HOME | DD
SeekHim — C'Tek( Night View)
#planet #sciencefiction #worldbuilding
Published: 2018-09-26 08:19:32 +0000 UTC; Views: 1434; Favourites: 24; Downloads: 12
Redirect to original
Description
This commission was done for me by darth-biomech
******************************************************************************
This is the planet C’tek I
C'tek I is a world that exists in my AU Star Trek New Start verse
www.deviantart.com/seekhim/gal…
It is located in the C'Tek System and is the home of the C'tekians .
It is five light years away from the Droyana System, home of the Tkarites
SYSTEM INFO
The C'tek System has one sun and five planets
C’TEK PRIME (The Sun)
C’Tek Prime is large M type Red Dwarf.
Red Dwarf stars are the smallest, dimmest and coolest of stars.
Because they give off less light and heat, planets have to be very close in order to support life.
Planets that are that close are usually Tidally Locked to the star, which means that the planet doesn’t rotate.
One half perpetually faces the star, while and the other half perpetually faces away from it.
C’TEK I
C’Tek I is an M class (Earthlike) world.
It is twice the size and mass of Earth.
The population is 2 billion
The planet has a world ocean, three continents and over thirty islands.
Two continents are on the planet’s Light Side and one on the Dark Side.
The planet is very geologically active and there are several large volcanoes.
The planet doesn’t rotate, so there are no seasons or a day/night cycle.
On the Dark Side the sun never rises and on the Light Side the sun never sets.
The planet’s large mass, heavy gravity, magnetic field and thick atmosphere allow heat to circulate around the planet.
The oceans are very deep which allows water to flow under the ice on the night side.
Most of the vegetation on C'tek is black or red in order to better absorb light.
Black plants absorb a greater proportion of light and can grow taller.
Red plants absorb a shorter portion of light and are shorter.
In general trees on C'tek are black while shorter vegetation is red.
DAY SIDE
This side of the planet always faces the sun.
It is a land of eternal daylight
Storm Zone
The point directly facing the sun (subsolar point) consists of a giant, unending hurricane.
In this area there are perpetual high winds and torrential rains.
All plants in this area are black and photosynthetic.
Plants here have adapted to the constant storms by anchoring securely into the soil and growing
long flexible leaves that do not snap.
Animals here rely on infrared vision.
Habitable Zone
Surrounding the Storm Zone is the Habitable Zone, the home of the C’tekians.
The terrain consists of dense rainforests, swamps, marshes and bogs
The land is watered by the countless rivers created by the Strom Zone.
Most of the climate is either tropical or subtropical.
TERMINATOR REGION/BORDERLANDS
This is the region here the light and dark sides meet
The land here is in perpetual twilight
The climate here is cold and frigid and the terrain consists of red tundra.
Some stars are visible here and the C'tekians who live here were the first astronomers.
NIGHT SIDE
On the Dark Side the land is in permanent darkness and perpetually frozen.
In many areas there is geothermal vents and volcanic chasms.
In these areas are non-photosynthetic plants, bioluminescent micro-organisms and small animals.
The ocean basins on the Dark Side are deep enough for water to flow beneath the ice.
C'tekians tribes lived in the 'Twilight Regions' for millennia and were the first to explore the Dark Side.
For some it became a Rite of Courage to 'Dare the Great Dark.'
Since then the C'tekians have established several settlements.
This is where astronomy developed and later space faring technology
Related content
Comments: 36
Yes, I've seen what you've done here. The cities stand out better now. I've also noticed how the C'teks dwelled in the Twilight Zones and dared the dark. Very good. Maybe certain hot springs glowing with those lifeforms you mentioned were their sacred places.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Oh that's good! That's real good!
I'm going to give you some spoilers about the C'tekians now.
In the past many tribes who lived in the Borderlands would venture into the Night as a Trial of Courage.
Those who did so were the first to discover the stars.
The entire region was considered a 'Realm of Terror and Wonder'.
I can picture it, a tiny group of pilgrims (those who went always traveled in groups to support
each other physically and psychologically) huddled by one of the pools gazing fearfully up at the stars.
The longer one stayed in the Dark and the further they ventured, the more status they gained.
Some only lasted an hour or so before coming back. But some lasted hours and then days.
Finally intrepid explorers started staying for weeks.
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
Ah, fun times! I like that there are 'hot springs' on the frozen side, and that the C'tekians have a tradition of exploring the dark!
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
It wasn't exactly fun times at first
In the past many tribes who lived in the Borderlands would venture into the Night as a Trial of Courage.
The entire region was considered a 'Realm of Terror and Wonder'.
I can picture it, a tiny group of pilgrims (those who went always traveled in groups to support
each other physically and psychologically) huddled by one of the bioluminescent pools, gazing fearfully
around at the dark and up at piercing stars.
The longer one stayed in the Dark and the further they ventured, the more status they gained.
Some lasted less than an hour before coming back. But some lasted hours and then days.
Finally intrepid explorers started staying for weeks.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
It seems like there's a long history of exploration and overcoming one's fears on this planet... they will make excellent space explorers!
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Oh yes.
C'tekians were very much into passing tests to prove one's courage.
In fact one wasn't considered an adult until they had passed them.
Going on a lengthy and dangerous journey/quest was usually a way of taking trials.
If something like that was done on Earth you for example wouldn't be considered a man
until you had gone on an Manhood Quest. It would be very dangerous, testing your strength,
skills and courage to the limit and you might not survive. (Females are treated the same way).
Ironically that's something that C'tekians have in common with Nlians
Nlians have to go on a Soul Walk before they are considered adults.
I say ironic because I hopefully should have a picture of a C'tekian up and as you'll see,
they are a different from Nlians as can be!
C'tekians are very much into overcoming fears and obstacles.
Most people are afraid when they first meet C'tekians!
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
The C'tekians are really fun, it's good to know that they have a long and glorious cultural history of doing awesome things to prove their awesomeness!
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
I'm curious
If we did something like that here on Earth when you turned 18 and it was time for you
Manhood Trial what dangerous/ scary thing do you think you would have attempted?
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
...I would do something artistic, but I'm not sure what.
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
I hate to sound critical but apparently you have stars showing through your planet.
👍: 0 ⏩: 2
I 've just made some changes. Does this seem more realistic now?
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Sorry but you are free to portray you imagination as you wish. Just as I can express my view based on what I see a fault in reasoning when it was apparent, at least to me, that you were seeking to confirm to 'science'. I was never trying to push you into changing anything and if you felt that then I probably own you an apology. I see the 'twilight region' settlements as highly probable though that very large one in the dark side still seems highly improbable but follow your own path please.
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
Thank you for the clarification and that's why I said apparently though I might have included that idea.
Those ‘hot spring’ regions must be very extensive to entice such numbers to inhabit these ‘cities’ of such scale though possessing the power resources to conduct interstellar travel would allow for such. However a species that evolved in an environment where darkness was never known would result in a deep seated psychological abhorrence of it. As reference you should investigate Asimov’s 1990 novel ‘Nightfall’ which was made into a film that is available on YouTube that deals with a slight variation of your proposed scenario. This is science fiction but the best, such as that written by people who were scientifically trained like Asimov and Clarke, conform to well establish scientific models simply expanding on them.
You are quite free to follow your own path and I personally think that you have a fine talent for drawing the ‘humanoid’ form. However I find the concept that a species, intelligent or not, that evolved on a tidally locked world in total and unending light would have any interest in a region of absolute darkness beyond limited exploration and possible resource extraction. I serious doubt that cities of such a scale and number would be something that such large numbers of the populace would be willing to exist in even with artificial lighting as the mere knowledge that just outside the ‘dome’ was their greatest subconscious fear made real.
Sorry but I find the very idea to be somewhat irrational as it contradicts everything we currently understand about human psychology and brain function. This is applicable as you have created a humanoid species and despite evolving on another world we can justifiably project that knowledge onto them with minor alterations until such time as we in fact encounter species much like ourselves yet determine that their minds function in radically different ways than our own. Here this is not the case as you have in fact presented a good many finely crafted works that recount that they do in fact ‘think and act’ in parallel to the way that we do even though their philosophical norms and cultural rituals vary a good deal. As would be expected.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
I appreciate your input.
I actually read Asimov's 'Nightfall.' The novellete anyway.
Also I'm no good at all at drawing. All of my pics were commissioned.)
I am in NO way a scientist but I did put thought into this and of the very issues Nightfall brought up.
The C'tekians aren't humanoid for one thing and they didn't have complete unending light; there are a lot of caverns
and underground tunnels for one. Also groups of C'tekians lived in the 'twilight' regions, which were close to the night side,
so they had concepts of it.
Unlike the people in 'Nightfall', who were exposed to the dark suddenly, C'tekians living in the Twilight gradually
became acclimated, first through individual than increasing groups of explorers. The first night settlements were
close to the Twilight realms and gradually over the centuries explorers ventured further outward.
I also made some alterations, the night side is more than just hot springs, there are also geothermal vents (very extensive)
and volcanic rifts. As for resources the night side is rich in resources, including dilithium and a lot of mining takes place.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
“I appreciate your input. I actually read Asimov's 'Nightfall.' The novellete anyway.”
Then you must acknowledge the point I have raised as being valid and I suggest that you might re-read that or better yet read the entire novel.
“The C'tekians aren't humanoid for one thing as you'll see when I get a pic of them posted. (Also I'm no good at all at drawing. All of my pics were commissioned.)”
That was an assumption on my part based on your other proposed species and which now appears to be erroneous.
My error as I did miss that notation however you do in fact list yourself in your profile as an ‘artist’ so which one is correct? Are you an artist or are you as you state here “I'm no good at all at drawing” because these are contradictory statements.
“The C'tekians didn't have complete unending light, there are a lot of caverns and underground tunnels for one.”
Sorry but that is not a valid statement at all as you are trying to contradict the ambient surface conditions of a tidally locked world by the flawed assertion that because caves exist they did not live in an environment where the sun was always overhead. That is not a valid concept and I reject it entirely.
You stated, and I quote from your post ‘C’Tek side view’ and all subsequent posts related to this world, that “Surrounding the Storm Zone is the Habitable Zone, the home of the C’tekians. The terrain consists of dense swamps, marshes, bogs and rainforests The land is watered by the countless rivers created by the Strom Zone. Most of the climate is either tropical or subtropical.”
Therefore that species did in fact evolve in a place where the sun never sets, i.e., total and unending light. Claiming that there existed subterranean passages does not in any manner address the fact that such a species would almost certainly have a deeply ingrained psychological aversion for such locations possibly even under the most adverse climatological conditions.
“Also groups of the C'tekians lived in the 'twilight' regions, which were close to the night side, so they had concepts of it.”
Perhaps but that does not again address the fact that you have stated clearly that the ‘home’, ergo where these being originated, was in a region where except for a few isolated places darkness did not exist at all. Only after they had advanced technologically to the point that they could travel across a quarter of the planet would they have encountered said ‘twilight’ and I suggest that as the light began to diminish to such an extent many would have refused to proceed just as the reports indicate that members of Columbus’ crew voiced their concern over their fear after many weeks at sea.
Having a ‘concept’ of darkness does not in any manner provide what I consider to be a valid argument against their evolutionarily ingrained psychological fear of it. Many people are aware of snakes, heights and so forth yet are still deathly afraid of them.
“Unlike the people in Nightfall, who were exposed to the dark suddenly, C'tekians living in the Twilight gradually became acclimated, first through individual than increasing groups of explorers.”
Perhaps but to my point of view you are simply waving off a rational point by simply asserting that despite an entire evolutionary history of living in total light some, no a great many just up and relocated to an area almost in total contrast to that which they were accustomed. I will grant that a few brave original explorers and adventurers would likely have ventured there but you are proposing that millions of settlers, if one takes into account the size of the ‘city lights’, decided to take up permanent residence in a place where they would never see the sun again in any manner. I simply find that hard to accept as it defies reason and what we understand of natural law.
That simply is not rational in any sense of the word. It is like proposing that a person who has a deep seated phobia regarding rats or rodents in general would be not merely likely to maintain one as a pet in plain view but that they would seek employment in a research facility as a person who cared for and even handled such animals on a constant daily basis. Yes some psychological treatment regimens do use ‘confrontation therapy’ to overcome such phobias but that is not what is being discussed.
The people in ‘Nightfall’ were in fact suddenly plunged into darkness which caused total chaos and the complete collapse of their society. This demonstrates precisely the point that I am making which is they had evolved in an environment where darkness was completely unknown, yes they had caves but shunned them, except under the most infrequent and rare set of circumstances yet when it was forced upon them they simply could not deal with it and descended into a state of primate anarchy.
“The first night settlements were close to the Twilight realms and gradually over the centuries explorers ventured further outward.”
Something I would accept as a reasonable construct but under the restriction that those would be the most well-balanced and fearless of the species not in the numbers one can logically in fer from the ‘city lights’ shown.
“Also I made some alterations, the night side is more than just hot springs, there are also geothermal vents and volcanic rifts. As for resources the night side is rich in resources, including dilithium and a lot of mining takes place.”
Alright but I serious doubt, based on the evidence derived from our own history, that any such mining outpost would ever grow to be a city of the scale that you have presented. The western US is littered with such ‘ghost towns’, all very small,’ that were abandoned in a very short period once the mineral resources were exhausted. A very few survived and all because they offered other advantages such as large scale water resources for example. With just scattered resource locales I do not see this as a viable scenario for the development of large cities of the scale and number that are shown. I am a geologist and can provide verifiable resources to support my statement that even the largest mineral deposits on this planet are restricted to small, in relation to the overall size of this world, and that none support anything approaching what could be termed a city let alone a large town.
What is far more likely would be a large number of smaller, mining operations with associated support infrastructure just as we see in the Siberian mines, those of the Andes and every other remote and harsh environment on this world where on the most hardly venture there to earn higher wages.
I spent years working in the Syrian desert in Kuwait enduring 50 degree centigrade heat, sandstorms and three hour drives into the city. Friends in the states could not understand why I would until they learned of my salary, my free apartment and expense account and that I didn’t pay taxes yet they still said they’d never want to go there. And this was simply because the conditions were not to their tastes not because they held an evolutionary derived absolute fear of sand.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Humans are primarily tropical, but we colonized the Arctic regions. We also have to remember that this is world could be quite different, in a geological sense, from Earth. There might be mineral deposits and other resources justifying the creation of substantial communities. Could be quite a lot of ghost communities there that we simply don't see, too.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
“Humans are primarily tropical, but we colonized the Arctic regions.”
Our ancestors did originate in the more subtropical region of the African Rift Valley then spread out for various reasons such as population density etc. into almost every other climatic zone however the author here has stated directly that this species in non-humanoid. That makes any comparison with humans very tenuous at best if not highly suspect. Additionally we are not talking about venturing into new climatic zone but from where light is always present to total and unending darkness which is not even similar at all.
“We also have to remember that this is world could be quite different, in a geological sense, from Earth.”
As a geologist of long duration as well as someone who has studied planetary geology at length including that relating to the most current hypothesis on exo-planets, I am sorry if that sounds like an appeal to authority fallacy as that is not my intention, there is a narrow limit to the geophysical characteristics within the ‘terrestrial classification’ such as to make this a very obtuse claim. The physical parameters relating to general density, mineralogical composition, relative percentages of metallic to non-metallic elements, extent and during of plate tectonics and the carbon cycle and so forth can only vary to a certain degree before it would not be classified as such. All that has been stated is that it is tidally locked to its primary and that “It is twice the size and mass of Earth” which would mean it has twice the surface gravity.
Postulating that it “could be quite different, in a geological sense, from Earth” is a valid concept but does not say anything of real value as it is vague and ambiguous.
“There might be mineral deposits and other resources justifying the creation of substantial communities.”
That point has already been covered and revisiting it in this manner does not provide any further support for the contention that the species there would venture to the dark side in the numbers needed to build and occupy cities of such scope.
“Could be quite a lot of ghost communities there that we simply don't see, too.”
That too has already been covered and which I am afraid to say is a useless conjecture that adds nothing at all. There could also be hundreds of billions of blind, intelligent, ice moles already living on the dark side or a species of Horta like creatures composed of condensed volatiles and mineral crystals.
I am afraid that none of this addresses the fact that a species which evolved in an environment of endless daylight would, according to basic psychology and evolutionary science have a near total aversion to darkness in almost every form as they developed with almost no experience with that at all. I have already granted that certain very adventurous individuals, such as we see in human exploratory history, could and likely would overcome their fears and venture into such areas, locate resources that might then spur others to take advantage of them but that the likelihood of millions relocating into such a place is exceedingly miniscule in my opinion and I see no real presentation of sound argument to counter that view.
Do you in fact have something other than tangential points regarding humanity and vague assertions of unsupported ‘possibilities’? yes I understand that this is fiction but as stated the best is that which comports to reality of simply say ‘to hell with it all this is utter fantasy. As this individual has stated that they are operating within the ‘Star Trek’ genre which does try to at least hold onto science where possible I have raised what I see as a reasonable criticism.
All the she needs to do, though because of her ideological views I think she’d find a milder way to phrase it, is tell me to ‘go to hell this is my world” and I will say ‘sorry’ and be gone.
👍: 0 ⏩: 2
>however the author here has stated directly that this species in non-humanoid.
Humans didn't spread to every corner of the planet because they were humanoid. We did it because we were sapient.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
I have not made any attempt to argue that it is because we are ‘human’.
I think you have missed the point entirely and I suggest that you reread the entire comment in detail. The point here is one of applied psychology and I have openly admitted that yes this is a non-humanoid species. However as all we have as a model is human psychology and the science of animal behavior they can be reasonably applied to other species until we have actual evidence to the contrary.
In this case it has been proposed that a species that evolved on a tidally locked planet where the sun is always in the sky would migrate in vast numbers to the opposite side of that world where sunlight was nonexistent in a frozen wasteland. That goes directly against rationality and scientific reason and your comment in no manner supports that idea.
Mankind has braved all manner of harsh environments to reside there with the single exception of the permanently glaciated regions of Greenland and Antarctica and mountain tops. Yet even the vast disparity of climatic regimes do not pose any deep rooted psychological barriers to humans in general which is simply not the case on this world regardless of the nature of their biochemistry and morphology.
Is it possible that such a creature would not have such a fear? Yes but that is not a reasonable assumption in my opinion and would, I suggest, require a near total lack of fear that is not conducive to survival.
I have agreed that just as in humanity there would almost certainly be a small minority of strong minded individuals, adventurers and others who would brave those regions for knowledge and wealth but not in the millions needed to support the size of cities shown. Please read my comment regarding my overseas experience of long duration then ask yourself if you would relocation to say the Sahara or the Arctic even for a higher salary and great benefits and if not then why discounting such things as say family ties.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
>I have not made any attempt to argue that it is because we are ‘human’.
you stated, to paraphrase the gist, "yes humans have spread out for reasons, but aliens aren't humans"
Also these are no "vast migrations", as author posed, there only few settlements around sources of geothermal heat, and vast majority on unlighted side remains a wasteland. There's various logical reasons to settle in an inhospitable area and create an infrastructure there (Simple astronomy to just name the first thing that comes to mind), and a few irrational - religious for instance.
Some zones of our planet is not maybe in perpetual night, but have a very stretched day-night cycle, lasting a whole year, with 6 months of darkness. And while it been noted to be "depressing at times", people are still inhabit those regions, even without any particular reason, too. Fears can be overcomed, especially the instinctive fears, which is demonstrated by the vast amount of people that keep insects, arachnids or reptiles as genuinely loved pets. While on the subject of fear... Would creature of tidally-locked planet even have fear of darkness? We have it, because night is dark and night is time when the predators are active and we are at the disadvantage. Night is dangerous so we should be vary and alert at night. Effectively meaning - in the darkness. But if there's no nights on the planet (Or, well, that portion of it where life is possible)... Why there should be evolved instinctive fear of darkness? There would not be any predators that had evolved to take advantage of the night, and thus there should be no fear of the night. Wariness would remain, but as a part of way less tense generalized fear of the unknown. Which tends to dissipate after the unknown becomes known.
"I have agreed that just as in humanity there would almost certainly be a small minority of strong minded individuals, adventurers and others who would brave those regions for knowledge and wealth but not in the millions needed to support the size of cities shown."
Well if those settlements will be successful and capable of generating profit, they would inevitably grow even if there would be no incoming outsiders anymore, up to the point of supporting millions (and for every generation born in these conditions, it would be more easy to live there... Sapient beings are incredibly adaptive creatures). No real-life city started at present size. Unless you would argue that the conditions are so horrifically uncomfortable for the aliens, that any procreation is impossible, which is much more radical assumption, IMO.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
“Also these are no "vast migrations", as author posed, there only few settlements around sources of geothermal heat, and vast majority on unlighted side remains a wasteland.”
Are you familiar with the concept of determining distance and size of an object through parallax measurements? If not I suggest that you look into it as it was a commonly used technique in range finding but the advent of radar and is still used especially in astronomy. Considering the relative size of the ‘urban lights’ presented in this work they can reasonable be assumed to be very extensive in size and if one used the presented parameters of this planet as a guide they would extend over very large tracts of land.
That does not imply a ‘few settlements’ but very large urban areas.
“There's various logical reasons to settle in an inhospitable area and create an infrastructure there (Simple astronomy to just name the first thing that comes to mind), and a few irrational - religious for instance.”
Granted but such a scientific establishment would not display the extensive lights of an urban area which the author has stated these are. Rather they would be so small as to undetectable in visible light from any position w\here the entire planet could be seen at once just as mining settlements would be.
Can you in fact propose any religious reason that could be used to overcome this species most likely innate fear of darkness that has any connection to the stated material and not simply a manufactured construct? No I don’t think that you can without simply created further illusions.
“Some zones of our planet is not maybe in perpetual night, but have a very stretched day-night cycle, lasting a whole year, with 6 months of darkness.”
Yes I am fully aware of the arctic and Antarctic regions of the planet we live on. Now please present evidence that there are any large scale permanent urban settlements there which would even roughly equate to those displayed here or this is a meaningless remark. We both know that there are now and that this is another purely obtuse assertion intended to create the illusion that this ideas can be applied to this planet.
“And while it been noted to be "depressing at times", people are still inhabit those regions, even without any particular reason, too.”
Yes in extremely small numbers with population densities stated in square kilometers per person and not persons per square kilometers so again this is a rather meaningless remark. I point to the Laplanders, the Inuit and other native tribes of the far north as well as the Siberian tribes who all have populations in the mere tens of thousands spread over vast regions of millions of square kilometers without any cities and only widely spaced towns.
So what are you in fact trying to propose with this idea?
“Fears can be overcomed, especially the instinctive fears, which is demonstrated by the vast amount of people that keep insects, arachnids or reptiles as genuinely loved pets.”
Again you return to this tangential concept which has been accepted repeatedly without demonstrating in any manner that this is or even could be the case in sufficient numbers to create cities of the size displayed. I don’t think you understand what an ‘instinctual phobia’ is in reality. people can fear many things due to personal experience but an instinctual fear is one that is part of how our minds function due to how we evolved. We instinctively fear the dark because our ancestors evolved as a prey species with poor night vision allowing nocturnal predators greater opportunity to kill us and while many overcome this with age others do not.
We instinctively fear the rustle in the bushes especially when alone for the very same reason and I think that you understand this having most assuredly been startled many times during your life under that circumstance. These are ingrained in our minds just as our ability at pattern recognition since ‘seeing a face’ when none is present aided us in avoiding threats while the opposite cause that individual to be removed from the gene pool.
“While on the subject of fear... Would creature of tidally-locked planet even have fear of darkness?”
This is an attempt at the fallacy of shifting the burden of proof while ignoring all that is currently known of psychology. I suggest you address that ‘question’ to any reputable psychologist and see what their opinion is. It is a reasonable conclusion based on our current understanding to postulate that they would and all you are in effect doing is to imply ‘while prove me wrong’ rather than making a rational argument to support your claim.
Yes it is quite reasonable to infer that a creature that has never experienced total darkness to have an inherent aversion, an instinctual dislike if not fear of it. can to present more than an obtuse assertion in the form of a question to support the idea you are forwarding that they would not?
“We have it, because night is dark and night is time when the predators are active and we are at the disadvantage. Night is dangerous so we should be vary and alert at night. Effectively meaning - in the darkness. But if there's no nights on the planet (Or, well, that portion of it where life is possible)... Why there should be evolved instinctive fear of darkness?”
So in effect you are trying to apply human psychology when you find it convenient then dismissing it when you wish to.
“There would not be any predators that had evolved to take advantage of the night, and thus there should be no fear of the night.”
That is a ridiculous construct as you are trying to equate nocturnal predators with fear itself. The point is that darkness is almost entirely unknown to these creatures save for possibly caves or areas of deep shadow and the unknown is always a source of fear and revulsion according to known psychology. You are trying to manufacture the idea that because there are no nocturnal predators these beings would not know fear and that is ludicrous.
You are also ignoring the fact that in a world of endless daylight predators would have evolved under those conditions. The majority of predators on this planet are not nocturnal but hunt during the day or in the case of exothermic reptiles during the twilight times. That alone makes your idea very flawed.
“Wariness would remain, but as a part of way less tense generalized fear of the unknown. Which tends to dissipate after the unknown becomes known.’”
Really, then by all means please present citations of scientific articles to support that claim. Please cite material that counters the fact that there are millions of people on this planet who continue to suffer from abject phobias despite being exposed to the reality of the ‘unknown’ and even treated for them. Please explain in detail with examples why there are great numbers of people in the world who are in fact afraid of vampires, ghosts, demons, dragons, Bigfoot and all manner of mythical creatures even when they have been confronted with the evidence that they are nonexistent and not merely unknown.
Sorry but you are constructing a flawed if not false idea in order to prop up your case.
“Well if those settlements will be successful and capable of generating profit, they would inevitably grow even if there would be no incoming outsiders anymore, up to the point of supporting millions (and for every generation born in these conditions, it would be more easy to live there... Sapient beings are incredibly adaptive creatures).”
Perhaps but unless you wish to add to the available information offered by this author that this species is capable of an immense increase in its breeding rate that would generate the necessary numbers to create such huge cities that are visible from space then in effect you merely manufacturing a meaningless illusion again to prop up the concept.
“No real-life city started at present size.”
What does that have to do with the issue at hand in any way, shape or form?
We are not discussing the historical development of such places but their current extent which indicates very large urban areas. I see this as nothing more than a useless, tangential arm wave towards an irrelevant issue to try and create the illusion that it is germane to the present situation.
“Unless you would argue that the conditions are so horrifically uncomfortable for the aliens, that any procreation is impossible, which is much more radical assumption, IMO.”
That is something that neither one of us can comment on as the author has made no statement in that regard. You however have in fact implied that without further inward migration they could generate such numbers. While this could occur over a very long period we also do not have any information to support that as well and it has been stated that these mineral deposits are limited indicating that they would run out in my opinion long before such a city evolved.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
"Considering the relative size of the ‘urban lights’ presented in this work they can reasonable be assumed to be very extensive in size and if one used the presented parameters of this planet as a guide they would extend over very large tracts of land."
Aye, I agree, that was a bit of artistic license on my part. If I've made cities with realistic scales, they'd be less than a pixel in size, this considering that the texture was already 8192 pixels wide... So they wouldn't be visible at all on any of the renders and pictures. But I was asked to make cities, so I had to make them exaggerated and unrealistically visible.
"Yes I am fully aware of the arctic and Antarctic regions of the planet we live on. Now please present evidence that there are any large scale permanent urban settlements there"
"Yes in extremely small numbers with population densities stated in square kilometers per person and not persons per square kilometers so again this is a rather meaningless remark. I point to the Laplanders, the Inuit and other native tribes of the far north as well as the Siberian tribes who all have populations in the mere tens of thousands spread over vast regions of millions of square kilometers without any cities"
Witness, Norylsk:
www.wykop.pl/cdn/c3201142/comm…
Or Murmansk:
www.kolatravel.com/img/murmans…
Totally looks like a small Siberian tribe settlement, right?
"So in effect you are trying to apply human psychology when you find it convenient then dismissing it when you wish to."
So by explaining why humans have fear of the dark and why aliens probably wouldn't have it, I'm applying human psychology to aliens? What.
"You are trying to manufacture the idea that because there are no nocturnal predators these beings would not know fear and that is ludicrous."
No, I'm trying to manufacture idea (proper term is "speculating", by the way) that these being would have no evolutionary reason to fear darkness. Not that they would be fearless.
"You are also ignoring the fact that in a world of endless daylight predators would have evolved under those conditions."
How am I ignoring it when I outright stated that in those conditions there would not be any predators that evolved nocturnal behavior?!
"The majority of predators on this planet are not nocturnal but hunt during the day or in the case of exothermic reptiles during the twilight times. "
Tell that to owls. Or cats. Or wolves. Many, yes, hunt in daylight. But those who hunt at night have serious advantage: they see their prey. Their prey on the other hand does not sees them, or outright sleeps.
"Perhaps but unless you wish to add to the available information offered by this author that this species is capable of an immense increase in its breeding rate that would generate the necessary numbers to create such huge cities that are visible from space then in effect you merely manufacturing a meaningless illusion again to prop up the concept."
"What does that have to do with the issue at hand in any way, shape or form? "
I am unceremoniously hint at the fact that cities tent to grow over time. Perhaps you can provide citation that these cities on the night side were established just years or months before time that these pictures emulate, and not decades or centuries?
And lastly, I'm trying to have a conversation on the internet about a sci-fi fictional planet from Star Trek fanfic, while you are, apparently, judge this whole conversation as a reviewing process of an article for publishing in a scientific journal, asking for citations from scientists and scientific materials for almost any statement. This is... bizarre.
Are you a Wikipedia editor, by any chance?
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
“If I've made cities with realistic scales, they'd be less than a pixel in size, this considering that the texture was already 8192 pixels wide... So they wouldn't be visible at all on any of the renders and pictures. But I was asked to make cities, so I had to make them exaggerated and unrealistically visible.”
Then your entire previous attempts to justify the issue at hand has been little more than an exercise in futility as you have just admitted that it was ‘exaggerated and unrealistic’. Therefore you are literally tilting at windmills.
With that concession in hand I must ask why have you made every effort to try and justify through completely absurd and irrational means what you now confess is in essence just a fiction? That does not seem reasonable to me at all when all you needed to do was state this at the onset and be done with it instead you have tried to manufacture all manner of obtuse ideas that when shown to be such you dropped and now claim ‘artistic license’ which I find almost ludicrous.
Congratulations you have plucked two very remote examples in an area of hundreds of millions square kilometers which have populations far smaller than what is portrayed. For example Norylsk has a population of just 175,365 according to the 2010 census which has remained relatively constant for the last half century currently yet has been in decline recently. Murmansk according to that same census is 307,257, it is the major regional port and has been since before WWII. Linking to a couple of pictures of those urban areas has almost no real value other than demonstrate that they exist.
These statements can be verified at en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Murmansk and en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Norilsk as well as other sources.
So where are those from Antarctica which is far more relevant to the frozen wastes of C’Tek’s dark side I ask? Where are the other large arctic cities I also ask? The answer is that only a few others such as Whitehorse [25,085 area 416.54 km2] and “The largest communities north of the Arctic Circle are situated in Russia , Norway and Sweden : Murmansk (population 307,257), Norilsk (175,365), Tromsø (71,295), Vorkuta (59,231) and Kiruna (18,148). Rovaniemi (61,329) in Finland is the largest settlement in the immediate vicinity of the Arctic Circle, lying 6 kilometres (4 miles) south of the line [ en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arctic_C… ]”. None of these have anything even remotely approaching the size of what you are frantically trying to postulate. In Canada, cities in the tundra biome, which is far more conducive to habitation, include Aklavik, Fort McPherson, Inuvik, Iqaluit, Old Crow, Qausuittuq and Tuktoyaktuk yet all have populations well under 10,000 and most under 1,000 yet extend over dozens to hundreds of square kilometers.
This is the difference, you assert whatever you think will bolster your case while I can support mine with evidence.
“So by explaining why humans have fear of the dark and why aliens probably wouldn't have it, I'm applying human psychology to aliens?”
You have not ‘explained’ this in any manner at all but merely asserted it as fact when it is nothing of the kind. You have simply dismissed a logical supposition based on the existing body of knowledge in order to prop up your construct that you also discard by claiming an artistic reason. An ‘explanation’ requires sound argument not merely assertion and you have not offered one to counter the ones I have repeatedly explained in detail.
“No, I'm trying to manufacture idea (proper term is "speculating", by the way) that these being would have no evolutionary reason to fear darkness. Not that they would be fearless.”
Again you are merely asserting this rather than making any attempt to justify that with rational argument simply, in my opinion, because that is what you want to project and are incapable of offering anything else. What is the rational, evidence based argument that supports this assertion as I have asked more than once? Simply repeating yourself in a mild variation does not present a shred of substantiation to your idea in fact it indicates that you are floundering and cannot do anything else.
If you wish to again alter what you have been vehemently trying to assert to now imply that you are merely ‘speculating’ then I find this very obtuse considering the length and breadth of your prior remarks wherein you tried all manner of concepts to support this idea as being valid not mere conjecture.
“Tell that to owls. Or cats. Or wolves. Many, yes, hunt in daylight. But those who hunt at night have serious advantage: they see their prey. Their prey on the other hand does not sees them, or outright sleeps.”
Once more you are plucking a few random examples implying that this is the general if not ubiquitous case. For your information not all owls are nocturnal hunters, wolves are almost entirely diurnal hunters and most felines are as well. Yes you have tried to caveat this but you are in fact trying to imply that the vast majority of them are in fact nocturnal when that is not even remotely the case. You are still trying to build a case that this is rationally justified even after your claim that it was all ‘artistic license’ and I find that absurd in the extreme.
“I am unceremoniously hint at the fact that cities tent to grow over time.”
Something I acknowledged from the start yet here you are harping on this irrelevant issue trying to prop up your case when you have zero information as to how long they have existed. Ergo you are simply manufacturing obtuse ideas in a desperate attempt to create the illusion that it makes sense. Provided you stand on your head and close one eye.
“Perhaps you can provide citation that these cities on the night side were established just years or months before time that these pictures emulate, and not decades or centuries?”
Here once more you are trying to apply the fallacy of shifting the burden of proof with an irrational, useless and utterly nonsensical query that you know has no answer. This is a pathetic attempt to play rhetorical games made more so when you cannot present anything at all to support your own contention regarding the length of existence and you know it. This is why you have again resorted to such a deceptive tactic in order to create the illusion that you have validated your idea. You have not and have only revealed your open dishonesty by going to this ridiculous question.
Yes I said that you are being dishonest as you understand completely that no such information exists yet you try to demand it from me as if by doing so you’ve created a ‘gotcha’ condition. You have not but have revealed the length of deception you are willing to go to in order to prop up your need to justify your ideas.
This is supported by what is most likely a joke yet declaring yourself to be 117 when the oldest known human is Kane Tanaka born 2 January 1903 now aged 115 years and a resident of Higashi-ku, Fukuoka, Fukuoka Prefecture, Japan. Add to that you absurd claim to live in ‘Antarctica’ when the only people who do so are scientists and their support staff which last time I checked did not include ‘artists’ devoted to fiction and fantasy. I grant that you might be applying ‘artistic license’ but it also does indicate a penchant for deception regardless of how you might like to spin it.
“And lastly, I'm trying to have a conversation on the internet about a sci-fi fictional planet from Star Trek fanfic,”
That point was granted long ago yet you have continued to try and create the illusion that this is a logical construct when it is flawed. You do realize that throughout the Star Trek community in its many forms there are numerous individuals who do in fact take many of its aspects to task as being contrary to the laws of physics and other scientific processes. Or do you imagine that everyone just floats around making up whatever they like and no one else raises an eyebrow?
Additionally this remarks appears to be something along the lines of either ‘how dare you cast criticism on my work’ to which I reply ‘then don’t place it in public where it can be criticized’ or ‘please shut up as I don’t like it when people do so’ which I will not do as I have the right of free expression that you do.
As a side note I watched Star Trek TOS in prime time as well as nearly every other iteration and episode in the same manner though that does not make anything I have said one iota more valid but does indicate that I might have some useful perspectives on this genre. I also point out that over decades of being a devotee to the science fiction genre I have noted that the best, or greatest if you prefer, examples of that art are those that at least have grounding in reality and science. You can make up any fantasy that you care to including magic but the ‘Star Trek Universe’ has always been considered to follow a reasonably probable science path.
“while you are, apparently, judge this whole conversation as a reviewing process of an article for publishing in a scientific journal, asking for citations from scientists and scientific materials for almost any statement. This is... bizarre.”
I did not ask for scientific citations and this is just another of your ludicrous creations to inflate the situation in order to apparently paint yourself as a ‘victim’. I asked if you could support your claims but did not in any manner set limits on how or ask for specific materials so please stop creating ideas out of thin air. At best I referenced the ‘existing base of knowledge in psychology’ while you have just tossed out what appears to be anything that you imagine will bolster your ideas. Furthermore at no time did you make even the vaguest attempt to do so instead just making more baseless assertions and unreasonable claims.
No I have stated my opinion supported by reasonable argument and sound material as to why such dark side cities are not reasonable while you have merely made assertions but no such argument. Then to top off the irrational and ridiculous aspects of this even after you have stated clearly that this is all ‘artistic license’ you continue to try to argue the issue rather than simply saying ‘well think as you will this is my art and I did it as I wanted to’.
No that is what is *BIZARRE* as apparently you are so desperate to defend your ideas in this regard that you will keep on arguing the point merely based on useless assertions that do not comport with reason and knowledge to pretend that doing so will somehow validate them.
“Are you a Wikipedia editor, by any chance?”
No and to ask such a pedantic and asinine question when it is an almost certainty that you are doing so only as a juvenile taunt and pointless snipe indicates that you are doing so in anger or mild hostility at having your endless excuses torn down with reason and logic. At no prior point have I even alluded to that site making your query rather asinine.
Do you understand logic and reason because your repeated use of various logical fallacies does not indicate that you do?
Do you understand that a simple statement regarding your being the creator of this work and why you choose to portray these cities as you did could have spared us both as great deal of useless effort or are you simply miffed at having someone present a sound case why they do not seem to be reasonable as your multiple attempt to prop up your case indicates?
Do you understand that making ancillary assertions regarding issue not already presented by the author can, in the words of Christopher Hitchens or at least a paraphrase of them, ‘that which is offered without evidence can be dismissed without evidence’ so your useless conjectures have been so dismissed.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
...You are also being very passive aggressive. Nobody forced you to spend so much effort writing kilometer-long walls of text on an internet site.
Remark about Wikipedia was an attempt at joke, I'm sorry if you were offended by that.
"Do you understand that a simple statement regarding your being the creator of this work and why you choose to portray these cities as you did could have spared us both as great deal of useless effort or are you simply miffed at having someone present a sound case why they do not seem to be reasonable as your multiple attempt to prop up your case indicates?"
That statement would be Doylist, and thus have absolutely no weight on trying to explain a thing using in-universe logic (because every debate would then abruptly end with "it is so because the special effects guys designed it that way, end of story"), which I assumed we were trying to do here, and not to annihilate each other's comments with counterarguments. I see now that latter apparently was the case, so I am withdrawing from this conversation, it is indeed pointless.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
“...You are also being very passive aggressive. Nobody forced you to spend so much effort writing kilometer-long walls of text on an internet site.”
And this is a very pathetic attempt to once again paint yourself as the ‘victim’ because you have been shown to be irrational, illogical and simply rather childish using several logical fallacies and obtuse, unsupportable assertions to prop up what you admit is “exaggerated and unrealistically”.
Were I to be aggressive in any manner I assure you that it would not be passive in any way as I am a former Marine and a combat veteran. You my allow your imagination to run wild if you like but I assure you that you are the one here running on emotionalism desperate to manufacture an large excuse to justify something that the simple phrase ‘it was my artistic license at work’ would have solved. Instead you are apparently miffed at having someone say something other than ‘wow how wonderful’ and got upset.
Once more you are whining over the length of my responses when you have written some rather long replies. This is a case of special pleading as in ‘do as I say not as I do’. You are also once more trying to limit my right of expression in some simpleminded manner as if to say ‘you should just grunt like the rest of us because your big words frighten me’.
“Remark about Wikipedia was an attempt at joke, I'm sorry if you were offended by that.”
I was not offended as I found it a juvenile, meaningless and useless snipe from a person who has used such ploys especially after commenting “I'm trying to have a conversation on the internet”. Again using an ‘emoticon’ rather than a simple phrase ‘I’m joking’ leaves a great deal of latitude in meaning. Or do you imagine that we all have telepathy? By which of corse I am being sarcastic. See how that works?
“That statement would be Doylist, and thus have absolutely no weight on trying to explain a thing using in-universe logic (because every debate would then abruptly end with "it is so because the special effects guys designed it that way, end of story"),”
That is in my opinion yet another excuse to cover over your flawed tact as well as now trying to assume that everyone else would understand an obscure term used only inside the community of those devoted to fandom. It would not end the discourse as you assert, though I grant that it is a possibility, but rather set the tone of it on a sound foundation. This is generally called an ‘ad hoc rationalization’ used to reach back and try and justify a significant error or flaw in the base contentions and subsequent argument.
I might well have responded by saying ‘oh then that is a very good reason and I yield the point unless you wish to pursue it further’. Instead you offered irrational conjectures and fallacies dismissing actual knowledge for some time before explaining yourself in this manner. I find that very strange and somewhat foolish particularly when you now try to play the victim and accuse me of being aggressive when you have played what I see as a deceptive game from the start.
“which I assumed we were trying to do here, and not to annihilate each other's comments with counterarguments.”
This remark does support my contention that you are holding to a ‘what I say is right because I say so’ ideology as rational counter argument is not an attempt to ‘annihilate’ the other position but to express what one considers to be the flaws in it and/or their views. Stating it in this manner again indicates that you are suffering possibly from a persecution complex imagining yourself a victim whenever confronted by any opinion that is not positive. Apparently you seem to have almost no understanding of the rules of logic, the constructs of rational argumentation or epistemology since you have not demonstrated that you do in any consistent manner.
The only real time you have offered anything in the form of material to rebut my points was a couple of scenic photos of Siberian cities which did very little to substantiate your ideas. Rather you simply ‘danced’ off to some other issue or flawed assertion instead of admitting that point or trying to counter it. yet here you are attempting to claim that you wanted a ‘conversation’ when what you appear to really desire is submission to your assertion becaiuse you likely imagine your art is under attack.
I am not attacking your art but the rationality of the concept which I again state would have been far less had you stated that the scale of those ‘cities’ was a mere artistic technique to make them visible. How difficult would that have been? Yet you appear to be intent on beating down my ideas in order to shield you work from criticism. For someone how claims to be a ‘professional artist’ I find that very strange.
Finny how this applies to almost everything including your laughable claims of age and residence though I am aware that is almost certainly a ‘joke’ or possibly a means to disguise your identity for reason of your own.
“I see now that latter apparently was the case, so I am withdrawing from this conversation, it is indeed pointless.”
A common enough tactic by people of your general demeanor who when confronted with their own numerous flaws, deceptions and irrational ideas thump their chests, make pointless accusations and storm off pretending that they have been victorious over the heretics. And here I though you didn’t have a sense of humor.
Yes do go home because you have very little chance of pulling yourself out of the hole you have dug with you constant assertions, irrational ideas and reliance on logical fallacies as well as your asinine withholding of extremely relevant information based on an idiotic post hoc excuse.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
"Once more you are whining over the length of my responses when you have written some rather long replies."
'once more'? 'whining'? It was not I who lamented the "great deal of useless effort"!
The only problem that I have with long replies, really, is that they tend to fracture and spiral out of control into a sentence-by-sentence rebuttals, making them significantly harder to follow. Like, observe how this all grown out of simple objection of me chiming in on the conversation between you and scorpionlover42 , that it doesn't matter is species are non-humanoid if they are sapient, since it is human's sapience that allowed us to dominate our planet, not the anatomy. But suddenly it is now me "defending my art". Which is an commission that had zero creative input from me, dare I remind you. You could say that I defend SeekHim's concept, and that would be probably true. Only that I am not defending anything, I just saw a point with which I disagreed, and commented on it.
"That is in my opinion yet another excuse to cover over your flawed tact as well as now trying to assume that everyone else would understand an obscure term used only inside the community of those devoted to fandom. It would not end the discourse as you assert, though I grant that it is a possibility, but rather set the tone of it on a sound foundation."
Or, you could simply ask "what's Doylist?". It is not a "inside fandom thing", it's just one of two mutually exclusive ways of explaining events of a work of fiction - tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php… (Note that while TVtropes is an obscure fandom, these terms did not originated there, the site just have handy article explaining it.)
"A common enough tactic by people of your general demeanor who when confronted with their own numerous flaws, deceptions and irrational ideas thump their chests, make pointless accusations and storm off pretending that they have been victorious over the heretics."
Rather that I withdrawing because a) I lost interest in the debate and b) you twist and turn and seemingly almost purposefully misunderstand everything I'm writing, and in general are making A LOT of quite liberal assumptions about me, that have suspicious ad hominem feel to them, especially in the last couple of replies.
"I again state would have been far less had you stated that the scale of those ‘cities’ was a mere artistic technique to make them visible. How difficult would that have been?"
I again reiterate that we didn't debated about the visible size of the cities. We debated on the very premise of possibility of these cities existing and on alien psychology, since I disagree that an alien that lives in a biosphere that never experienced darkness would have fear of darkness, that would prevent them from colonizing the dark side of the planet.
👍: 0 ⏩: 2
So I am "whining and juvenile" but it is you who end up insulting me and then storming off, making sure to block me so I wouldn't be able to answer. How quaint!
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
“The only problem that I have with long replies, really, is that they tend to fracture and spiral out of control into a sentence-by-sentence rebuttals, making them significantly harder to follow.”
Yes I do dissect and dismantle you baseless assertions, logical error and useless construct and you pathetic remark again demonstrates that you are incapable of accepting criticism of or possessing the ability to respond with anything other than juvenile whining.
“Rather that I withdrawing because a) I lost interest in the debate and b) you twist and turn and seemingly almost purposefully misunderstand everything I'm writing, and in general are making A LOT of quite liberal assumptions about me, that have suspicious ad hominem feel to them, especially in the last couple of replies.”
Yet here you are once again desperately trying to manufacture further excuses when you did nothing at all really to try and explain yourself but simply danced from one obtuse assertion to another with various logical fallacies thrown in for good measure.
You can complain that my assessments of you are little more than ad hominem attacks but that is because you apparently, as I have stated, have an extremely limited understanding of logical and fallacies. I stated precisely what was the basis of each assessment and not simply tossed out some character assassination terms. Therein lies the distinction which makes them not such.
Having stated “I see now that latter apparently was the case, so I am withdrawing from this conversation, it is indeed pointless,” but now returning once more to try and prop your ideas and yourself up indicates that in the creationist tradition, though I am not suggesting that you are one, but I am stating categorically that you have adopted their tactics your claims cannot be trusted as you will do precisely the opposite in order to once again bolster your self-imagine..
The difference is that when I say something I mean it, I will act on it and unless shown that my determination was in error I will not alter it.
So goodbye you pretentious little egomaniac who cannot state the situation upfront to avoid discord, who manufactures irrational ideas that fly in the face of reason and who acts like a child when others refuse to submit to your whims.
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
But once again, this basic psychology is our basic psychology. Once a species becomes intelligent and inquisitive, it's likely to take chances its primal ancestors would never have considered. We can't swim like dolphins, yet we ventured out onto the open ocean. Not right away, of course, but we did it. The first humans who ventured beyond sight of land, into the air, etc. were the adventurous ones, but others followed once these intrepid souls provided that these excursions were not immediately fatal and could, in fact, be advantageous.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
“But once again, this basic psychology is our basic psychology.”
Which is all that we have to compare anything outside our experience and until we have any other basis to apply. This is not a rational argument to refute the claim that a species which evolved in such conditions would in fact have such an aversion based on what we do in fact known at this time. It is a pretense to try and circumvent what is known by asserting that what is unknown is more valid.
“Once a species becomes intelligent and inquisitive, it's likely to take chances its primal ancestors would never have considered.”
Sorry but you are trying to conflate an aspect relating to the more adventurous members who could overcome their innate fears just as many humans have done in our history right after declaring that we cannot apply human standards and knowledge to this situation and that is irrational.
“We can't swim like dolphins, yet we ventured out onto the open ocean. Not right away, of course, but we did it.”
That has no bearing on this issue as you are attempting to compare a physical characteristics in a native species to the psychological and technological abilities of humans. At the same time you are completely ignoring the fact that a great many members of our own species are in fact afraid of the open water, do not swim and would never get into a boat which aligns with what I have stated repeatedly with regard to this proposed scenario.
“The first humans who ventured beyond sight of land, into the air, etc. were the adventurous ones, but others followed once these intrepid souls provided that these excursions were not immediately fatal and could, in fact, be advantageous.”
Precisely as I have stated more than once which apparently you are trying to use as a means to promote this idea even after you have stated that comparing humans, or at least our psychology which is the ultimate basis for our actions, to this or any other alien species. That is illogical and contradictory not does it in any manner present a rational argument against what I have stated.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Yes, a species that evolved in constant sunlight could have an aversion to darkness; but again, we cannot assume that this species couldn't overcome that aversion.
But I must say that you present your arguments very well indeed. "Irrational and contradictory..." It's such a pleasure to meet you, Mr. Spock!
👍: 0 ⏩: 2
I've made some changes to this pic. Let me know what you think!
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
“Yes, a species that evolved in constant sunlight could have an aversion to darkness; but again, we cannot assume that this species couldn't overcome that aversion.”
Precisely when did I sat that, imply it or even tangentially allude to it?
The fact is that I never did and this, to my way of thinking, is simply another flawed construct to try and dance around the core issue that is that fact that assuming that millions of such creatures would willingly choose to relocate there to live if illogical. I have stated clearly that well balanced, adventurous individuals and those willing to endure the harshest of conditions would possibly do so but not the vast numbers needed to create such huge cities in a frozen, eternally dark environment when that idea would be anathema to the great majority of the populace.
And why not assume that the majority would not when you are in fact assuming, without any substantiating argument to support such, that they would. Once more you have created a very contradictory circumstance that you seem to imagine favors yourself but in reality does not. it is a reasonable assumption to imagine that some would as I have already conceded but not in my opinion more than a minority and I think a small one.
It is not a ‘could’ but most assuredly a ‘would’ based on all that we understand of psychology and evolutionary biology. One needs only look at the Pavlov induced response studies to see that an individual can be forced to override its inherent character as well as species characteristics such as the solitary nature of large cats, the pack societies of canines or the social nature of parrots to verify this. Large felines caged together become highly aggressive towards their companions, dogs will bond with humans as pack mates and seek to determine their status in the pack while parrot and similar birds will literally go insane if deprived of daily social contact even if only with their human owners.
What I think you are attempting to imply is that great swaths of such a species would do so when that is little more than wishful thinking. A small percentage would yet to suggest that a sizeable potion would is preposterous and this is borne out by what we see on this planet. Unless forced by famine, war or other calamities people will not move from their ‘comfort zone’ even under increasingly harsh conditions. Even under the best of conditions most find it intensely difficult as my Belarusian ex-wife experienced when she moved to the US and spent an hour a day on the phone to her mom for months. Yet you seem to be willing to just make arm waves and claim that millions would walk into the psychological equivalent of a den of tigers and pit of vipers when that is extremely unlikely regardless of the species even on this world
I pointed out that I have spent years working in one of the harshest environments on earth, although I did had a comfortable residence to live in, yet when home on holiday not one of my friends or relations were at all interested in doing so despite the high salary and other benefits as just the thought of 50 degree C [122 F] for 5 – 6 months of the year put them off and they lived in Georgia. Here we are asked to accept that a species with an ingrained aversion to darkness having evolved under conditions that almost never exposed them to such.
“But I must say that you present your arguments very well indeed. "Irrational and contradictory..." It's such a pleasure to meet you, Mr. Spock!”
Yes your arguments, if one can call them that rather than mere useless assertions, are in fact irrational and contradictory. They are irrational as you made baseless assertions and contradictory as stated because you began but asserting that applying human psychology, the only source we have at present, is not a valid concept and then proceeded to do precisely that. That by definition is in fact both contradictory and irrational.
Petty and juvenile sarcasm does not in any manner support your case and in fact demonstrates that you likely understand that it is weak and flawed in the extreme. That you are either unaware of how to construct a logical argument or simply unwilling to try and must resort to this type of pathetic ploy makes it rather obvious that you likely understand that you are simply trying to assert that your ideas are valid merely because you say that they are as you have yet to propose or offer anything other than base assertions and flawed assumption while contradicting yourself.
That you seem to be ‘offended’ by the presentation of a sound, logically sequential, point-by-point refutation of your remarks indicates that you are overly sensitive to criticism and unwilling to consider anything other than what you have to say.
Applying you somewhat childish sarcastic tact if you think that I am a variation of the Spock character that would then likely make you something of a Harcourt [Harry] Fenton Mudd figure. You may derive whatever you care to from that comparison as, like the judge said, ‘counselor you opened that door for your opposition to walk through’.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
No, I'm not offended. A convicted murderer once said that he thought there was something wrong with me, and I took that as a complement. I truly think you presented sound, reasonable arguments; however, that doesn't mean everyone's going to agree with your arguments. You don't agree with my reasoning, but that's perfectly all right.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
“No, I'm not offended.”
Something that I never implied and which is another of your ‘leaps’.
“I truly think you presented sound, reasonable arguments; however, that doesn't mean everyone's going to agree with your arguments.”
I have never expected such not have I even implied such a thing and see this too as an attempt to dodge the issue wherein you have yet to present anything that resembles an argument but merely offered assumptions and assertions.
“You don't agree with my reasoning, but that's perfectly all right.”
Thank you for that but I have yet to see any actual ‘reasoning’ coming from your corner other than making the type of assertions and contradictions that you have relied on. Contradictions as I have documented such as your declaring that we cannot use human psychology then proceeding to do exactly that.
Believe whatever you care to but I do not see any ‘reasoning’ or argument being offered just simple assertion.
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
It is true, close up it is very obvious they are city lights, and quite splendidly rendered ones as well - especially the larger cluster on the right. But from a distance, looking at the whole, the stars and cities are fairly evenly spaced, and when the scene is static it is not possible to tell them apart from direction or depth.
That is not really criticism, though. Just saying this is the sort of environment where this kind of misunderstanding happens.
👍: 0 ⏩: 0