About 500 can do so with out any dangers. A simple genetic screening to prevent recessive negative gene parings, and 'over rampant' imbreeding and you're fine. (This option allows for maintained monogomy.)

On the bottom end of the spectrum.. you have numbers about.. 160... down to 80.
THIS option... insures inbreeding will occur.. --for it to be viable-- your people have to be comfortable with..... shall we call it.... "The failure factor"

Meaning.. they breed like rabbits, as many partners as they can, (Males and females) and they 'accept losses'. Babies born with significant defects are euthanized. Screenings after birth look for further 'failures of concept'. (I'm trying to be polite)

If you're comfortable.. having 10+ kids for 3 to be viable and the other 8+ being euthanized at birth or early to mid child hood. you -can- do it with low numbers such as these. As you'll note that even in 'just theory' this has some.... significant hurdles to overcome. Not the least of wich is lack of monogamy for (Humans), and the rapid turn around, multiple/high numbers of children. (( Each person would be responsible for reproducing dozens of times to ensure a minimal number of viable offspring) Easier for the males than the females but still. There's also that reaaaaaly sticky part about killing large numbers of your own offspring for negative breeding results. Something that's going to be a HELL of a hurdle to overcome.

And that's assuming science advanced enough to screen for those problems. With out it, your kids are going to have to live into their teens or higher before it becoems clear if they're fully viable. Some problems don't pop up right away.

In this case, the people we're discussing use laser rifles so there's the assumption that they have enough modern medicine not to have to wait and see of Jr's heart explodes when he turns 14 and gets his first arousal to his sister... Still a dicy situation.

I am pretty sure that the what you are discussing would come under the "Diabolic" spectrum.

Ehhh.... depends on how it's implemented really. When it's ---literally--- an attempt to repopulate a species vs drop into extinction.. .and you're euthanizing biologically deficient offspring.... ehh it's a gray area and would highly depend on who you talk to.

A lot can be justified to literally prevent your species from going extinct. Morality may be questions for future generations...

That requires future generations to ponder them.

Nope
No grey
The alignment charts in my books don't have a 'these rules are waived in some situations' disclaimer
This is the same reason that the CS runs into alignment issues all the time.
Palladium has a pretty hard and fast set of rules and it doesn't allow for the 'creative moralizing' of those who want to justify atrocity in the name of expediency.
Diabolic is Diabolic is Diabolic
Yes, even then. And then. Yup, even then too. No exceptions.

I am QUITE positive that the Atlantians, as presented, are not going to be inbreeding, then simply writing off 80%

Oh I doubt that very seriously as well. I was addressing 're-population' with 'limited numbers' in general. And the numbers required to successfully pull it off. Even at the low end of teh spectrum, the Atlanteans have sufficient numbers to do so with out going to that extreme.

or so of the children as 'breakage' in some sort of massive eugenics program.

Again. I agree it's not like them. but even with their limited numberrs they're not so short of peopler they'd have to.

They are supposed to be heroes, not space Nazis.

Well again. 1) I stipulated that this topic is TOUCHY for ALOT of people. On many accounts. but 2) if you're talking about --literally-- saving your entire species... 'morality' often takes a back seat to 'reality' and pragmatisim. You don't have to be a space nazi to reduce it to a simple mathmatical equation. "We have X people.. to save the species we need to breed like bunnies, this will result in many 'negative results' to maintain resource level and species 'gain' we must mitigate those 'negative results' before they result in resource drain, and keep trying"

It sucks, but it wouldn't be REMOTELY the worst thing, even humans have ever done to survive.

Its not "touchy"
It is either that you are attempting to drag a discussion of real world moral questions into the game and then justify decisions based on arguing real world philosophy as being reasons to discard the game rules
or it is that you are just wanting to discuss the hypotheticals of real world moral philosophy with OUT any relevance to the game.
The first is trolling and the second is off topic at best and flamebaiting at worst.

I know that is how puppy mills operate... but this isn't dogs we are dealing with.

No. It's not. in the hypothetical though, we would be talking about literally bringing a sapient speices back from the brink of extinction. (The Atlanteanians aren't that close, that part was hypothetical, but it 'could' happen)

again random hypotheticals that have nothing to do with the topic and seem to exist for the sole purpose of trying to justify moral atrocity seem to have no relevance.

Oh, and your numbers are...iffy
I can't find any support in the literature for the claim that 500 is a MVP. Do you have a source besides "I want a lower number"?

Not trying to be funny, but you can google it as easy as I can.

I've read studies on it in the past. I googled it this afternoon to double check my own memory but I didn't jot down sources.

Type in "Minimum number needed for repopulation of earth"

In the top 5 results you'll find it. Two or three of them will show a 'ten generation' space trip. Those aren't what you're looking for but they address some of the biological issues. The numbers I found will be in the top 5 results or so.

I have.
They don't say what you are claiming is the problem which is why I asked for specific sources.
the lowest numbers for a MVP is just over 4,000 individuals...
...unless you have a prior genetic screening of all those involved and then select only those that pass the screening for your pool.
Aka the lower numbers are not for ways for a tribe to make it. They are ways for a specially selected and chosen space crew to avoid inbreeding while setting up a colony.
There are, pardon the phrase, worlds of difference.
And the small number base groups ALSO all assume that you continue population growth. None of the models work on the assumption that you will keep your population numbers at the same tiny numbers generation to generation.

Now if you have a different source that actually backs up your claim, and does NOT require prescreening and allowing the population to grow by all means share it.
But I am not required to do your research for you and try to seek out and verify the existence of such material. (I was willing to verify the basic material because it is a pretty common area or research and well peer reviewed...but in the same vein that means that it is pretty easy to find out the assumptions used in the models used in the research were)

[kaid]

The book explicitly stated that the Atlantean have genetically engineered themselves to remove genetic defects/disorders, congenital disease, etc. Thus they can't breed successfully with other humans and they have the long life span etc.

You can read that a number of ways that are relevant to the discussion. I don't have the book in front of me, but I feel like it's at least implied that the genetic engineering is magical (even magical transformation doesn't work on them...though they can become supernatural beings with enough tatoos). At least, it's beyond our scientific/technological abilities, obviously.

So maybe the negative consequences possible when inbreeding do not occur for them (because their genetic code is so exact no matter what). Or if it is possible for Atlantean to have mutations at all, they have enough control over the process that it doesn't matter.

Also their immunity to transformation it is not just genetic changes but some deeper magical changes as well. I would assume a lot of the genetic engineering was magic based although some tech base changes may have occurred as well. And yes it is hard to say if inbreeding is a true issue given what they have done to themselves.

[Pepsi Jedi]

if the typical size is 200, the majority of Atlantean traveling groups are too small to make that viable.. if you want to avoid inbreeding, you need at least 500+, more like 5000+ if you have family groups involved.

Manoa is a group of true atlanteans that didn't flee earth, and thus shouldn't be counted. Alexandria in the 3G's is a post-diaspora community, but we don't know its history. it may well have been a case of it being built by the largest single clan to survive, or by the largest group to escape, who stuck together rather than break up into smaller groups.

the other potential for increasing the population, breeding with non-true-atlanteans, is a difficult prospect to consider, because we don't have info on how the offspring would turn out. would they always be a TA? or do you need both parents as TA's to get a TA kid? or is it one of those % chance things?
odds are, a TA+non-TA does not generate a full TA every time.. so TA's settling with non-TA's would probably preserve the Culture, but not the genetics. (which honestly, is something i'd love to see..)

While not exactly... shouted from the roof tops... "inbreeding' doesn't happen... like most people THINK it does. One instance of inbreeding is unlikely to have discernable ill effects. It's when it happens over and over and over in a limited span.

There are instances where in breeding is actually beneficial.

Now.. this is a TOUCHY Subject when it comes to humans (Sapient beings) but... take a look at your local dog show. 100s of breeds. a few common ancestors. they didn't develop in the 'wild' like that. Modern dog breeds are the results of 100s of years of selective breeding, which very often was done though inbreeding to re-enforce dominant traits and to exaggerate those traits.

Considering the major, systematic and pervasive health problems surrounding purebred dogs I don't find that to be a rousing endorsement

That's not 'actually' all that true, and actually is germaine to the conversation. What you're describing usually only happens when dogs are --too-- interbred. By their natures 'pure bred' dogs are bread for purpose and design. That doesn't intrinsicly result in health problems.

The ones 'with' health problems are put out there by unscrupulious breeders and puppy mills. I.E. the ones that aren't careful about it, resulting in the problems.

In this case, germaine to the conversation because by their nature they've been selectively bred for purpose but that selection has broken down to the point they're 'overly interbred', with out safety precautions. For the purpose of making money.

I.E. Criminal usage of the science/technology. Not standard.

Ummmm
no
just no
Lets deal with the real world please
in the real world the various species of 'purebreed' dog have issues not because of some mythical evil breeders but because of the nature of the breed itself.
These range from congenital auto-immune disorders to endo-skeletal problems to joint problems and so on.
It is not a 'new thing' but a facet of the whole 'selective breeding' issue and is widely known.

Again. Just because you say so doesn't make it true. The types of problems your describing are NOT found in every breed. Nor are they found in every member of any breed. -SOME- members of -Some breeds- have a higher tencancy towards -some- problems. By their nature, this would render -that- animal not eligable for 'proper' breeding.

For example. GSD's usually have to be tested and certified for -lacking- the hip problems that can pop up if the dogs are too dangerously bred, before you can sell them with full AKC papers. No test, no sale as pure bred GSD's where in you don't -have- a 'GSD' you have a dog that looks alot like one, but couldn't make the cut.

The way you type it, every 'pure bred' is the subject of some sort of problem stemming from 'being' pure bred. it simply isn't so.

Depending on your level of technology, depends on the number of people you need to 'repopulate' viably.

WITH OUT intervention... a colony of 5,000 can 'freely breed' and naturally repopulate. A much larger number than most people think.

_WITH_ Human interaction. About 500 can do so with out any dangers. A simple genetic screening to prevent recessive negative gene parings, and 'over rampant' imbreeding and you're fine. (This option allows for maintained monogomy.)

On the bottom end of the spectrum.. you have numbers about.. 160... down to 80.
THIS option... insures inbreeding will occur.. --for it to be viable-- your people have to be comfortable with..... shall we call it.... "The failure factor"

Meaning.. they breed like rabbits, as many partners as they can, (Males and females) and they 'accept losses'. Babies born with significant defects are euthanized. Screenings after birth look for further 'failures of concept'. (I'm trying to be polite)

If you're comfortable.. having 10+ kids for 3 to be viable and the other 8+ being euthanized at birth or early to mid child hood. you -can- do it with low numbers such as these. As you'll note that even in 'just theory' this has some.... significant hurdles to overcome. Not the least of wich is lack of monogamy for (Humans), and the rapid turn around, multiple/high numbers of children. (( Each person would be responsible for reproducing dozens of times to ensure a minimal number of viable offspring) Easier for the males than the females but still. There's also that reaaaaaly sticky part about killing large numbers of your own offspring for negative breeding results. Something that's going to be a HELL of a hurdle to overcome.

And that's assuming science advanced enough to screen for those problems. With out it, your kids are going to have to live into their teens or higher before it becoems clear if they're fully viable. Some problems don't pop up right away.

In this case, the people we're discussing use laser rifles so there's the assumption that they have enough modern medicine not to have to wait and see of Jr's heart explodes when he turns 14 and gets his first arousal to his sister... Still a dicy situation.

I am pretty sure that the what you are discussing would come under the "Diabolic" spectrum.

Ehhh.... depends on how it's implemented really. When it's ---literally--- an attempt to repopulate a species vs drop into extinction.. .and you're euthanizing biologically deficient offspring.... ehh it's a gray area and would highly depend on who you talk to.

A lot can be justified to literally prevent your species from going extinct. Morality may be questions for future generations...

That requires future generations to ponder them.

Nope
No grey
The alignment charts in my books don't have a 'these rules are waived in some situations' disclaimer

1) All morality is subjective.
2) You're kiiinda right in that the alignment charts have black or white 'Yes/no' or 'do/never do" Stipulations.

The gray area's come in when you're defining what you're DOING.

Is terminating an unviable pregnancy murder? No. It's not. Not in our society. happens every day. Multiple times a day.

This is the same reason that the CS runs into alignment issues all the time.

The CS doesn't have alignment issues. We're told directly the majority of the CS are good or selfish. With -some- individuals having evil alignments. It's not hidden in any way.
Some people don't agree with them, but the writers and the creators of the universe tell us what they are, and -how- they define it as it is.

Just because some don't LIKE it, doesn't mean the --CS-- runs into alignment issues. Some people just don't like what the book tells them.

Palladium has a pretty hard and fast set of rules and it doesn't allow for the 'creative moralizing' of those who want to justify atrocity in the name of expediency.

I would direct you to world book 11. CS war campaign, where..... palladium rules -exactly- allow for creative moralizing. in print. In canon.

Diabolic is Diabolic is Diabolic

Except when it's not. Except when it's something else.

Yes, even then. And then. Yup, even then too. No exceptions.

The books say you're 100% wrong, and I go by the books. Not by your assertions about them.

I am QUITE positive that the Atlantians, as presented, are not going to be inbreeding, then simply writing off 80%

Oh I doubt that very seriously as well. I was addressing 're-population' with 'limited numbers' in general. And the numbers required to successfully pull it off. Even at the low end of teh spectrum, the Atlanteans have sufficient numbers to do so with out going to that extreme.

or so of the children as 'breakage' in some sort of massive eugenics program.

Again. I agree it's not like them. but even with their limited numberrs they're not so short of peopler they'd have to.

They are supposed to be heroes, not space Nazis.

Well again. 1) I stipulated that this topic is TOUCHY for ALOT of people. On many accounts. but 2) if you're talking about --literally-- saving your entire species... 'morality' often takes a back seat to 'reality' and pragmatism. You don't have to be a space nazi to reduce it to a simple mathmatical equation. "We have X people.. to save the species we need to breed like bunnies, this will result in many 'negative results' to maintain resource level and species 'gain' we must mitigate those 'negative results' before they result in resource drain, and keep trying"

It sucks, but it wouldn't be REMOTELY the worst thing, even humans have ever done to survive.

Its not "touchy"

Oh it is, to a great number of people. Not me, but then I'm not beholden to some silly judochristian morality play, or enforced code of ethics based off a book reinturpreted 1000s of times over 100s and 100s of years.

i'm not saying I'm Morally superior. I'm saying I hold myself to my own code of morality. Which differs from hypocritical false ones in a number of areas. I'm sure they think theirs is better. As I think mine works for me.

It is either that you are attempting to drag a discussion of real world moral questions into the game

The question was drug in by others, when it came up about Atlantean numbers and re-population, how many would be needed to do so. My pont was that the number was larger than people thought, and I gave the break down of about what you'd need for the different vectors and means of re-population of a sapient species of human 'like' humanoids.

It's very apt for the game. As first presented the megaversal numbers of the species in question was indicated to be a good deal smaller than it is in the new book. To the point where extinction seemed to be a given. Instead of a 'remote possibility'.

Add in the fact that their species is activly being hunted, to -purposeful- extinction, then the question becomes apt in another way. I.E. how many can they afford to lose, before they back over the 'tipping point' to which each bracket of re-population becomes needed.

Right now they're far over the 5,000 point, but what happens if they get backed down below it? Or below the smaller thresholds?

and then justify decisions based on arguing real world philosophy as being reasons to discard the game rules

I'm not discarding any game rules. To my knowledge there are no game rules about what's needed to repopulate a species. If you can find um. let me know.

or it is that you are just wanting to discuss the hypotheticals of real world moral philosophy with OUT any relevance to the game.
The first is trolling and the second is off topic at best and flamebaiting at worst.

I've already pointed out how it is on topic. the species in question has been decimated and it's numbers are 'low'. With the new book they're presented far higher than the previous 'low' numbers would indicate, but there's active forces trying to kill them off.

Thus it's very relevant to the game. At what point does the species become non-viable for re-population of it's own species? At what point do they have to adopt more of the 'extreme' measures to do so. Will they do it? (Most species the answer is yes. Again, when you're against the wall, Morality drops away. A starving man knows no laws.)

I know that is how puppy mills operate... but this isn't dogs we are dealing with.

No. It's not. in the hypothetical though, we would be talking about literally bringing a sapient speices back from the brink of extinction. (The Atlanteanians aren't that close, that part was hypothetical, but it 'could' happen)

again random hypotheticals that have nothing to do with the topic and seem to exist for the sole purpose of trying to justify moral atrocity seem to have no relevance.

You've yet to prove any atrocity what so ever. And breeding of an endangered species is relevant when one discusses said species.

You're more than welcome to skip on to other posts if -you- don't want to talk about it.

Oh, and your numbers are...iffy
I can't find any support in the literature for the claim that 500 is a MVP. Do you have a source besides "I want a lower number"?

Not trying to be funny, but you can google it as easy as I can.

I've read studies on it in the past. I googled it this afternoon to double check my own memory but I didn't jot down sources.

Type in "Minimum number needed for repopulation of earth"

In the top 5 results you'll find it. Two or three of them will show a 'ten generation' space trip. Those aren't what you're looking for but they address some of the biological issues. The numbers I found will be in the top 5 results or so.

I have.
They don't say what you are claiming is the problem which is why I asked for specific sources.
the lowest numbers for a MVP is just over 4,000 individuals...
...unless you have a prior genetic screening of all those involved and then select only those that pass the screening for your pool.

You should really read the previous posts where such things were easily pointed out.

Aka the lower numbers are not for ways for a tribe to make it. They are ways for a specially selected and chosen space crew to avoid inbreeding while setting up a colony.
There are, pardon the phrase, worlds of difference.

Not putting too fine a point on it, but 'Space traveling' and 'dimensional hopping' aren't that different.

But as a point of fact. I stipulated that the ones you're talking about, with the generational ships are NOT the ones I was talking about. *points up* Said so, right there.

And the small number base groups ALSO all assume that you continue population growth. None of the models work on the assumption that you will keep your population numbers at the same tiny numbers generation to generation.

Because that fails in the purpose of re-population. Stagnation is death. For any species. Most especially for one that likes to 'play hero' and galavant across the megaverse fighting 'evil', and have literal assassins trying to eradicate them. You have to 'out breed' your losses. Just to maintain you would have to breed a person and have them reach sexual maturity for every single one you lost due to violence, accident or old age. If not, your species dwindles and you die out. Smaller number means smaller room for error.

Now if you have a different source that actually backs up your claim, and does NOT require prescreening and allowing the population to grow by all means share it.

You forget. I don't work for you. You don't pay me. I told you where to look. have a party. Do your own research. Or Don't. No skin off my nose. Simply going 'Nu uh!!! Do busy work!" to which you'll STILL just go "nu uh!!" is not how I spend my time. Educate yourself Eli. It's not my job.

if you want to PAY me to do a research paper for you with footnotes, then we can talk.

But I am not required to do your research for you and try to seek out and verify the existence of such material.

Actually that's what you're trying to make me do for you. I told you where to find it. Read or not. Up to you.

(I was willing to verify the basic material because it is a pretty common area or research and well peer reviewed...but in the same vein that means that it is pretty easy to find out the assumptions used in the models used in the research were)

Going to be pretty hard to peer review hypothetical situations of this nature isn't it? I mean, where's your testing? Where's your control. lol

It's hypothetical theory mate. because to actually engage in such things, would mean isolating and limiting populations of humans and studying what actually happens for generations at a time. Then doing so again in controlled environments to replicate the results.

Not something that can actually 'be done' with society as we know it.

Can it exist in microcosm? Sure, but all things are not equal. A small tribe of people in a rainforest isn't going to have the same external factors as one above the arctic circle. Nor same technology level, health level, exact same starting numbers, access to medicine, food, education, etc.

you can't -actually- test this stuff in the real world. It's all factors 'based on' factors in theory.

But again, you can google it and find the answers. You just have to jump past the ones talking about the generational ships/spaceflight.

[Pepsi Jedi]

The book explicitly stated that the Atlantean have genetically engineered themselves to remove genetic defects/disorders, congenital disease, etc. Thus they can't breed successfully with other humans and they have the long life span etc.

You can read that a number of ways that are relevant to the discussion. I don't have the book in front of me, but I feel like it's at least implied that the genetic engineering is magical (even magical transformation doesn't work on them...though they can become supernatural beings with enough tatoos). At least, it's beyond our scientific/technological abilities, obviously.

So maybe the negative consequences possible when inbreeding do not occur for them (because their genetic code is so exact no matter what). Or if it is possible for Atlantean to have mutations at all, they have enough control over the process that it doesn't matter.

Also their immunity to transformation it is not just genetic changes but some deeper magical changes as well. I would assume a lot of the genetic engineering was magic based although some tech base changes may have occurred as well. And yes it is hard to say if inbreeding is a true issue given what they have done to themselves.

I'd say likely not(Medically speaking). Once you've 'mastered the genetic structure' of yourselves to the extent they have... then you weed out those recessive traits.

For 'inbreeding' to be dangerous. You need not one, but both parents to have said negative traits. If only one has them, No biggie. In this case it would 'seem' that neither parent would carry them. Or a much lower possibilty than in average 'human' population.

So then it would fall back on 'morality'.(Which is totally different)

With such a long lived species. 'age difference' would rapidly not be an issue. If one's 12 and one's 400 sure it's not going to be good, but if one's 100 and the other is 200, that's not as big a deal. So siblings and other family instances would be 'more' viable than in human life spans.

There's an intrinsic squich factor for most humans to think about things this way, but if there's no biological reason to 'not' do something, it's harder to 'justify' a moral reason. (Not impossible. ugg religion)

We've no indication one way or the other.

If the species is with out the vast majority of the negative recessive genes (Though technological or magical engineering) Then "Nothing's stopping them" Save morality.

Of which we've no indication that they're opposed to.

One can -assume- that as descendants of humans, they -may- have maintained the human 'taboo' from such things, but at the very very best, that's an assumption based on egocentric viewpoints of our own cultural bias.

[eliakon]

(I was willing to verify the basic material because it is a pretty common area or research and well peer reviewed...but in the same vein that means that it is pretty easy to find out the assumptions used in the models used in the research were)

Going to be pretty hard to peer review hypothetical situations of this nature isn't it? I mean, where's your testing? Where's your control. lol

It's hypothetical theory mate. because to actually engage in such things, would mean isolating and limiting populations of humans and studying what actually happens for generations at a time. Then doing so again in controlled environments to replicate the results.

Not something that can actually 'be done' with society as we know it.

Can it exist in microcosm? Sure, but all things are not equal. A small tribe of people in a rainforest isn't going to have the same external factors as one above the arctic circle. Nor same technology level, health level, exact same starting numbers, access to medicine, food, education, etc.

you can't -actually- test this stuff in the real world. It's all factors 'based on' factors in theory.

But again, you can google it and find the answers. You just have to jump past the ones talking about the generational ships/spaceflight.

NO
YOU can google it and find the answers and come back to us with your evidence in hand.
You are the one making the claims so you get to support them.
And no it is NOT hard in the slightest to peer review the studies that you claim support your numbers.
Either those studies exist and support your claim. Or they do not exist and you are trying to pass off moonbeams.
There isnt a whole lot of middle ground.
The studies that I was reading did a lot of pretty extensive modeling of the results of genetic combinations through hundreds of generations.
They then sent it around for peer review and published it.
That is what "peer reviewed research" means.
It means that the source has credibility and is not a crack pot throwing numbers out on the internet.
If you have some of these credible sources, by all means share them with the rest of us.
But its your job to find them not ours. (That whole pesky burden of proof thing)
If you don't want to provide your own proof that's fine...
But understand that no one is going to believe a word you say because... guess what. You have no proof and no credibility. So anyone who does the slightest bit of research will easily find data that contradicts wildly and then you look like either a fool or a liar.
Your choice.
I would assume you wish to be taken seriously when your making statements and that you are actually making valid claims instead of wild "I believe there are facts out there. I don't know where or what but if you go dig hard enough you will probably prove me right."
That isn't discussion, that is simply trying to claim that you are right because you assert that you get to be right.
Only divinities get to do that and since I missed you creating words from nothing... you don't get the privilege.


The entire rest of your rant is predicated on your claims being at least somewhat valid.
Since I have already demonstrated that you are misrepresenting the data already then you don't have a lot of credibility here to start with.
So go get some credibility and go find your sources, specific citable sources, and come back.
We'll wait.
In the mean time you can go look for the sources that say that the Atlantians have "mastered Genetics" I would be curious to see that as well.

[gaby]

What do you think are the best New Tattoos?

[SereneTsunami]

I really like the Monster Tattoo enhancements. You can really make a monster tattoo be unique now.

The Dimensional Tattoos are so perfect for the Atlantean Nomad. Before these additions it was harder to see how a non-caster dimensionally hopped. The PE costs for these tattoos also make their use much more realistic and thematic. Now an Atlantean Nomad isn't jsut a Vagabond that lives for 500 years.

[Pepsi Jedi]

(I was willing to verify the basic material because it is a pretty common area or research and well peer reviewed...but in the same vein that means that it is pretty easy to find out the assumptions used in the models used in the research were)

Going to be pretty hard to peer review hypothetical situations of this nature isn't it? I mean, where's your testing? Where's your control. lol

It's hypothetical theory mate. because to actually engage in such things, would mean isolating and limiting populations of humans and studying what actually happens for generations at a time. Then doing so again in controlled environments to replicate the results.

Not something that can actually 'be done' with society as we know it.

Can it exist in microcosm? Sure, but all things are not equal. A small tribe of people in a rainforest isn't going to have the same external factors as one above the arctic circle. Nor same technology level, health level, exact same starting numbers, access to medicine, food, education, etc.

you can't -actually- test this stuff in the real world. It's all factors 'based on' factors in theory.

But again, you can google it and find the answers. You just have to jump past the ones talking about the generational ships/spaceflight.

NO

Yes.
lol

See how easy that is? You're under the misunderstanding that you have some sort of power. .... Any sort of power. You don't.

YOU can google it and find the answers and come back to us with your evidence in hand.

Already did. Told you where to look. if you don't want to look, that's on you, but your lack of effort doesn't make my points wrong. you want to have a dog in the fight, type away. I've pointed out. I'm not doing your legwork for you. Pay me and we'll talk.

You are the one making the claims so you get to support them.

Told you where to look. Just didn't give you a -direct link- because you don't pay me. If you want to disprove me, go look. Have fun

And no it is NOT hard in the slightest to peer review the studies that you claim support your numbers.
Either those studies exist and support your claim. Or they do not exist and you are trying to pass off moonbeams.

They exist. Just because I refuse to give you foot notes, and tell you where to look for yourself, doesn't mean they don't exist.

There isnt a whole lot of middle ground.
The studies that I was reading did a lot of pretty extensive modeling of the results of genetic combinations through hundreds of generations.

Models you say? *Gasp*.... Hypothetical testing? WOW! Imagine that. If only someone had pointed that out previously.

oops! Someone did!

They then sent it around for peer review and published it.
That is what "peer reviewed research" means.

It still remains hypothetical. Modeling is just guesses and results built on other guesses. They can be EDUCATED guesses for sure, but it's hypothetical because you can't -actually- test these things.

It means that the source has credibility and is not a crack pot throwing numbers out on the internet.

Do.... you realize the irony of that statement Eli?

If you have some of these credible sources, by all means share them with the rest of us.
But its your job to find them not ours. (That whole pesky burden of proof thing)

I did find them. But you don't pay me. It's not my 'job'. I told you exactly where to look. you just have to put in effort. The effort you're demanding I do. I'm refusing to do so, because that's what you -want-. You want me to spend time doing your footwork. You're just going to ignore it anyway. So I refuse to do your bidding. Look it up yourself. Or don't. That's up to you.

If you don't want to provide your own proof that's fine...
But understand that no one is going to believe a word you say because.

No.. -you-. Not 'no one'. You want to burden me with home work or busy work which won't matter at all because you'll ignore it anyway. I refuse to spend the time doing so. I told you where to look. If you're too lazy to do so. That's on you.

.. guess what. You have no proof and no credibility. So anyone who does the slightest bit of research will easily find data that contradicts wildly and then you look like either a fool or a liar.

Try.

Your choice.

It's my choice not to do your work for ya.

I would assume you wish to be taken seriously when your making statements and that you are actually making valid claims instead of wild "I believe there are facts out there. I don't know where or what but if you go dig hard enough you will probably prove me right."
That isn't discussion, that is simply trying to claim that you are right because you assert that you get to be right.
Only divinities get to do that and since I missed you creating words from nothing... you don't get the privilege.

Sure I do. This is the internet. Not a review for a doctoral thesis. I told you where to look. You're posting at length on how you shouldn't have to look. *shrugs* You're getting no where. You have no -power- to force anything. No position to -demand- anything. At the very worst you can go "I, Eli, don't believe you". Where in I go "I don't care".
I know your tactics Eli. You don't like something so you try to give the other side busy work, then ignore it when they do. You've done it many many times. So I refuse to play the game.

Believe me, or no. That's fine. Either way I don't care.

The entire rest of your rant is predicated on your claims being at least somewhat valid.
Since I have already demonstrated that you are misrepresenting the data already then you don't have a lot of credibility here to start with.
So go get some credibility and go find your sources, specific citable sources, and come back.
We'll wait.

No. You've just gone 'Nu uh. Do a report and present it!" To which I've said "Do your own report." You've not demonstrated anything other than a lack of ability to look yourself.

In the mean time you can go look for the sources that say that the Atlantians have "mastered Genetics" I would be curious to see that as well.

Then go look yourself. lol I didn't make that claim. Someone up thread did, I accepted it, as it sounds like the sort of thing Palladium would toss out there. (Not so much genetics in specific, but have mastered it in some manner over the years, likely through magic. The claim probably being a throw away sentence in some book over the past what. 25+ years?)

See you play this game where you go "Ehhh. I want to make up my own stuff" Someone else goes "That doesn't work" and your responce is "Well spend your time, doing my bidding, go do a report to tell me why!!" No. Go do your own research man. Stop trying to order people around.