In short.. YES PLEASE :)

Not that it is likely that I will buy any from down here (although it is
possible) - in a somewhat voyeur style pleasure, I find it fascinating what
people collect over the years (around 1/3 of a wall to wall bookshelf in my
study is RPG's). If I lived in the States where short run games were easier to
get, I reckon I wouldn't have much space in the study for paperbacks and the odd
computer game box I don't crush for space.

>>> "Carl Brown" <catodon@...> 8/11/08 6:10 pm >>>

hi all
I'm slowly getting pdf's to replace the low rotation items in my rpg collection.
I'm sick of moving this stuff, it's heavy. Anyway the books will go to milsims
if no-one else wants them.
First of the shelf are two Megatraveller title is good condition (barely used,
good contact jobs). Rebellion Sourcebook $8, Referees Companion $10. Prices
include postage if any.
Anyone interested. Anyone want emails notifying of other items as they are
cleared? (lots of 1980's and 1990's tiltes)

Carl Brown wrote:
> callisto, enceladas etc.
> Yeh, but the radiation wouldn't bother the natives

They're all cockroaches?  :)

~~~~~~~~~~~~
Clear ether!
Lensman

David Smart wrote:
>> But still, one could postulate a Jovian world with
>> an unusually slow rotation and therefore a weaker magnetic field.
>
> But then wouldn't this predicate the world be a small gas giant more like
> Uranus or Neptune?

Um, no... *unusual*, not small.  Jupiter, Saturn, and Uranus all have a
rotational period between 9 and 11 hours.  Neptune, which has a mass
slightly greater than Uranus, has a rotational period of nearly 16 hours.

Just as Earth's rotation has been slowed by Luna, we can postulate a gas
giant whose rotation has been slowed by a large companion.  Either a
very large moon, or a "twin world".  I'd suggest that, like Luna, the
large moon has been pushed out away from the gas giant into a distant
orbit, allowing for stable orbits by smaller moons near the Jovian world.

Of course, if only such worlds can be habitable, it will make them
considerably rarer, which is not good for a fictional universe.

~~~~~~~~~~~~
Clear ether!
Lensman

On Fri, Nov 7, 2008 at 3:24 AM, Lensman <lensman@...> wrote:
>
> Carl Brown wrote:
> > how many Europa type worlds are there?
>
> Hmmm it seems like I read an article quite recently suggesting that one
> of the other gas giant moons had, like Europa, seas of liquid water on
> it. I forget which moon it was, tho.

That would be Titan.

> I've read that the intense magnetic field of Jupiter would kill any
> unprotected human on one of the inner moons fairly quickly. (A few
> minutes? A few hours? I forget just how long.) Presumably that's the
> same reason as why Known Space ramscoop fields kill anything with a
> notochord?

Actually it's the cosmic radiation and plasma torus that follows those
magnetic lines to the inner moons that's the killer. Io is an excellent
example. A human being touching down would last only minutes.

A good overview of how Io helps create the plasma torus can be found
at: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Io_(moon)

> Not sure if Saturn's magnetic field is strong enough to cause the same
> problem.

It is and it does. Titan seems to also be orbiting inside a plasma torus.
See http://www.spaceref.com/news/viewpr.html?pid=16242

Ya gotta love the Cassini probe; it keeps hitting home runs.  :)

<snip>
> Oh, it also depends on the rotation velocity. Most Jovian worlds should
> rotate fairly rapidly-- Earth's rotation has been slowed drastically by
> its oversized moon. But still, one could postulate a Jovian world with
> an unusually slow rotation and therefore a weaker magnetic field.

But then wouldn't this predicate the world be a small gas giant more like
Uranus or Neptune?

Carl Brown wrote:
> how many Europa type worlds are there?

Hmmm it seems like I read an article quite recently suggesting that one
of the other gas giant moons had, like Europa, seas of liquid water on
it.  I forget which moon it was, tho.

I've read that the intense magnetic field of Jupiter would kill any
unprotected human on one of the inner moons fairly quickly.  (A few
minutes?  A few hours?  I forget just how long.)  Presumably that's the
same reason as why Known Space ramscoop fields kill anything with a
notochord?

Not sure if Saturn's magnetic field is strong enough to cause the same
problem.  Obviously, there is a strong correlation between the mass of
the world and how strong the magnetic field is.  There will be some
variation, tho.  A massive planet which lacked an iron core would have a
weaker field, but hydrogen compressed far enough exhibits metallic
qualities (as noted in /The Mote in God's Eye/), so a Jovian-sized
planet with no iron core might well still have a strong magnetic field.

Oh, it also depends on the rotation velocity.  Most Jovian worlds should
rotate fairly rapidly-- Earth's rotation has been slowed drastically by
its oversized moon.  But still, one could postulate a Jovian world with
an unusually slow rotation and therefore a weaker magnetic field.

~~~~~~~~~~~~
Clear ether!
Lensman

David Gordon wrote:
> I think he's behind the times.  Larry Niven already predicted the
> coffee coloured skin of the human race in 2000 years from now.
> 100,000 years is a heck of a long time.   It shows that Dr Curry has
> not grasp of the immensity of time.  Heck - we've evolved in the last
>  3000 years.  He's been reading too much SF I think.  :-)
>
> Protector

But LN postulated ubiquitous worldwide travel by jump booths, greatly
accelerating the homogenization of humanity.

At any rate, I think evolution is a dead issue for humanity.  We're
gaining the ability to manipulate and choose our own genes-- that's
happening right now!  The natural selection of evolution is being
replaced by artificial selection.

~~~~~~~~~~~~
Clear ether!
Lensman

Carl Brown wrote:
> back in high school there was a parthenogenic turkey that made it into a
> lot of text books.

I said "chicken" but perhaps it was a picture of a turkey which I saw,
"a many years ago".

~~~~~~~~~~~~
Clear ether!
Lensman

Sam McConnich wrote:

> if there develops kzin that see fighting for females to
> be....unnecessary,

Any Kzin which doesn't think it's worth it to fight for a female
obviously will lose out to one which does.  Any tendency not to fight
for a mate will be bred out of the gene pool.

In every sexual species, individuals compete to spread their genes.
That's the nature of sexual reproduction; I see no possibility that this
could ever be different, regardless of circumstances.

Of course, not every species manages sexual competition by fighting
between males.  In birds, it's generally males trying to entice females
by putting on the best display, building the best nest, or having the
prettiest plumage.

But Kzinti have evolved a mating/ reproduction strategy like lions.
With lions, one male rules a pride containing several females.  The
females do most of the hunting.  The male spends most of his time and
energy watching for, and chasing off, "bachelor" males.  Of course, the
bachelor's strategy is to sneak in and mate with a female while the
pride owner isn't watching.

Of course, we can say "If Kzinti are intelligent, then why can't they
simply decide to do things differently.  Assign one female to each male,
so they don't have to fight?"  But consider: Humans generally don't
engage in mating according to logic.  It's emotions that rule mating.

Take this to its logical conclusion:  Looked at in terms of cold logic,
there's no good reason for any adult to support a baby.  The baby is a
parasite, requiring much time, effort, and resources to support, and
giving no benefit to the adult in return.  Obviously, the logical thing
is for the adult to have no children.

And obviously, any tendency for adults to adopt this attitude will
*very* quickly be bred out of the gene pool.

> how about renegade kzins stealing females,

Bachelor Kzinti trying to steal females is a *normal* part of Kzinti
culture.  That's why harem owners have their houses built as fortresses
and protect them with armed guards.

> or better yet, rebreeding them for intelligence

I think a better question is:  What benefit did the males get by
breeding the females for non-sentience... or at least to be non-verbal?

Using the lion analogy, it seems reasonable to think that back during
Kzinti prehistory, the females did most of the hunting.  By forcing the
females to stay in harem houses, the males put that burden on
themselves.  How could this be possible?  I presume it happened only
after Kzinti had enough slaves for those slaves to provide them with
most of the food they need.

As I see it, the benefit the males got by forcing the females into harem
houses is it allowed the males to go off to battle or war, without
having to worry about the females running away or becoming part of
another male's pride.

Of course, this problem is then replaced by the problem of: Who guards
the harem, and how can you trust them not to mate with the females?
Various stories suggest harems are guarded by relatives; sons, brothers,
etc.  But even still, what prevents the guards from mating with the
females while the harem owner is away?

This is a part of Kzinti culture I don't understand.

> these are just thought experiments,

Isn't that one of the things this forum is for?

> i recently found a blog that state the author felt that females have
> never contributed to the advancement of culture, especially in
> science and technology, lol

Trolls are not limited to the Internet.  :)

> does a specie that limits certain parts of it self limit the
> collective,

That's the important question.  If one group limits itself in some
fashion, how can it compete against a group which does not?
Evolutionary theory says there must be some sort of tradeoff, some
advantage which the self-limiting group gains by imposing such a limit
on itself.

But that ain't *always* the case.  Did the Chinese gain any benefit by
binding the feet of their women so that they could only hobble around?
I can't imagine overall it gave any competitive advantage to the
culture.  No doubt it made it easier for men to control their women, but
at the cost of the women not being able to do as much work.  That seems
to me to be against evolutionary theory.

~~~~~~~~~~~~
Clear ether!
Lensman

Sam McConnich wrote:
> i dont want to start a problem here, but there was a book called the
> bell curve a few years ago, that postulated some pretty interesting
> things,

I don't want to start a problem here either, but I think everyone should
be aware that there have been charges that the book is a defense of
racism.  (I presume you're aware of that too, Sam, or you wouldn't have
prefaced your remarks with "I don't want to start a problem...")  That
doesn't mean we shouldn't discuss the ideas, but I suggest we keep in
mind that some people may find some of what's in the book offensive.  I
haven't read it myself, so I don't have an informed opinion... I'm just
relating what I've read *about* the book.

> maybe bizarre, but in kzinti genetics wasnt it manipulated by
> the puppeters to rid itself of the most violent if the genes for
> agression are sex determinate, wouldnt this work to develop new kzin?
>  with space travel, would gentler kzint be able to survive? (maybe
> lyrans, lol, from star fleet bables, lol) anyone play with this idea
> in game or thought experiement how much of kzin social structure is
> innate, how much learned?

MKW author Paul Chafe and I argued over this point hammer-and-tongs on
the Larry Niven Discussion List.  Paul's opinion (expressed in his MKW
stories) is that even wiping out 2/3 of the male Kzinti for several
generations in a row will *not* result in a "kinder, gentler" Kzinti,
because they're still competing for breeding rights, and it's still the
most aggressive Kzinti who get breeding rights.

I've pointed out that the closest Terrestrial analog of Kzinti seems to
be lions (Paul agrees), and lions *have* evolved not to attack humans.
Only old or sick lions, unable to kill their usual prey, turn into
man-eaters.

So how is this possible?  Because male lions are still aggressive
TOWARDS EACH OTHER, but not (usually) aggressive towards humans.  One
can quite easily see the same change could occur in Kzinti.

I think it's quite clear there was a Kzinti cultural change, and perhaps
the less aggressive attitude towards other species was more a cultural
change than a genetic one.  Remember the scene from /Ringworld
Engineers/, when Louis remembers being in the hunting park on Kzin, the
Kzinti homeworld:

~~~~~~~~~~~~
Louis had been touring the jungle since morning. He was tired. Legs
dangling, he watched the populace pass before him.

Within the jungle the orange kzinti were almost invisible. One moment,
nothing. The next, a quarter-ton of sentient carnivore hot on the trail
of something fast and frightened. The male kzin would jerk to a stop and
stare--at Louis's closed-lip smile (because a kzin shows his teeth in
challenge) and at the sign of the Patriarch's protection on his shoulder
(Louis had made sure it showed prominently). The kzin would decide it
was none of his business, and leave.

Strange, how that much predator could show only as a sense of presence
in the frilly yellow foliage. Watching eyes and playful murder,
somewhere. Then a huge adult male and a furry, cuddly adolescent half
his height were watching the intruder.

Louis had a tyro's grasp of the Hero's Tongue. He understood when the
kzin kitten looked up at its parent and asked, "Is it good to eat?"

The adult's eyes met Louis's eyes. Louis let his smile widen to show the
teeth.

The adult said, "No."

In the confidence of four Man-Kzin wars plus some "incidents"--all
centuries in the past, but all won by men--Louis grinned and nodded.
/You tell him, Daddy! It's safer to eat white arsenic than human meat!/
~~~~~~~~~~~~~
--/Ringworld Engineers/ ch. 28, paperback pp. 284-5


So, is the reason the Kzinti no longer seriously contemplate war with
Humans because the most aggressive TOWARDS HUMANS have been killed
off... or because daddy Kzinti now tell their kits "humans aren't good
to eat"?  I'd say it's some of both, and it's arguable to what degree
the cause is one or the other.

~~~~~~~~~~~~
Clear ether!
Lensman

Sam McConnich wrote:
> http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20081010/ap_on_sc/sci_shark_mystery
> parthenogenesis
>
> we spoke earlier of three sex reproduction  here is one sex
> reproduction in a fairly advanced organism there was abook when I was
> a kid that I read, can't remember the name, but the author
> postutlated that even human females might do this, he stated one in
> ten million female birth might be by this process, of course,this
> was, if I remember correctly was russian biologist

Parthogenesis ought to work just fine with any sexual creature, so long
as the duplicated chromosomes (or equivalent) produce a complete genome.

Mammals (including humans) are essentially all female, with one
chromosome which turns certain body parts male.  So for proper
reproduction by parthogenesis, the offspring must be female, with two
"X" chromosomes.

For birds, it's the other way 'round; birds are all essentially male,
with certain genes switched to make certain body parts female.  (Some of
the non-canonical MKW stories postulate Kzinti genetics work this way.)
    I've seen a picture of a chicken which was born thru parthogenesis.
It was not a pretty sight; albino, deformed and crippled.  I think it
was blind, too, possibly as a result of being a total albino.  I'm
guessing here, but I guess this was because the parthenogenic
reproduction produced two female chromosomes, resulting in an incomplete
genome... and therefore a severe genetic disease.

We could, of course, postulate an alien species which regularly
reproduces this way and (usually) produces healthy offspring.  My points
here are (a) Y'all should be aware there *may* be unexpected
complications with parthogenesis, and (b) The differences between human
and non-human genetics may be strange and wonderful!

~~~~~~~~~~~~
Clear ether!
Lensman