Date: Tue, 1 Aug 1995 19:41:26 +0200 (MET DST)
From: Anders Sandberg <nv91-asa@nada.kth.se>
To: james vassilakos <jimv@cs.UCR.edu>
Subject: Re: SF-RPG

Very interesting pieces! They tell a quite intriguing story (and I simply 
loved the hopelessly patriotic assassin). I'm just wondering what will 
happen next?

Here is my working version about the Mothers (I use the human slang term 
for them, I don't think we would call them the "warm-fuzzy-ones"). It is 
very unfinished, lacks sections about their technology, interracial 
affairs and a lot of psychology/sociology. Comments welcome, as usual.

The Mothers

The mothers are an amphibian race which developed on a rather 
eartlike world. Their biochemisty

Physiology

The mothers look waguely like big tortoises or beetles: their backs 
are covered with a large protective shell (usually a sandy grey, but 
often overgrown with algae gathered in complex patterns), and 
around the circumference they have five extremities covered with 
a slick black skin, which end in soft muscle pads able to deform 
themselves to work as fingers, grip objects or manipulate things. 
One of the extremities is covered by sensory organs and would 
correspond to an eartly head. Food is placed in 2mouth-pockets2 on 
the underside, where it is dissolved. In a similar manner they 
breathe into sacks of gills, which can function both on land and in 
water (although they are less effective in dry air, and the mothers 
have to return to water after a while on land).

Their sizes vary much more than among humans, young mothers 
have a diameter of around one meter and equally long limbs, while 
some old mothers can become over five meters in diameter. Such 
large mothers cannot even move themselves underwater, they have 
to rely on their daughters for protection and feeding. 

The mothers are actually the female form of the species. The male 
form is much smaller and lacks the shell, and instead has a smooth 
membrane between the limbs which he uses to swim with like a 
ray. They are not intelligent at all, and spend most of their time 
hunting small animals and seeking mothers to mate with. When 
they find an accepting mother, the male climbs in under the shell 
and attaches itself to an organ where he gradually is absorbed by 
the mother. Under the shell there are several spaces where the 
young gestate. If the mating is leads to male offspring, the result 
will be a sack filled with males, which eventually bursts when the 
mother is underwater and releases the males into the ocean. 

On the other hand, if the result is female, only one embryo 
develops. As it grows, its fifth limb functions as an umbilical cord, 
but it also links the developing nervous system directly to the 
nervous system of the mother. During gestation the young are 
shaped by the memories and behaviors of the mother, and often 
are able to recall events in their mothers pervious lives. Eventually 
the young has developed enough and leaves the shell of the mother. 
However, the daughter can still reach in with her limb and connect 
herself to the nerves and hormones of the mother, albeit less 
completely.

The young remain close to the mother as long as she lives, 
protecting her and bringing her food. When a mother has birthed 
some daughters, they usually become more stationary and spends 
most of their time birthing more daughters. The grown up 
daughters often relink to their mothers from time to time to keep 
her up to date with what is happening and receiveing orders and 
coordination. The older mothers function somewhat like eartly 
queen bees. 

The fifth limb is specialized in many ways. Its pad is usually 
enlarged, and quite sensitive both to touch and taste. Its main use 
is to pick up food and place it in the 2mouth-pockets2 and to link 
with the mother through a slit on the underside. Along the limb 
there are iridiscent stripes functioning as visual organs and small 
loosely hanging bulbs which have both auditory and olfactory 
functions underwater (the mothers are almost deaf in air). The 
Mothers lack color vision, but are sensitive to the polarization of 
light instead. The other limbs have also sensory organs, but they 
are less developed. The fifth limb is on the other hand much more 
dextrous and has a thick bundle of nerves running directly to the 
tube-shaped brain of the mother.

Psychology

The peculiar link mother-daughter is fundamental to mother 
psychology. Unlike most other races they learn much while still 
under development, and never have any real childhood. The views, 
skills and ideas of the mother is at least partially transferred to the 
daughters, who usually are quite mentally similar to their mothers. 
Reconnections reinforce this link, although not as intensely as the 
initial total contact.

The families of mothers are extremely tightly knit, almost group 
intelligences, but the individual members are quite able to survive 
on their own. However, most feel an intense desire to link with 
their own mothers from time to time, and without the contact they 
grow restless. Linking itself is a slow and apparently fulfilling 
experience, which usually takes at least a few hours. The daughters 
climb under the shell of their mother, and attach their fifth limb to 
the patch they were originally linked to (other places are much less 
efficient). Gradually their nervous system link up with the mother, 
and their minds begin to exchange knowledge. The communication 
is not ordered in time, memories, thoughts and emotions gradually 
diffuse between the two. In fact, the mothers have no concept of a 
temporally ordered language; their writing and gestures are all 
intended to be read and understood as a whole, not as a series of 
events. To simplify this, various modes of thought and 
remembrance has been developed, where concepts are unified into 
blocks which are easier to transmit.

Linking between two unrelated mothers is possible, but very hard 
and seldom used. Many mothers regard this as directly unhealthy 
or immoral, a danger to the mental and ideological stability of the 
participants. However, this taboo has gradually been loosened in 
the more progressive clans, especially since the advent of 
cybernetic linking, which simplifies the process. One special use is 
adoptions; sometimes an individual is adopted into a family, and 
gradually learn to communicate with the central mother. This is 
rare, but usually regarded as an extreme honor for the adopted 
mother.

The mothers see the world in terms of connections and patterns, 
not as objects like the humans. Things are naturally ordered into 
hierarchies and systems, and the mothers are very conscious about 
recursion. 

Ideologies are serious things for the mothers. The convictions, 
worldview and vision of the mother is usually transferred directly 
to the daughter, which means that they will hold them too. A family 
usually share the same basic personality, and it is at least partially 
preserved over many generations. This has led to the creation of 
very strong and stable ideologies/group identities, which continue 
for generations (in fact, they were the force behind the old clan 
system). Conversion is much less common than in humans, but it 
can still happen and is usually quite wrenching for both the 
individual and her family, which she usually have to leave. Most of 
these ideologies are quite diffuse, more like sets of values or 
personal preferences, but there are also clearly defined 
philosophies (like unificationalism) which from time to time 
manage to sweep across society, causing total chaos until things 
become stable again.

Another downside of the linking is the risks of contagious insanity. 
Certain mental disorders can spread from mother to mother by 
linking, until they affect the entire family. In some families 
mentally disturbed members were ostracised or even killed, but 
today advanced psychiatry is used instead. This fear of  insanity 
has both encouraged the search for perfect mental health, and a 
feeling of unease when confronted with irrational behavior. Anyone 
behaving in a erratic manner is suspicious, and at least 
subconsciously feared as a potential source of infection. Some 
mothers actually avoid contact with animals or aliens, regarding 
them as dangerously odd. More reasonable mothers point out that 
the males are quite mindless, yet they are accepted.

Mother psychology is quite diverse, but a highly respected 
profession in most societies. The different psychologist families all 
have different views and methods, but most are quite efficient 
within their specialized area. Some train mothers various mental 
techniques to increase their stability and flexibility (this is 
especially common among the orthodox unificationalists), while 
others employ consciousness-altering drugs and therapy, 
discussions, surgery, cybernetic interfacing or groups of 
psychiatrists who link up to the patient together, letting her 
temporarily experience being a grandmother with a group of highly 
competent children supporting her. 

History

The Mothers evolved as scavengers along the coasts of the tropical 
oceans of their homeworld. They emerged from the sea to gather 
food which had been washed ashore, using their shells as protection 
and caumoflage against predators. The cruicial step in their 
evolution seems to have been the development of the mental link 
between mother and daughter. In the beginning it was just a simple 
neural link, but the evolutionary value of transmitting some 
learned behaviors was so great it quickly became more and more 
powerful. As the experience of the mothers were partially 
transmitted to the daughters and not forgotten, cultural evolution 
began to speed up.

At first, the mothers began to manipulate the coastal areas to 
simplify the gathering of food. They invented the net, various traps 
and piercing weapons. When they could gather more food, the older 
mothers could grow bigger and survive longer, and in some families 
there were even grandmothers or very rare greatgrandmothers. 
This created the pyramidal system which persists today; the central 
mother, usually too large to move, is the coordinator and planner of 
all activity. Her daughters link up to her from time to time, and 
function as her subordinate coordinators. They lead their daughters 
in turn, and so on. The oldest mothers are rather passive, and spend 
much time linked together or doing tasks such as weaving nets or 
crafting tools which do not require moving around. The younger 
mothers help them, gather and prepare the food according to 
directions and protect the familiy. When the oldest mother died her 
daughters moved away from each other and formed their own 
families. 

This system had many positive aspects, but also caused many 
problems. Each family was almost completely independent from 
every other, so new discoveries and inventions spread very slowly 
from family to family through imitation or bartering. Each family 
had to be able to hunt, build protection, gather food and build tools 
well enough to survive, which led to the development of elaborate 
mnemonic techniques so that vital knowledge could be passed 
down the generations.

Cooperation between different families was also very variable; 
often the families which resulted from a split worked together in 
the beginning but then gradually drifted apart. Warfare between 
different families was not uncommon. Hunters tried to get as close 
as possible to the central mothers and kill them, forcing the 
defeated and split family to leave its old territory.

The mothers lacked any real language to communicate with each 
other, but gradually methods of communicating with gestures or 
objects placed in patterns on the ground became common. This 
eventually evolved into various systems of sign language (mainly 
used inside the family) and writing. Some families began to work 
together, especially closely related families which formed clans. 
Inside the clans the families could specialize themselves; a family 
had no longer to know all vital skills, they could rely on another 
family that knew the needed skill. A division of labor developed, 
where the families of a split usually divided their old trade into 
specializations. 

The clans also sometimes defeated outside families and forced them 
to become low-status members. The clan system quickly grew in 
complexity as some clans began to hold members which were not 
closely related with the leading families. Their range of skills grew, 
and specialization became more and more profitable. Many 
different forms of society was invented and tried, some familiar 
from Earth, others completely alien. One common form was to try to 
mimick the family structure within the clan, with the central 
mothers linking up to largely immobile leading families. 

Civilization developed quickly in some areas, while other areas 
remained backward for millennia. The mothers spread along all 
habitable coastlines and shallow parts of the oceans, and gradually 
colonized inland areas around lakes and rivers. When the digging of 
channels was invented, they began to create artificial rivers and 
shores. Boats of various kinds travelled along them, and the old 
primitive huts were replaced with sprawling cities of domes along 
the coasts. When fire was tamed the mothers began to use metals 
and waterproof ceramics. Great civilizations developed from the 
most powerful clan-states. 

Being naturally curious and inventive, the science and technology of 
the mothers developed fast in many directions. One unusual thing is 
that it was never the unified endeavor most other races see it like. 
The mothers developed it into thousands of specialized disciplines, 
only rarely combining them. Eventually this resulted in a counter-
movement, the unificationalists. Unificationalism was developed by 
a single family, and their simple but powerful writings got an 
immense recognition among many other mothers. They strove to 
unite the various branches and sciences. As the movement gained 
momentum, it acquired a deeper meaning and its stated goal 
became to not only unifiy all the sciences, but also to unify other 
aspects of life. The ideal mother was (according to the 
unificationalists) equally skilled in most areas, or at least less 
specialized than in the current system. The more specialized clans 
generally regarded the movment as irrational and dangerous, and 
for several decades fierce political, social and military struggles 
wracked the planet. 

The conflict was never truly resolved, but gradually petered out. 
The unificationalists were able to sometimes make great 
technological leaps, but were not quite as efficient as the more 
conservative specialists. Gradually the ideologies divided and 
mutated, as specialists began to acknowledge the need for some 
generalism, and the unificationalists realized the complexities of 
handling all the skills and knowledge needed to become complete. 
The orthodox unificationalists gradually became more mystical, and 
spent much time pondering the mysteries of time, balance and 
knowledge. The more radical parts of the movement divided into 
two main groups; one which supported the development of 
computers and cybernetic enhancements to help this process, and 
another which claimed that modern civilization was too complex to 
be healthy, and longed for a return to the old days when a skilled 
family could survive on its own, without allegiance to any clan or 
ideology.

The cybernetic movement soon attracted much attention as it began 
to show some success. They developed the specialist computers 
further, uniting previously unrelated disciplines with great success. 
When they managed to crudely imitate the neural interfaces 
between mother and daughter, this was proclaimed as the 
beginning of a new era by many radicals while the revivalists and 
many conservative families regarded it as a perversion of 
something holy. The new conflict was resolved rather peacefully, as 
the cyberneticists and the clans which supported them already 
were expanding into space. Gradually a new order dawned, where 
the conservatives remained on-planet while the radicals moved 
outwards. 

The first epoch of colonization was filled with competition between 
the various groups, as they industrialized their solar system. Some 
fractions left their solar system using generation ships, while others 
isolated themselves in artificial habitats in remote corners. 
However, gradually a new order developed as a coalition of clans 
(led by the Balanced Moderators) began to tie everyone together in 
a network of trade, communications and philosophy. 


Society

Today the mothers are divided in numerous clans and fractions. 
Generally, the more traditional groups are found on the homeworld, 
while the radicals have moved outwards into space. 

The clans are still strong, but very fragmented. They are essentially 
families of families, held together by tradition, family ideology and 
sometimes the threat of violence, although they are more similar to 
immense family businesses. Most surviving clans are specialized in 
some areas, like the Wild Soarers who deal with space transports 
and the aerospace industry, the Concentrated Assemblers of Things 
who are largely artisans, and the Pleasant Uniters who deal with 
mental and social matters (they are closely linked to the 
unificationalists). Hard-Crushing-Waves originally was a very 
militant clan, but has gradually developed into a kind of racial 
police/military for hire, while Pure Circularly Polarized Light is 
specialized in the creation of a special kind of mystical experience. 
It is not uncommon for families from different clans to work 
together in teams, forming another level of organisation. 

Some important groups are:

The Returnists are rare outside the homeworld. They want to 
return to the old scavenging lifestyle of the old, using only the 
classic tools and skills and avoiding the traps of technology and 
complexity. Several colonies of them exist in remote areas, where 
they tend their shorelines. They don9t want any contact with the 
other mothers, although they sometimes trade simple products like 
carved shells and a resinous substance produced by a rare aquatic 
animal for simple tools. 

The orthodox unificationalists are a small but influential group in 
some areas. They seek to become equally proficient in all skills, 
using complex mystical/psychological methods. Unlike the 
returnists they do not deny modern civilization, since its 
complexities will be mastered when they find the secret of 
becoming totally general. They place great importance in 
experiencing and doing all things, and are very interested in 
contacting aliens.

The Balanced Moderators are a group of families which studies 
ideologies and how they work; they have specialized themselves as 
diplomats and middle-men. They are convinced that the mothers 
have to learn to rid themselves of ideologies and other 
preconceptions in order to become truly free. However, in practice 
they are quite occupied exploiting the differences between the 
groups. 

The cyberneticists are one of the dominant ideologies/clans among 
the mothers, although it has numerous internal schisms and 
differences. Their goal is to use bionics and information technology 
to give every mother the ability to become as free as possible from 
the constraints of overspecialization and the problems of being a 
generalist. They have developed bionic links to computers, which 
can be used to transfer and store 2bottled memories2. They also 
encourage the use of remote linking through radio or 
telecommunications. This has produced families spread across huge 
distances, since linking is far from a realtime procedure anyway. 
Other cyberneticists have developed interfaces allowing them to 
communicate with other races, or cybernetic enhancements of 
various kinds. 

The Unified Linkers are among the most radical of all 
cyberneticists. They seek to use interfacing to remain linked all the 
time with their families. This is extremely comfortable, giving them 
an intense sense of unity, but also increases the risk of mental 
disturbances severely. Some of the most extreme linkers are even 
connecting linked families into super-families using their 
computers. There have been some spectacular successes and 
failures, but so far their dream of a totally unified race has been 
unsuccessful.

On the opposite side there are the Independent Loners, who want 
to remove themselves entirely from the family system, regarding it 
as a trap. Originally they were a mixed group of malcontents and 
loners, but they have gradually grown into a political force of note 
in some colonies. 

Culture 

The Mothers seem to enjoy fractals of all kinds; there are very few 
straight lines or smooth surfaces in their environment if they can 
help it. Instead everything is rough and baroque, not unlike their 
shells (which they often cover with decorative colorings and 
plants), and usually self-similar in some way. Mother buildings 
usually consist of a large central dome, surrounded by smaller 
domes which in turn have small extensions (the grandmother lives 
in the central dome, her daughters in the neighboring domes and so 
on). The inner walls are often covered with branching structures to 
hold possessions or plants.

The underlying rules of the fractal objects sometimes has hidden 
meanings, and it is very common for mother artisans to play games 
or make riddles out of the recursion. Real conniseurs can spend long 
time decyphering an object, trying to find new hidden levels of 
meaning. 

There have never been a real oral tradition among the mothers, but 
certain ancestral memories have survived, usually in a highly 
symbolic and formalized form. Every clan and family have its own 
2unity-memory2, a kind of symbolic memory or identity which by 
tradition is divided into four important parts and one unimportant 
part (a very common storytelling trick among the mothers, just like 
human like to repeat something three times).


From: james vassilakos <jimv>
Subject: Re: SF-RPG
To: nv91-asa@nada.kth.se (Anders Sandberg)
Date: Wed, 2 Aug 1995 19:54:47 -0700 (PDT)
 
> Very interesting pieces! They tell a quite intriguing story (and I simply 
> loved the hopelessly patriotic assassin). I'm just wondering what will 
> happen next?

Hmm... I've actually been thinking of getting rid of that scene as well
as the two following ones which you haven't even read yet. :-)

I'm not really happy with the direction it's gone, which is part of
the reason I haven't sent the more recent parts. Oh well... I will do
so and also get back to you about the Mothers. In the meantime, I'd
like to share with you some email I've been exchanging with Joerg
Rhiemeier. It has to do with that alien who was captured in the story
and it's life-expectancy on Earth given "reasonable" assumptions.

<Snip snip... See Correspondence with Joerg Rhiemeier>


Date: Mon, 7 Aug 1995 16:17:22 +0200 (MET DST)
From: Anders Sandberg <nv91-asa@nada.kth.se>
To: james vassilakos <jimv@cs.UCR.edu>
Subject: Re: SF-RPG

Hello!

On Wed, 2 Aug 1995, james vassilakos wrote:

> I'm not really happy with the direction it's gone, which is part of
> the reason I haven't sent the more recent parts. 

Maybe you should describe what kind of feeling or events you want? 

> In the meantime, I'd
> like to share with you some email I've been exchanging with Joerg
> Rhiemeier. It has to do with that alien who was captured in the story
> and it's life-expectancy on Earth given "reasonable" assumptions.

Quite an interesting problem. 

> >Hi, I have a quick question you might be able to answer. I'm
> >writing a story for a homebrew sf-rpg where back in the 40s,
> >the USA manages to capture itself an extra-terrestrial. Even
> >assuming that the ET is carbon/water-based, 
> 
> Which is not unlikely at all, I think.

This reminds me: the aliens I have described so far have not been defined
in any biochemical way. If you wish I could try creating more or less
reasonable biochemistries for them, although I think most of them (except
the Leeches and Outsiders) are rather Earthly - maybe they just need
cyanide. :-)

> >	and even assuming
> >that it can withstand our atmosphere (which may be a stretch,
> >I dunno), 
> 
> Not so big a stretch, I think; I'd say that such a nitrogen/oxygen is
> not a very exotic condition on worlds with carbon/water-based life.

I agree too. It would probably be a rather common type.

> I assume that many of the more abundant organics we are composed of
> are also found in other planets' life, but many more special are not.
> This means that the ET probably won't find anything it needs on Earth.
> Some vital molecules (such as some vitamins or amino acids) will miss
> on Earth, while some other substances which occur in any Earth
> organism might be poisonous to the ET.

Not to mention simple changes such as using left-handed amino acids 
instead of right handed ones - they wouldn't fit. And it its 50% chance 
of this happening.

> This means that the ET must feed off something from its own home
> world.  If it carried along something alive which produces everything
> it needs and which can be grown on Earth (and be it in a laboratory),
> the ET might survive.  Otherwise, it'll be in BIG trouble.

Races with good biotechnology might have the ability to develop "Sdrimner 
pets" (who, like the mythical pig in Norse mythology, regenerates the 
flesh used as food). 

> They don't know enough about the critter's biological needs to
> synthesize the alien's version of B-12, so my question then becomes,
> how long do you think said alien will survive after capture? I.e.,
> how long could a person survive without B-12?

This would depend on the biochemistry of the alien. A human can survive
without food for about a month if given water, by slowly using up the
reserves of the body and then katabolizing less important tissues. An
alien with a faster biochemistry (small, energetic, predator or from a hot
environment) would last a shorter time (I think many small birds may
starve to death in a matter of days), while a slower being (cold-blooded?)
could last much longer or even go into hibernation. 


From: james vassilakos <jimv>
Subject: Re: SF-RPG
To: nv91-asa@nada.kth.se (Anders Sandberg)
Date: Tue, 8 Aug 1995 10:57:06 -0700 (PDT)
 
> > I'm not really happy with the direction it's gone, which is part of
> > the reason I haven't sent the more recent parts. 
> 
> Maybe you should describe what kind of feeling or events you want? 

Well, my main worry is making it "fit" with the UFO folklore I've read.
There's a lot of internal inconsistency and a lot of stuff which just
doesn't stand well to logic. I'll keep trying though.

> This reminds me: the aliens I have described so far have not been defined
> in any biochemical way. If you wish I could try creating more or less
> reasonable biochemistries for them, although I think most of them (except
> the Leeches and Outsiders) are rather Earthly - maybe they just need
> cyanide. :-)

This one's really up to you.
 
> > I assume that many of the more abundant organics we are composed of
> > are also found in other planets' life, but many more special are not.
> > This means that the ET probably won't find anything it needs on Earth.
> > Some vital molecules (such as some vitamins or amino acids) will miss
> > on Earth, while some other substances which occur in any Earth
> > organism might be poisonous to the ET.
> 
> Not to mention simple changes such as using left-handed amino acids 
> instead of right handed ones - they wouldn't fit. And it its 50% chance 
> of this happening.

I had no notion of this. Most interesting.


Date: Wed, 9 Aug 1995 18:33:41 +0200 (MET DST)
From: Anders Sandberg <nv91-asa@nada.kth.se>
To: james vassilakos <jimv@cs.UCR.edu>
Subject: Re: SF-RPG

On Tue, 8 Aug 1995, james vassilakos wrote:
> Well, my main worry is making it "fit" with the UFO folklore I've read.
> There's a lot of internal inconsistency and a lot of stuff which just
> doesn't stand well to logic. I'll keep trying though.

Just make up a good explanation which explains the parts you like, the
rest is just misunderstandings, hallucinations or misinformation from the
Govt. 

For example, the reason many people in the past saw very different aliens
(piles of moving slime, lizards, complete humanoids etc) is that the real
aliens had not yet decided on what form they should use on their androids
for human contact (why the grays? Maybe they had the right psychological
impact). The face on Mars is just an illusion.

> > This reminds me: the aliens I have described so far have not been defined
> > in any biochemical way. If you wish I could try creating more or less
> > reasonable biochemistries for them, although I think most of them (except
> > the Leeches and Outsiders) are rather Earthly - maybe they just need
> > cyanide. :-)
> 
> This one's really up to you.

Thanks! I think the Mothers should have a rather humanoid biochemistry, 
since they might be interesting to interact with. The Gools are also 
almost similar (at least they enjoy earthly spices), but with some 
significant differences (maybe the main bodies are allergic to human 
sweat?). 

Another thing, I have an idea for another race (maybe just a background). 
This race nearly destroyed itself in an war before going off-planet, and
the only remaining group was some kind of extreme religion. These beings
seek perfection, to find the Optimum of all things. When they encountered
other races they realized that the universe was huge, diverse and from
their perspective downright ugly. But they were quite rational, and
retreated back to their home planet avoiding all contact. At home they set
on to creating Perfection, but they realized that the other aliens could
have some useful ideas. So they sent out the Damned, condemned or
imperfect individuals whose purpose is to watch events and report anything
that could be used to seek perfection better. They work as mercenary
biotechnologists, designing lifeforms for other races and in return
gathering information which is sent back to the perfect homeworld and its
immortal rulers (if someone proves itself perfect, it is made immortal). 

What do you think?

Quoting Joerg:
> Hmmm, I think that *unprocessed* alien food will lead to trouble quite
> quickly, as it is very likely to contain some toxic substances.  To
> live off alien stuff, we would have to process it heftily, to remove
> unhealthy alien ingredients and add some vitamins etc. which are
> missing (though the latter can also be complemented through pills,
> imported or hydroponically grown oranges, or similar means).

Not to mention the problems of alien microorganisms feeding of the food 
in the gut - they might find gastric acid a wonderful medium to live in, 
as long as they get the five-chained fatty acids they like. Actual 
infection is unlikely, but they could still cause trouble (imagine a 
fungi which finds human hair and nails tasty!). 

Joerg:
> The captured alien, however, is at an important disadvantage against
> human settlers on alien planets.  We *know* which vitamins we need,
> and can bring along the missing stuff, or build production
> facilities.  The alien might also know what it needs, but *we* don't.
> So we can't give it what it needs, and can't tell what is missing to him.
> His physiology is alien, so if some clinical effect occurs in that
> alien, we can't tell why.  We even don't know what is normal.  If the
> alien's body temperature is measured to be 45 degrees C, is this its
> normal temperature?  Or is its normal temp. 43, which means the alien
> has light fever, or is it 35, which means very *severe* fever, or
> perhaps 50 or more?

This reminds me of the captured alien in The Forge of God (you should 
really read that book and its sequel!). It is actually designed to never 
produce any vaste products, and live from special food (not available) 
which is 100% utilized - of course, the humans only deduced this at the 
autopsy (which was naturally quite bizarre). If you want I could post 
some relevant sections, they have a fine feeling.

Quoting Jim:
> So what you're telling me here is that if I feed an apple to Mister
> ExtraTerrestrial, he's gonna be puking his guts out within the hour.
> Hmmm... poses severe difficulties in terms of keeping a captured
> alien alive, particularly one you know very little about.

You have to learn his language and chemistry quick, and this could be 
problematic. Imagine the reverse situation: 

"Earthling, wishes we/me understand needs nutrational your/your use
survival good" 

"Ehh, I was never any good at biochemistry. Do you have roast beef?"

Jim:
> I have two other topics I'd like to discuss with you. The first may
> seem trivial, but I wanted your opinion never the less. It concerns
> our basic outward physiology. How do I explain this? Whenever you
> see aliens in movies or on television, they are either humans in
> make-up, or they are animal-like. I know the humans in make-up
> syndrome is totally bogus, but what about the animal-like
> syndrome? For example, almost any land-based animal I can think
> of (aside from your arachnids and insects and starfish, of course)
> has two arms, two legs, not more than five fingers/digits on any
> single of these appendages with five being a fairly common number.
> For example, lizards (which are obviously not even mammals) have
> two arms, two legs, and a total of twenty digits... just like humans.
> Life on this planet seems, then, remarkably similar. Is it possible
> that this design is "popular" among aliens as well?

My guess is that it is just one of many, but most worlds have just one or 
a few dominant designs. If Gould is right, all cordates are descendants 
of a single species, and its genes are fundamental to us (we have four 
limbs because the fish we evolved from had four useful fins). 

I think that on land, locomotion is probably usually done through legs or 
other appendages (my rollers use arms to roll forward). Symmetry is 
common to save genetic space. But the form of limbs, the number of them 
and their structure could be vastly different (fractal branching 
structures? Thorns instead of bendable legs? Indpendently moving suction 
cups like starfish?). 

This reminds me of an idea: Humans are the only two-legged intelligent 
beings. All the aliens find us amusing/bizarre since we manage to walk on 
two legs instead on all fours, rolling or swimming... :-)

Jim:
> This has
> far-reaching implications. For example, the reason our numbering
> system is base-ten probably has something to do with the fact that
> we have ten fingers. If "most" sentient aliens are in the same
> predicament because this "basic-body-design" is "popular" on some
> "nature/biological" level, then it is not too unlikely that their
> numbering systems will be base-ten also. In short, do you think
> this "basic-body-design" which seems so popular on earth is
> popular for a reason, or do you think it is just an accident, and
> that aliens with four arms or six arms or twenty arms and twenty
> fingers on each of them is just as likely?

There are many humans with more or less fingers, and although our basic
design is five fingered, many animals have atrophied some of them (like
the hoofed animals). There is probably no particular reason for 5, six or
four could probably work fine (three is perhaps hard to use, but not
impossible). Most beings have a low number of parts, but there are
probably exceptions. 

Joerg:
> Even symbols they use will be different.  Cross-like symbols are very
> widespread in human culture, perhaps because a cross has four
> `limbs'.  Many ethnologists assume that the cross symbol reflects our
> four-limbedness.  The pentagram perhaps reflects the fivefoldness of
> our fingers, but perhaps also the human body, with the top point
> representing the head, the upper sideways points the arms, and the
> lower points the legs.  A six-limbed species might prefer hexagonal
> symbols (six-rayed stars, and their like).

Hmm, the Mothers would perhaps revere a circle with five markings (shield 
plus limbs), while the Rollers like wheels for natural reasons. Gools 
could revere a spindle-shaped symbol, while the Outsiders like a fractal 
tree. If they use symbols.


From: james vassilakos <jimv>
Subject: sf-rpg - planet types
To: nv91-asa@nada.kth.se (Anders Sandberg)
Date: Thu, 17 Aug 1995 14:26:44 -0700 (PDT)

Hey there. I'm going with the cheesy approach on planet generation
and using a basic "class-based" system to determine basic planet type.
Before I start generating reams of worlds, however, I thought you might
like to offer a few suggestions as to how this should be modified.

   Solar Companion: Not technically a world but not the main star
      or even a part of the close-binary pair.
   Gas Giant: Fairly obvious. Great for wilderness refueling if
      we're using hydrogen to get around.
   Greenhouse: A world gone to hell because of too much
      greenhouse gases.
   Planetoid: A very small world, generally. Not necessarily
      round. No atmosphere to speak of. Composed of rock or ice.
   Belch Ball: You don't want to breath the atmosphere. Probably
      corrosive in the extreme.
   Primordial: A very young world. Atmosphere varies.
      Geologically instable. Lots of volcanos and magma seas.
   Desert World: Generally a non-breathable atmosphere, but there
      may be water and oxygen tied up as ice crystals in the soil.
   Exotic: Not an atmosphere you want to breath, maybe because it
      contains poisonous gasses or even lethal micro-organisms.
      But not a place you can't otherwise walk around, so long as
      you have your own oxygen supply. Note that an alien
      ecosystem may well be thriving.
   Magma Ball: Ouch, this place is hot.
   Vacuum Ball: Like the moon, essentially. Lots of rock. No
      atmosphere.
   Shallow World: Has atmosphere but not enough to breath, at
      least not without descending to a very deep altitude. Mars
      could be an example.
   Dead World: The place is certainly colonizable, but for one
      reason or another, life either never existed or went
      extinct long ago. Maybe the sun flared and knocked out the
      entire ecosystem. Or maybe a slew of meteors struck,
      churning up enough dust that the sun was blotted out for
      decades. Most likely, the atmosphere is not breathable.
   Garden World: Earth is a prime example. Not only can you
      breath the atmosphere without mechanical aid, but life,
      either native or transplanted, thrives in abundance.
   Water World: Over 90% covered by water and ice. Possibly a
      breathable atmosphere. Possibly a teaming native ecosystem
      which got evolutionarily stuck due to the total lack of any
      freestanding continents.
   Ice Planet: May have a breathable atmosphere so long as there
      is the eco-system to support it. More likely a dead planet
      without a breathable atmosphere.


Date: Mon, 21 Aug 1995 14:17:28 +0200 (MET DST)
From: Anders Sandberg <nv91-asa@nada.kth.se>
To: james vassilakos <jimv@cs.UCR.edu>
Subject: Re: sf-rpg - planet types

On Thu, 17 Aug 1995, james vassilakos wrote:

> Hey there. I'm going with the cheesy approach on planet generation
> and using a basic "class-based" system to determine basic planet type.

Well, this isn't exactly my favorite, but in practice it is rather 
realistic. When you run a more serious planet generation system, you 
usually get many very similar planets. However, it is important to 
remember that even all asteroids are individual.

>    Solar Companion: Not technically a world but not the main star
>       or even a part of the close-binary pair.

Huh? A Brown dwarf or what?

>    Gas Giant: Fairly obvious. Great for wilderness refueling if
>       we're using hydrogen to get around.

They come in lots of sizes, ranging from Uranus-type 'Failed Cores' (to 
use a 2300AD term) to Brown Dwarves. 

>    Greenhouse: A world gone to hell because of too much
>       greenhouse gases.

A la Venus. 

>    Planetoid: A very small world, generally. Not necessarily
>       round. No atmosphere to speak of. Composed of rock or ice.

It might be a good idea to distinguish between non-volatile worlds (rock
and dust, mostly found in the inner parts of the solar system) and
volatile worlds (ices). 

>    Belch Ball: You don't want to breath the atmosphere. Probably
>       corrosive in the extreme.

Probably rather rare. Borders on the Greenhouses and Gas Giants. If the 
atmosphere is corrosive, something has to replenish it (like life 
producing oxygen or nitric acid).

>    Primordial: A very young world. Atmosphere varies.
>       Geologically instable. Lots of volcanos and magma seas.

I assume this is what magma balls evolve into after a while. Eventually 
it starts to rain, and the worlds begins to evolve towards a shallow 
world, a greenhouse, a gardenworld or something similar.

>    Desert World: Generally a non-breathable atmosphere, but there
>       may be water and oxygen tied up as ice crystals in the soil.

Will probably (?) slowly become a shallow world.

>    Exotic: Not an atmosphere you want to breath, maybe because it
>       contains poisonous gasses or even lethal micro-organisms.
>       But not a place you can't otherwise walk around, so long as
>       you have your own oxygen supply. Note that an alien
>       ecosystem may well be thriving.

This isn't exactly a type of planet, just a garden world (or some other 
kind) with a nasty atmosphere. 

>    Magma Ball: Ouch, this place is hot.

Probably quite rare, mostly found in very young systems or very close to 
stars.

>    Dead World: The place is certainly colonizable, but for one
>       reason or another, life either never existed or went
>       extinct long ago. Maybe the sun flared and knocked out the
>       entire ecosystem. Or maybe a slew of meteors struck,
>       churning up enough dust that the sun was blotted out for
>       decades. Most likely, the atmosphere is not breathable.

Without life, most Earth-like planets would slip into a greenhouse effect 
or freeze. 

>    Garden World: Earth is a prime example. Not only can you
>       breath the atmosphere without mechanical aid, but life,
>       either native or transplanted, thrives in abundance.

This of course assumes that the atmosphere does not contain anything 
poisonous (imagine a world where a the smell of flowers contains a 
chemical similar to bufotoxin). The amount of life could also vary a lot; 
some worlds might have very little biomass, while others are overflowing 
with life.

>    Water World: Over 90% covered by water and ice. Possibly a
>       breathable atmosphere. Possibly a teaming native ecosystem
>       which got evolutionarily stuck due to the total lack of any
>       freestanding continents.
>    Ice Planet: May have a breathable atmosphere so long as there
>       is the eco-system to support it. More likely a dead planet
>       without a breathable atmosphere.

I think these classes cover most possible planets, but they are not very 
strict. A planet could for example be a Water World bordering on a 
Greenhouse, or an Ice Planet close to being a Magma Ball (extreme shifts 
in temperature). 

Do you plan to write a planet generator using this?


From: james vassilakos <jimv>
Subject: Re: sf-rpg - planet types
To: nv91-asa@nada.kth.se (Anders Sandberg)
Date: Mon, 21 Aug 1995 13:48:34 -0700 (PDT)
 
> Well, this isn't exactly my favorite, but in practice it is rather 
> realistic. When you run a more serious planet generation system, you 
> usually get many very similar planets. However, it is important to 
> remember that even all asteroids are individual.

True. I just don't want to generate and store reams upon reams of data.
Better to take a minimalist approach and perhaps have some sort of
add-on software for GMs who want to decorate the worlds they are
detailing with various trivia.
 
> >    Solar Companion: Not technically a world but not the main star
> >       or even a part of the close-binary pair.
> 
> Huh? A Brown dwarf or what?

My thoughts on this were that you can have three types of companions.
Close, medium, and distant. Close companions are essentially so close
that they are part of the stellar hub (they are within the 1st orbit).
Distant ones are so distant, however, that they are beyond the last
planetary orbit and are often their own separate star systems (just
inhabiting an area of space very close to the primary). The medium
companions are somewhere in-between. In effect, they orbit at the
same range that planets orbit at, outside the 1st orbit but also
within the last. I'm not sure how commonplace such stars would be,
but I wanted the system to allow for their inclusion.

> >    Gas Giant: Fairly obvious. Great for wilderness refueling if
> >       we're using hydrogen to get around.
> 
> They come in lots of sizes, ranging from Uranus-type 'Failed Cores' (to 
> use a 2300AD term) to Brown Dwarves. 

Yes, but I'm not sure how these differences are going to matter to most
players.
 
> >    Planetoid: A very small world, generally. Not necessarily
> >       round. No atmosphere to speak of. Composed of rock or ice.
> 
> It might be a good idea to distinguish between non-volatile worlds (rock
> and dust, mostly found in the inner parts of the solar system) and
> volatile worlds (ices). 

Probably a good idea. Safe to say that rocky-planetoids could exist
nearly anywhere in the star system but icy planetoids would be
confined to the orbits outside the biozone?
 
> >    Belch Ball: You don't want to breath the atmosphere. Probably
> >       corrosive in the extreme.
> 
> Probably rather rare. Borders on the Greenhouses and Gas Giants. If the 
> atmosphere is corrosive, something has to replenish it (like life 
> producing oxygen or nitric acid).

I was thinking of the world in Alien. The atmosphere wasn't corrosive,
but it was pretty hideous. I'll take out the "probably corrosive"
comment and substitute "possibly corrosive".

> >    Primordial: A very young world. Atmosphere varies.
> >       Geologically instable. Lots of volcanos and magma seas.
> 
> I assume this is what magma balls evolve into after a while. Eventually 
> it starts to rain, and the worlds begins to evolve towards a shallow 
> world, a greenhouse, a gardenworld or something similar.

Yeah, that's basically what I was thinking.

> >    Desert World: Generally a non-breathable atmosphere, but there
> >       may be water and oxygen tied up as ice crystals in the soil.
> 
> Will probably (?) slowly become a shallow world.

Probably. Unless it has a dense gas for its atmosphere or is
large enough to sustain light gasses.

> >    Exotic: Not an atmosphere you want to breath, maybe because it
> >       contains poisonous gasses or even lethal micro-organisms.
> >       But not a place you can't otherwise walk around, so long as
> >       you have your own oxygen supply. Note that an alien
> >       ecosystem may well be thriving.
> 
> This isn't exactly a type of planet, just a garden world (or some other 
> kind) with a nasty atmosphere. 

Yes. Precisely. Many of the alien homeworlds will probably be either
Exotics or Gardens. Care to speculate on a ratio (exotic:garden)?
 
> >    Dead World: The place is certainly colonizable, but for one
> >       reason or another, life either never existed or went
> >       extinct long ago. Maybe the sun flared and knocked out the
> >       entire ecosystem. Or maybe a slew of meteors struck,
> >       churning up enough dust that the sun was blotted out for
> >       decades. Most likely, the atmosphere is not breathable.
> 
> Without life, most Earth-like planets would slip into a greenhouse effect 
> or freeze. 

Well, you might still have a carbon/water cycles going, and that should
maintain your temperature level at something between boiling and
freezing. Or do you think that the carbon/water cycles would break
without life present?

> >    Garden World: Earth is a prime example. Not only can you
> >       breath the atmosphere without mechanical aid, but life,
> >       either native or transplanted, thrives in abundance.
> 
> This of course assumes that the atmosphere does not contain anything 
> poisonous (imagine a world where a the smell of flowers contains a 
> chemical similar to bufotoxin). The amount of life could also vary a lot; 
> some worlds might have very little biomass, while others are overflowing 
> with life.

True. Even ice planets might support life. Some form of bacteria which
likes the cold. However, I think your poisonous gardens could be classified
under exotic.
 
> >    Water World: Over 90% covered by water and ice. Possibly a
> >       breathable atmosphere. Possibly a teaming native ecosystem
> >       which got evolutionarily stuck due to the total lack of any
> >       freestanding continents.
> >    Ice Planet: May have a breathable atmosphere so long as there
> >       is the eco-system to support it. More likely a dead planet
> >       without a breathable atmosphere.
> 
> I think these classes cover most possible planets, but they are not very 
> strict. A planet could for example be a Water World bordering on a 
> Greenhouse, or an Ice Planet close to being a Magma Ball (extreme shifts 
> in temperature). 

Yes. Might be best to add a category for the unclassified worlds that
just don't fit into a mold for one reason or another.

> Do you plan to write a planet generator using this?

Yep. And then I plan on turning it loose on the nystar systems which
you've provided coordinates for. Then, perhaps, we can start planting
your aliens on specific world, start doing some starsystem write-ups,
and maybe get a political framework going for the alien coalition.


Date: Wed, 23 Aug 1995 17:03:23 +0200 (MET DST)
From: Anders Sandberg <nv91-asa@nada.kth.se>
To: james vassilakos <jimv@cs.UCR.edu>
Subject: Re: sf-rpg - planet types

On Mon, 21 Aug 1995, james vassilakos wrote:
> > Well, this isn't exactly my favorite, but in practice it is rather 
> > realistic. When you run a more serious planet generation system, you 
> > usually get many very similar planets. However, it is important to 
> > remember that even all asteroids are individual.
> 
> True. I just don't want to generate and store reams upon reams of data.
> Better to take a minimalist approach and perhaps have some sort of
> add-on software for GMs who want to decorate the worlds they are
> detailing with various trivia.

One solution would be to generate a random number seed from the star data,
and use it to generate the entire system when needed. That way you don't
have to store too much data. But the add-on idea is probably good, that
way the soft sf GMs could say "well, its an ice planet" while hard sf GMs
could tell their players "It has a diameter of 13345 km, a density of 0.87
earth densities, a atmosphere pressure of 0.78 atm on the surface, which
is covered by 89% ice, 2% carbon dioxide ice and 9% tundra. The chemical
composition of the soil is..." :-)

> > >    Solar Companion: Not technically a world but not the main star
> > >       or even a part of the close-binary pair.
> > 
> > Huh? A Brown dwarf or what?
> 
> My thoughts on this were that you can have three types of companions.
> Close, medium, and distant. Close companions are essentially so close
> that they are part of the stellar hub (they are within the 1st orbit).
> Distant ones are so distant, however, that they are beyond the last
> planetary orbit and are often their own separate star systems (just
> inhabiting an area of space very close to the primary). The medium
> companions are somewhere in-between. In effect, they orbit at the
> same range that planets orbit at, outside the 1st orbit but also
> within the last. I'm not sure how commonplace such stars would be,
> but I wanted the system to allow for their inclusion.

Actually, around half (or more) stars have companions. I think the
distances vary quite a bit, but many would be in a median orbit (many have
quite elliptic orbits too). In such systems I don't think planets could
form easily. I use the rule of thumb that planets can only form if their
orbits are less than a third of the distance from their sun to the
secondary, or more than three times the distance. Otherwise gravity will
disrupt their orbit. 

> > >    Gas Giant: Fairly obvious. Great for wilderness refueling if
> > >       we're using hydrogen to get around.
> > 
> > They come in lots of sizes, ranging from Uranus-type 'Failed Cores' (to 
> > use a 2300AD term) to Brown Dwarves. 
> 
> Yes, but I'm not sure how these differences are going to matter to most
> players.

No, but I always like to be able to describe things. 

> > It might be a good idea to distinguish between non-volatile worlds (rock
> > and dust, mostly found in the inner parts of the solar system) and
> > volatile worlds (ices). 
> 
> Probably a good idea. Safe to say that rocky-planetoids could exist
> nearly anywhere in the star system but icy planetoids would be
> confined to the orbits outside the biozone?

Exactly. 

> > >    Belch Ball: You don't want to breath the atmosphere. Probably
> > >       corrosive in the extreme.
> > 
> > Probably rather rare. Borders on the Greenhouses and Gas Giants. If the 
> > atmosphere is corrosive, something has to replenish it (like life 
> > producing oxygen or nitric acid).
> 
> I was thinking of the world in Alien. The atmosphere wasn't corrosive,
> but it was pretty hideous. I'll take out the "probably corrosive"
> comment and substitute "possibly corrosive".

Hmm, I got the impression it was rather cold but not entirely alien. 
Probably lots of ammonia and ice crystals. 

> > >    Desert World: Generally a non-breathable atmosphere, but there
> > >       may be water and oxygen tied up as ice crystals in the soil.
> > 
> > Will probably (?) slowly become a shallow world.
> 
> Probably. Unless it has a dense gas for its atmosphere or is
> large enough to sustain light gasses.

Yes, but over long periods of time the atmosphere will leak away if it is 
not replenished (by volcanoes in the beginning), and the deserts will 
make temperature shift so strongly that this will probably be speeded up.

> Yes. Precisely. Many of the alien homeworlds will probably be either
> Exotics or Gardens. Care to speculate on a ratio (exotic:garden)?

Hmm, this is essentially the question about alien food. My guess is that 
Earth-like planets are somewhat similar in atmosphere, and they would be 
exotic only if life did something rather unusual (or something humans 
reacted to stongly, like heavy metal-coated pollen or cyanide breath), so 
maybe 25% exotics and 75% garden among earth-like planets. The ratio 
shifts more and more towards exotics when we move towards hothouses, 
deserts or waterworlds.

> > >    Dead World: The place is certainly colonizable, but for one
> > >       reason or another, life either never existed or went
> > >       extinct long ago. Maybe the sun flared and knocked out the
> > >       entire ecosystem. Or maybe a slew of meteors struck,
> > >       churning up enough dust that the sun was blotted out for
> > >       decades. Most likely, the atmosphere is not breathable.
> > 
> > Without life, most Earth-like planets would slip into a greenhouse effect 
> > or freeze. 
> 
> Well, you might still have a carbon/water cycles going, and that should
> maintain your temperature level at something between boiling and
> freezing. Or do you think that the carbon/water cycles would break
> without life present?

Most probably would after a few tens of millions of years. 

> Yes. Might be best to add a category for the unclassified worlds that
> just don't fit into a mold for one reason or another.

Yes, this could be a good idea. Lets not forget artificial worlds and 
asteroid belts too.

> > Do you plan to write a planet generator using this?
> 
> Yep. And then I plan on turning it loose on the nystar systems which
> you've provided coordinates for. Then, perhaps, we can start planting
> your aliens on specific world, start doing some starsystem write-ups,
> and maybe get a political framework going for the alien coalition.

Sounds good. I have some ideas, and your discussion with Joerg has given 
me some more. I'll write soon (my work is piling up!)


Date: Thu, 24 Aug 1995 14:18:49 +0200 (MET DST)
From: Anders Sandberg <nv91-asa@nada.kth.se>
To: james vassilakos <jimv@cs.UCR.edu>

On Mon, 21 Aug 1995, james vassilakos wrote:
> In any case, because humans didn't slowly develop
> intelligence as did other races, we didn't have the time to study
> our planet and our society before technological advances led us to
> global warfare and a decaying biosphere. 

Hmm, this gives me an idea. Maybe many young races collapse, often
permanently even when left alone? Uplifted races are in even more danger,
unless the uplifters actively step in an manipulate them, but that will
never create anything but a slave race. There are planets and systems
filled with ruins of previous species, and most aliens avoid them (there
are often nasty weapons left behind, sometimes automated). Only a few
groups dare scavenge unusual technology or art from such places. 

> Envisioning some
> plausible advanced technology, what ways do you think the
> more friendly of races might be able to help (even if they
> aren't allowed to politically)?

Lets see now, a good way of saving mankind would be to give us a better 
energy source - but that could also be a better weapon, and the more 
unfriendly races would want to stop it. But what if they arranged an 
"accident", where some advanced technology got into the hands of humans? 
Especially if the humans kept this secret, they could get away with this.

Apropos the age of the uplifters: maybe they are not really the same
species? One species began the uplifting long ago, and then vanished/died
out/became static, but a successor species have "inherited" its old
projects? 

On Tue, 22 Aug 1995, james vassilakos wrote:
> > If you are thinking of some kind of super-tech miracle cure to our
> > planet: forget it.  But they might try to influence politics on Earth
> > in favour to environmentalist groups.
> 
> That would be difficult to do without the sanction of the coalition.
> Spies would catch on to what they are doing and effectively realize
> they're breaking the non-interference agreement. I was figuring that
> by the time the humans realized their predicament and had mustered
> the political will to do something about it, it would be too late.
> I was thinking more in terms of some sort of atmospheric processing
> technology... something to scoop massive amounts of CO2 out of a world's
> atmosphere. Of course, the humans would try to get it somehow once
> they learn that it exists and that could be the focus of an adventure.

Hmm, what about biotechnology? Suppose we found a hyper-efficient algae, 
which could convert CO2 into oxygen and maybe also produce food - 
apparently the result of a accidental breakthrough somewhere, but in 
reality designed by aliens and "leaked" through some channels.

On Wed, 23 Aug 1995, james vassilakos wrote:
>    Gas Giant: Fairly obvious. Great for wilderness refueling if
>       we're using hydrogen to get around.

Note that refueling from Gas Giants might require some refinement to deal 
with ammonia and methane (I assume they are not anything you want in your 
fusion reactor).

>    Liquid World: Surface predominantly covered by ammonia or
>       liquid methane. May contain an alien ecosystem.

Such life would be very interesting. Probably quite slow, and based on a 
non-polar chemistry. 

>    Unusual: This world cannot be placed in any of the previously
>       defined categories. It may be an artificial planet or
>       perhaps a fluke of nature. GM's discretion advised.

A fine example would be Rocheworld (in Forward's books): two planets in a 
very close orbit around each other, forming a rough figure eight. They 
share the same atmosphere and an ocean which "sloshes" from one part to 
another over the narrow space between them.


From: james vassilakos <jimv>
Subject: Re: sf-rpg / joerg
To: nv91-asa@nada.kth.se (Anders Sandberg)
Date: Thu, 24 Aug 1995 11:16:52 -0700 (PDT)
 
> Lets see now, a good way of saving mankind would be to give us a better 
> energy source - but that could also be a better weapon, and the more 
> unfriendly races would want to stop it. But what if they arranged an 
> "accident", where some advanced technology got into the hands of humans? 
> Especially if the humans kept this secret, they could get away with this.

Actually, I was considering this with respect to the flying saucer that
got shot down in that story I was sending you, however, I decided that
would be too unlikely for the aliens to hand us a freebie at that
stage... not unless there has been some form of secret treaty already,
and I'm not postulating one.
 
> Apropos the age of the uplifters: maybe they are not really the same
> species? One species began the uplifting long ago, and then vanished/died
> out/became static, but a successor species have "inherited" its old
> projects? 

Yeah, that might be best. Perhaps the uplifters were destroyed by one of
their creations. Perhaps that species is still around.  :-)
 
> Hmm, what about biotechnology? Suppose we found a hyper-efficient algae, 
> which could convert CO2 into oxygen and maybe also produce food - 
> apparently the result of a accidental breakthrough somewhere, but in 
> reality designed by aliens and "leaked" through some channels.

Yeah, I think biotech's the way to go just because you have self-replication
already built in.
 
> >    Liquid World: Surface predominantly covered by ammonia or
> >       liquid methane. May contain an alien ecosystem.
> 
> Such life would be very interesting. Probably quite slow, and based on a 
> non-polar chemistry. 

Let me know if you can think of any other "liquids" which would be
common for such a planet other than ammonia or methane.
 

Date: Fri, 25 Aug 1995 10:31:11 +0200 (MET DST)
From: Anders Sandberg <nv91-asa@nada.kth.se>
To: james vassilakos <jimv@cs.UCR.edu>
Subject: Re: sf-rpg / joerg

Hello again!

I have been reading "Indistinguishable from Magic" by Robert Forward. A 
lot of interesting and scientific ideas about ultra-tech and its uses. 

His discussion about antimatter was quite interesting, I think this could 
be one of the major ways of storing energy among the more advanced 
aliens. It can be used as a propellant for non-FTL craft (you just need a 
small amount of antimatter and a big tank of normal matter which is 
heated into a plasma by the annihilation reaction), a hyper-explosive 
(the weapons potential is rather deadly), energy storage, a convenient 
source of high energy radiation (it could be used for densiometric scans 
of a living body) and much more. According to Forward, it could be 
generated by huge solar collectors linked to antimatter factories and 
then stored using various electromagnetic fields. 

He also had a lot of interesting ideas about beanstalks (planet-orbit 
cables), rotovators (rotating cables that "touch down" into the 
atmosphere to pick up shuttles) and other megaenginnering constructs. I 
think it could be interesting to think of what structures some aliens use.

On Thu, 24 Aug 1995, james vassilakos wrote:

> > Apropos the age of the uplifters: maybe they are not really the same
> > species? One species began the uplifting long ago, and then vanished/died
> > out/became static, but a successor species have "inherited" its old
> > projects? 
> 
> Yeah, that might be best. Perhaps the uplifters were destroyed by one of
> their creations. Perhaps that species is still around.  :-)

And maybe its that species which continues the tradition... some never learn.

> > >    Liquid World: Surface predominantly covered by ammonia or
> > >       liquid methane. May contain an alien ecosystem.
> > 
> > Such life would be very interesting. Probably quite slow, and based on a 
> > non-polar chemistry. 
> 
> Let me know if you can think of any other "liquids" which would be
> common for such a planet other than ammonia or methane.

I think water-ammonia mixtures can be liquid over a wide range (I'll have
to look it up in Forward's "Rocheworld"). Then there are mixtures of
hydrocarbons (like the postulated tar oceans on Titan). I have this idea
of a biochemistry based on hydrocarbons, waxes and gels instead of
proteins, carbohydrates and cell membranes. Instead of having a membrane,
the "cells" are complex meshworks of macromolecules molecules, with
various active centers and enzyme-like radicals. Such life would be rather
slow and maybe very soft and jellylike - what about an ancient race of
semi-liquid beings like the Senexi of Bear's short stories? 


From: james vassilakos <jimv>
Subject: sf-rpg: energy
To: nv91-asa@nada.kth.se (Anders Sandberg)
Date: Fri, 25 Aug 1995 09:22:27 -0700 (PDT)
 
> I have been reading "Indistinguishable from Magic" by Robert Forward. A 
> lot of interesting and scientific ideas about ultra-tech and its uses. 
> 
> His discussion about antimatter was quite interesting, I think this could 
> be one of the major ways of storing energy among the more advanced 
> aliens.

Yeah, I'm in agreement with you on this, only I was thinking of having
it be fairly commonplace in well-settled systems, particularly alien
homesystems and the like.

Got any numbers for me? How long would it take a square kilometer of
solar collectors orbiting the sun to harness one gigawatt of energy?
Probably depends a bit on the star and the range of orbit, but might
be similar from star to star if we assume the collector is orbiting
just beyond its melting point.

By way of contrast, how much hydrogen are we talking for the same
energy assuming some common/low-heat form of fusion? To take it a
step further, how much antimatter (in micrograms or something) for
the same energy? And what do you think the leakage percentage would
be from solar->antimatter and fusion->antimatter since having the
energy in a compact form would be highly desirable?

BTW, it's okay to guestimate these, but we will probably want to
have something written down just as a technical note.
 

Date: Tue, 29 Aug 1995 13:42:14 +0200 (MET DST)
From: Anders Sandberg <nv91-asa@nada.kth.se>
To: james vassilakos <jimv@cs.UCR.edu>
Subject: Re: sf-rpg: energy

On Fri, 25 Aug 1995, james vassilakos wrote:
> Yeah, I'm in agreement with you on this, only I was thinking of having
> it be fairly commonplace in well-settled systems, particularly alien
> homesystems and the like.

Yes, I think so. The technology doesn't appear to be that ultra-advanced, 
although I think advanced civilizations can convert energy into 
matter - antimatter much more efficiently and easy.

> Got any numbers for me? How long would it take a square kilometer of
> solar collectors orbiting the sun to harness one gigawatt of energy?

According to Forward, we could get to 0.01% efficiency in storing energy 
as antimatter and annihilating it within a few decades - hardly useful 
for ground-based operations, but apparently cost-effective for 
spaceflight and many different uses. In earth orbit the sun gives one 
gigawatt per square kilometer solar collector.

If I remember correctly, Forward claimed that a 100 x 100 km solar
collector system could produce around 10 Terawatt, around 1 g of
antimatter/ day (I'll check it when I get home). 

> Probably depends a bit on the star and the range of orbit, but might
> be similar from star to star if we assume the collector is orbiting
> just beyond its melting point.

According to a comment in rec.arts.sf.science, solar collectors get more 
efficient when they are further out than close to the sun?

> By way of contrast, how much hydrogen are we talking for the same
> energy assuming some common/low-heat form of fusion? 

The smallest economic fusion reactor according to the Fusion FAQ would be 
around 3000 megawatt fusion power, which would become around 1000 
megawatts of electricity (an efficiency of 33%). I'm not sure how much 
hydrogen this involves.

> To take it a
> step further, how much antimatter (in micrograms or something) for
> the same energy?
> And what do you think the leakage percentage would
> be from solar->antimatter and fusion->antimatter since having the
> energy in a compact form would be highly desirable?

This is hard to tell, it depends a lot on the exact way the antimatter is 
made. In Forward's scheme he converts electricity into antimatter, so I 
suppose the efficiency would be the product of the efficiency of the 
solar collectors (I think they are around 50-70% percent, and doubtless 
higher for more advanced civilizations) and the antimatter creation 
process (0.01% efficiency with our technology, possibly much higher for 
races who know some physics tricks). So probably the solar collectors are 
the most efficient form of energy storage as antimatter, fusion reactors 
are probably too inefficient (but more useful for planetary operation). 

Some other thoughts: Why are the galaxy not filled to the brim with
aliens? 

My idea is this: intelligent life is fairly rare, and many civilizations
get stuck in their development in various ways (some never develop fire,
others are content with living in mud huts, some blow up their planet).
Those who develop further usually begin to progress faster and faster,
until they reach a "ceiling of complexity" - their science, technology
and/or society has become too complex to deal with, and progress gradually
ends or turns into other directions. This ceiling depends a lot on their
way of thinking, their technology and how they deal with it. Some races
grow too fast and collapse when they cannot handle things, while others
gradually adapt (like the Gools). A few begin to diversify, eventually
becoming many different groups (the Mothers could be an example of this). 
Galactic society is dominated by these groups, and the Galactics might be 
a race or group of races with a very high complexity ceiling - or 
something else.

However, most races have their spheres of influence. Many deal mainly
within certain areas, becoming traders, experts in some disciplines or
similar (like the Orbs), and have no real home, just the galactic society.
Others (maybe the majority of younger races) have a volume of space they
regard as theirs. Who gets what is usually determined by simply traveling
there and claiming it, usually the entire solar system (but some just
annex a planet or a star).  Through the eons a system have developed where
this is marked using (say) gravitic resonators, small devices resonating
to the gravity waves of a hyperdrive and working as signposts: "This
system belongs to the Federation of H457854". Such resonators can also
detect if other resonators are set up, and start signaling if this is
done. Trespassing occurs, but is fairly rare since most activity is
concentrated to the trading routes and dealing with it is up to the owning
race - some patrol "their" systems, while others don't care as long as
nobody else sets up a colony. The geometry of the domains can be quite
complex, since some races only want blue-white giants and don't care for
the main sequence, while others just want hot-house planets and no others. 

However, no species lasts forever, although a few have made a damned good 
try. Many races become assimilated with galactic society, and gradually 
migrate towards the spiral arms. The stay-at homes become more and more 
static, until the race is extremely staid and slow moving. This stage can 
last for millennia, but gradually such societies decay out of "memetic 
senescence", lack of resources or simple accidents. Their domains remain, 
and eventually other species enter and claim them. In some cases this 
will take a long time, since the previous occupants might have been 
rather warlike and may have left nasty defenses. 

A special problem is new races. Most aliens leave them alone, even if they
are within their domains, since attacking, enslaving or uplifting them is
a sure way to loose prestige and trade (imagine something like the boycott
of French products doe to the nuclear tests on a galactic scale!). 
Usually they discreetly place some observers or an automatic system to 
watch over them, sometimes even more complex defenses. 

What do you think?


Date: Mon, 4 Sep 1995 09:30:14 +0200 (MET DST)
From: Anders Sandberg <nv91-asa@nada.kth.se>
To: james vassilakos <jimv@cs.UCR.edu>
Subject: Re: sf-rpg: planet generation

On Fri, 1 Sep 1995, james vassilakos wrote:
>                 Shares of Likelihood by Orbital Zone
>                    Contact  Inner  Biozone  Outer
>  
> Solar Companion       -       -       -       -
> Gas Giant             -       1       2       3

I would probably decrease the shares in the Inner and Biozone a lot - 
during system formation the volatiles will be blown away from the 
forming planets in these zones, inhibiting giant formation.

> Asteroid              -       2       2       2

Actually, I would add a '1' in the contact zone for this, there are 
after all some asteroids in wildly eccentric orbits.

> Special               -       -       -       -

There will be no generated specials?

> So for an outer
> zone orbit, there is only a 3/23 chance of a gas giant being
> chosen (this may seem low to you, I dunno).

This is *way* too low. I think we could safely put the probability of a 
gas giant in the outer zone to 40-70% per orbit. 

>    Special: This world cannot be placed in any of the previously
>       defined categories. It may be an artificial planet or
>       perhaps a fluke of nature. GM's discretion advised.

Example: Rocheworld (From Forward's "Rocheworld"): Two planets orbit 
each other so closely they almost touch. One is a Waterworld, the other 
a Desertworld (although with regular intervals I think the sea changes 
planet!).

I'll see what happens when I run my planet generation programs on the 
nearstar data. Have fun!


Date: Mon, 4 Sep 1995 09:35:36 +0200 (MET DST)
From: Anders Sandberg <nv91-asa@nada.kth.se>
To: james vassilakos <jimv@cs.UCR.edu>
Subject: Re: sf-rpg: more planet generation

On Sat, 2 Sep 1995, james vassilakos wrote:
> I've been fooling around a little with the probability
> data given in GURPS:Space. Here's a summary of the chances
> of various stars having worlds (the estimates are a bit
> high since I didn't take empty orbits into consideration
> and interpreted the "+2" rule on the margin of p99 to
> refer to the total roll, rather than per die). Let me
> know if you think these total figures are screwy or not.

They seem a bit arbitrary; I don't know if anybody knows what determines 
planet number. My guess is that it depends strongly of the size and 
density of the original nebula, so massive stars will have more matter 
to form planets from, but very massive stars will also blow away 
material during the early phases. A wild guess, based on the anthropic 
principle: there is a maximum of planets around G stars...


Date: Mon, 4 Sep 1995 09:48:45 +0200 (MET DST)
From: Anders Sandberg <nv91-asa@nada.kth.se>
To: james vassilakos <jimv@cs.UCR.edu>
Subject: Re: sf-rpg

Another thing: A friend of mine solved the problem with how an alien
without detailed biochemical knowledge could get food on Earth: he would
just give the humans a sample of his flesh and bodily fluid to clone or
to analyze and then synthetise more of the components. Not very 
palatable, but it might keep the alien alive for a while. It would also 
really delight the researchers...

I have got the idea for another alien race, the Swimmers. This race is
very involved in inter-species culture and especially trade, and actually
doesn't have much of its original culture left. Its members have mainly the 
roles of consultants, economists and bankers to other races (The 
Swimmers are big believers in specialization), while some races might 
even want to call them loan-sharks. Their organization is recursive: 
they work together in schools, which function as small businesses 
competing against each other on the local scale, but cooperate to 
compete against the other local groups. These local groups then form 
meta-schools which compete with each other but cooperate against 
meta-meta-schools, and so on...

Biologically, they are somewhat strange since they somewhere in their
past hired bioengineers to remodel them completely, probably into a more
aesthetically pleasing form (from their perspective). Today they look
like white wasps without any head or wings, no apparent sensory organs
and a tangle of supple tentacles used for swimming (they live in big
tanks). Their neural systems are linked to advanced virtual realities
where they do their business and recreation, the material side of
existence doesn't interest them much. For some reason they oppose anybody
from finding out their real past and what they once looked like... 

What do you think?


Date: Mon, 4 Sep 1995 19:20:52 +0200 (MET DST)
From: Anders Sandberg <nv91-asa@nada.kth.se>
To: james vassilakos <jimv@cs.UCR.edu>
Subject: Re: sf-rpg

On Mon, 4 Sep 1995, james vassilakos wrote:
> > What do you think?
>  
> They could use more fleshing-out. 

Yes, I have intended that. Essentially I got the vision of a kind of 
yuppie race, not exactly popular but very necessary for the economy on 
the large scale. 

> Also, the neural-interface thingy
> seemed a bit on the high-tech side. If they can do it, what's stopping
> everybody else? 

Actually, I think many of the more advanced races have them. At least the 
Mothers should have something similar (albeit used in a very different 
manner) and the Gools have a kind of semi-cybernetic radio link to their 
mating bodies. As I see them, the Swimmers (maybe I should change the 
name to something more predatory) generally have the money and 
connections to get others to develop interfaces for them (although today 
this is hardly needed, they have got the custom technology they wanted). 
One reason so little is known about what they really think and want is 
that much of their culture is virtual, and in very alien sense modalities 
(not that they would let anybody else interface either). 

>Finally, all these races will be needing artwork. I
> can scan if you can get somebody to draw the pictures.

I have some drawings, of very varying quality. I'll try to scan them and 
send them to you (the Swimmers were actually based on something I drew 
during a boring lecture).


From: james vassilakos <jimv>
Subject: Re: sf-rpg: planet generation
To: nv91-asa@nada.kth.se (Anders Sandberg)
Date: Wed, 13 Sep 1995 10:09:11 -0700 (PDT)
 
> There will be no generated specials?

I figured they'd be too rare to be randomly generated. They'll probably
be there only if the GM wants them there.
 
> >    Special: This world cannot be placed in any of the previously
> >       defined categories. It may be an artificial planet or
> >       perhaps a fluke of nature. GM's discretion advised.
> 
> Example: Rocheworld (From Forward's "Rocheworld"): Two planets orbit 
> each other so closely they almost touch. One is a Waterworld, the other 
> a Desertworld (although with regular intervals I think the sea changes 
> planet!).

Arrgh! Get in the boat! The sea is coming?

> Another thing: A friend of mine solved the problem with how an alien
> without detailed biochemical knowledge could get food on Earth: he would
> just give the humans a sample of his flesh and bodily fluid to clone or
> to analyze and then synthetise more of the components. Not very 
> palatable, but it might keep the alien alive for a while. It would also 
> really delight the researchers...

Do you think this would work assuming 1950s technology? What about
today's technology?
 

Date: Thu, 14 Sep 1995 17:34:01 +0200 (MET DST)
From: Anders Sandberg <nv91-asa@nada.kth.se>
To: james vassilakos <jimv@cs.UCR.edu>
Subject: Re: sf-rpg

> Do you think this would work assuming 1950s technology? What about
> today's technology?

I think the difference would be how subtle chemicals we could detect and 
synthetize. If we assume a huge research program (the military is 
desperate to keep the alien alive), in the 50's we could probably have 
made a mixture with the main chemicals (assuming they are not too exotic, 
just very unusual proteins or carbohydrates). Today we could probably 
make a quite similar composition to the sample, although it might take a 
while until all the elements were detected and synthetized. 


Date: Sat, 16 Sep 1995 17:31:26 +0200 (MET DST)
From: Anders Sandberg <nv91-asa@nada.kth.se>
To: Joerg Rhiemeier <rhiemeir@ibr.cs.tu-bs.de>
Subject: Re: Mails from James Vassilakos, Sep. 14

On Fri, 15 Sep 1995, Joerg Rhiemeier wrote:
> >Also, I see that Joerg carbon-copied you this morning's email which he
> >sent, so I won't bother forwarding that, however, there is some mail here
> >from another guy. You and Joerg may be interested in seeing what he had
> >to say. BTW, I'm thinking of setting up a mailing list for this group
> >just to make these mail-forwarding logistics easier.
> 
> Good!  Do that!

I agree. This is getting too confusing for my poor brain (I'm involved in 
a similar discussion about another game in parallel to this). By the way 
Joerg, I *am* responding to your long mail as per August, and just 
realized that you might have broken off our friendship due to my sins of 
Netscape - I hope to make amends soon. :-)

Some brief comments and ideas:

> M stars CAN be very old, but they needn't to.

Are their luminosity similar during their long lifetimes? I think it ought
to be that, thinking of how blue stars quickly burn their fuel. 

> I even think that 1st-generation stars don't have planets at all --
> not even pure-hydrogen giants.  

Not even pure-hydrogen gas-giants?

> I also think that 1st generation stars don't have planets at all.  The
> gas giants in the solar system condensed around a core of rocks and
> ice.  With a 1st generation star, those pure hydrogen planets had to
> condense spontaneously out of thin hydrogen gas, which I consider
> extremely unlikely, if not impossible (not enough mass for spontaeous
> gravity-driven collapse).

That would depend on the homogenity of the gas cloud, of course. If the 
cloud collapse was sufficiently chaotic and uneven, then they might form. 
But the more I think about them, the more unlikely they begin to seem. 
Too bad, I really like the idea (wonderful refueling stations!).

> >> I've followed this topic for over 25 years as a research scientist
> >> interested in the possibility other habitable planets and I think GURPS
> >> Space have several errors in their (listed) probabilities of habitable
> >> planets. 
> 
> Indeed!  Habitable planets of red giants?  Ridiculous!!!

You might terraform one, but it won't last. Reminds me of an UFO-logist 
who claimed the aliens came from the Pleiades, and when confronted with 
the fact that they were very young stars just responded "But the aliens 
evolved quickly!". 

> An important line is to be drawn at F5 stars 3 times brighter than the
> Sun.  These stars have a lifetime of about 3000 million years, which
> is a good estimate for the minimum for having habitable planets.

Why is this? 

> >Parallel to these classes, I would include a superterrestrial class, a
> >rocky, high-density-core world with a planetary mass between 2 and 10 times
> >Earth and an extremely thick atmosphere with a share of one in the biozone.
> >Of course, my ex-college roommate, G. David Nordley, may be correct in his
> >Analog article of last year that such don't exist, but the fellows that
> >publish in Icarus seem to like the idea still, so I'd keep it until Gerry
> >can prove them wrong.
> 
> We have no known example of such a big terrestrial world, and many
> simulation runs seem to indicate that they don't exist.  I think the
> matter is still unsettled.

Why can't they form? The vicinity of the star might blow away much of 
what would otherwise have developed into a gas giant, leaving a 
superterrestrial world. This may depend on how fast the star ignited, of 
course.

Apropos atmospheres, don't forget the problems with high oxygen
atmospheres: fires. If I don't misremember, at a sufficiently high
percentage of oxygen in the atmosphere (or rather, sufficiently high
oxygen partial pressure) even wet plants are combustible, and great fires
could become a serious problem/bizarre opportunity for land life. I think 
the figures are mentioned in The Anthropic Cosmological Principle by 
Barrow and Tipler (great book about just about everything).

> The extreme and (to a lesser extent) older populations are
> concentrated in the spiral arms, while the disc population is evenly
> distributed over the galactic disc.  This means that habitable worlds
> are not more frequent in the spiral arms than in the gaps between!

Is this true? I thought the spiral arms were brighter because there were 
more *young* stars there! Hmm, someone has been feeding me 
misinformation... :-)