Are Human Traits realistic?

[Rat king]

I am generally wondering if people agree that the biological traits humanity is assigned would be correct and realistic, those being adaptable, nomadic and wasteful.
I agree with the first two
Adaptable because humans live all across planet earth and are not confined to a single climate or biome unlike a vast majority of species.
Nomadic as humans have effectively always been pushing into new lands and generally moving is looked upon positively if possible.

I'm not sure about wasteful, generally as a civilization yes humanity is wasteful but compared to basically all other species on Earth we are the only ones that actually try to limit our consumption, you don't see other species doing diets, taking less from the land and ect...

I feel like slow breeders makes more sense as the negative trait humanity would have as we do reproduce quite slowly, only really capable of having a single offspring every 3/4s of a year is quite little compared to most species. I can imagine other alien species having entire broods of children, laying clutches of 1000's of eggs but we don't have that ability.

EDIT "After reading the comments I must admit a sentient alien species that is laying 1000's of eggs would not make much sense and be somewhat ridiculous, but I can still imagine an alien species with a shorter gestation period, more offspring and lower maturity time comparative to us, I also wish to add with slow breeders is that it takes a very long time for humans to mature and start being useful with it being at around 20 years with effectively no species coming close to that requirement."

Also an additional positive strength might be strong, while we tend to think of ourselves as weak that is not really the case considering we are much larger than a vast majority of life on our planet, additionally we have immense strength in how we can wield things, a chimp, octopus or parrot may be able to use tools and weapons but no where compared to the same strength we can. Remember all it took for our species to dominate was to wield a sharp stick, the body of us carried the rest of the work. Our bodies are quite literally designed to use tools strongly, I can see us being much better miners and soldiers compared to most potential aliens as their body plan might not be designed to use tools as weapons but rather that being a byproduct.

EDIT "Okay this I will probably change as well, strong is not the right word as we tend to not associate strength with the use of weapons with skill and throwing ability, if any of you have the mod V-traits there are traits called precise and throwing hands which humanoids can use. This would probably better fit our description as we generally have both of these abilities.”
https://steamcommunity.com/sharedfiles/filedetails/?id=2891777951 link to the custom traits

[Mazey]

You're comparing humanity to what you _imagine_ aliens would be like.

And you are definitely wrong. Tool use and small numbers of offspring are evolutionary requirements for a species to become intelligent enough to reach space. So they would be present in every alien species by default.

[VulcanTourist]

The game has an accurate enough depiction of the human condition. You're a victim of humano-centrism. No, we are NOT strong. Even an average chimpanzee can rip a human bodybuilder in half without straining much. And trying to compare our reproductive cycle to that of non-sentient creatures is entirely laughable. Elephants would be a more apt comparison, but one that puts a very large and heavy foot to your argument. Again, your post is an exercise in humano-centrism.

[mss73055]

The traits what brought humans to the moon are the reflex AGAINST the conquest since the last 3000 years. Closer you can see these traits at the end of the dark ages. Technique you see around you was devised AGAINST the campaigns of people like Darius and Constantine the Great.

Triffy
Innovative
Nomadic
Deviant
Short-lived

Ultra egalitarian
Spiritual

Ultra egalitarian yes. In the days of old servitude was not forever. But then conquest and monotheism made slavery perpetual.

[Kapika96]

Wasteful makes sense. Other species don't need to artificially limit their consumption because it's naturally self-sustaining. The only exception is when humans get involved and move things to places they're not supposed to be.

Strong makes no sense whatsoever. Humans are pathetically weak compared to other species. Tool use doesn't mean they should get the strong trait. What on earth has using tools got to do with being strong? Especially since literally every other sentient species would be capable of using tools too.

[Foolswalkin]

Wasteful: 1.6 million sq km ocean patch of accumulated plastic garbage. Nuff said.

The fact that humans live on so much of the earth is a quality of human intelligence, not human physiology. The trait presumably covers the latter. Something like a tardigrade can survive in a huge variety of environments, while some extremeophiles positively thrive in one or more.

Not sure tool use or low birth rate are evolutionary requirements to reach space. Depending on definition of "tool", something like the WH40K Tyrannids might not qualify for either, since they evolve into whatever they need and do so by having huge amounts of progeny.

[Danny]

Considering humans in Stellaris are used as baseline.
I think the traits are pretty good picks.

Adaptable: As humans can relatively adept well to changes.
Nomadic: Humans have always migrated to greener pastures and there still are nomadic humans around.

Wasteful: Well just look how much most humans waste on a daily basis!
Whether by choice or need.
I will admit that wasteful is being worked on these days, but it will still be a long time before it's routed out of the main human species. As it also got ingrained into major world cultures.

[Ryika]

Originally posted by Foolswalkin:

Wasteful: 1.6 million sq km ocean patch of accumulated plastic garbage. Nuff said.

Originally posted by Danny:

Wasteful: Well just look how much most humans waste on a daily basis!

But is that a part of what makes us humans, or is that part of the society that we've built, a result of, for example, Capitalism and other things.

Like, have out ancestors been wasteful, too? I don't think that's the case, and if it is not the case, then it's not intrinsic to humans as a species.

If wasteful were a Civic, then I think it would fit (if we're going by today's standards; hopefully that'll continue to change until 2200...), but as an inherent part of us as people? I don't think that fits all that well.

[monkeypunch87]

Originally posted by Ryika:

Like, have out ancestors been wasteful, too? I don't think that's the case, and if it is not the case, then it's not intrinsic to humans as a species.

Our ancestors in general also weren't living in abundance. You need to have more than enough to be wasteful. Every ruler, who had something to waste, was probably wasteful. And nowadays everyone is kind of wasteful if you aren't the poorest of the poor.

So, I would say, as a general trait, "wasteful" fits good.

But you could probably think about other "waste". Do we produce more faeces per food unit than other species? Or do we need more food than other species to sustain ourselves, because our energy absorption is "wasteful"? I don't know.

[VulcanTourist]

Originally posted by Ryika:

Originally posted by Foolswalkin:

Wasteful: 1.6 million sq km ocean patch of accumulated plastic garbage. Nuff said.

Originally posted by Danny:

Wasteful: Well just look how much most humans waste on a daily basis!

But is that a part of what makes us humans, or is that part of the society that we've built, a result of, for example, Capitalism and other things.

Like, have out ancestors been wasteful, too? I don't think that's the case, and if it is not the case, then it's not intrinsic to humans as a species.

If wasteful were a Civic, then I think it would fit (if we're going by today's standards; hopefully that'll continue to change until 2200...), but as an inherent part of us as people? I don't think that fits all that well.

In truth of fact EVERY species is wasteful... UNTIL that waste/over-exploitation develops harmful consequences to the species doing the wasting. Case in point: "pollution" wasn't pollution, wasn't even a concept, until it began to have detrimental consequences for the humans causing it. Until that point is reached it's just a part of the exploitation process. The harm begins a feedback loop that results in some of the occasional "sustainable" thinking and behaviors that you idealistically want to believe is the human default; it is very much NOT the default.

No creature is immune from this behavior, not even microbes. Every creature will exploit its environment to the limit of its ability, unless and until that causes harm to itself. The resources that humans exploit, though, are exclusive to humans, as I describe in another comment below.

[Kypamop]

“I´d like to share a revelation that I´ve had during my time here. It came to me when I tried to classify your species, and I realized that you’re not actually mammals.
Every mammal on this planet instictively develops a natural equilibrium with the surrounding environment, but you humans do not. You move to an area and you multiply and multiply until every natural resource is consumed. The only way can survive is to spread to another area.
There is another organism on this planet that follows the same pattern. Do you know what it is? A virus.
Human beings are a disease, a cancer of this planet. You’re a plague and we… are the cure.”
- Agent Smith

[VulcanTourist]

Originally posted by Kypamop:

“I´d like to share a revelation that I´ve had during my time here. It came to me when I tried to classify your species, and I realized that you’re not actually mammals.
Every mammal on this planet instictively develops a natural equilibrium with the surrounding environment, but you humans do not. You move to an area and you multiply and multiply until every natural resource is consumed. The only way can survive is to spread to another area.
There is another organism on this planet that follows the same pattern. Do you know what it is? A virus.
Human beings are a disease, a cancer of this planet. You’re a plague and we… are the cure.”
- Agent Smith

Name me another species on this planet that makes use of any natural resource that ISN'T by its very nature sustainable because it's organic in nature. I doubt you can.

THAT is the probative difference between humans and every other species that exists here: we not only use tools, we make use of inorganic non-sustainable resources both to make those tools and then use those tools to construct other things out of the same inorganic resources. It's our exploitation of inorganic resources in that fashion, and the "pollution" to humans that it eventually causes, that distinguishes us from ALL other life on the planet.

[Ryika]

Originally posted by monkeypunch87:

Our ancestors in general also weren't living in abundance. You need to have more than enough to be wasteful.

I disagree with this. Take (male) Peacocks as an example. Maintaining their colorful tails needlessly waste a ton of energy, just because it evolved as something that females choose their mates by. Peacocks don't live in abundance, yet they have evolved to waste energy on those tails.

To me that is an example of a species that is naturally wasteful, being wasteful is a core part of their very existence. Humans and many other species that procreate through sexual means do this too, but to a much smaller extend.

[Foolswalkin]

Originally posted by Ryika:

But is that a part of what makes us humans, or is that part of the society that we've built, a result of, for example, Capitalism and other things.

Like, have out ancestors been wasteful, too? I don't think that's the case, and if it is not the case, then it's not intrinsic to humans as a species.

If wasteful were a Civic, then I think it would fit (if we're going by today's standards; hopefully that'll continue to change until 2200...), but as an inherent part of us as people? I don't think that fits all that well.

We'd have to stipulate a precise definition of waste to properly slice the hairs in question. But, yes, broadly, they were. I believe it has something to do with having the instincts of prey (which is what we evolved from) but, with the help of tools, the abilities of a predator (arguably the earth's top predator, depending on how you want to talk about bacteria and virii). We can kill everything we've encountered so far, but we still startle at bumps in the night, and this mismatch of reflex and capacity causes an overreaction. (I think I first heard this theory in Robert O'Connell's Of Arms and Men, but it's been a minute since I read it.)

Cosmetics, gladiatorial combat, & wars of ideology aren't new. They go back at least to agricultural civs. Before that, humans overhunted and killed off a huge percentage of large animal species ("charismatic megafauna" is a better search term but may not overlap 100%) prior to the development of a written language. If none of this meets your definition of wasteful, then I don't think we're going to be able to talk meaningfully to one another.

[mss73055]

Being wasteful is a measurable property, but it's not a trait.
Areas may be short term planning, narrow focus, social disconnection.
Motives may be self preservation, blindness, uncaring or spite.

[Big mean bunny]

Those traits are designed to be read very broadly. Everything is relative to a big generic alien melting pot of traits but centric to the species you are designing. It does not matter whether it lays a thousand eggs or raises young x amount of months... in the galactic scheme of things its pops grow slightly faster than the total galactic mean species average... or the reverse. The logic behind it is up to your imagination and a great role play stich.