Install Steam
login
|
language
简体中文 (Simplified Chinese)
繁體中文 (Traditional Chinese)
日本語 (Japanese)
한국어 (Korean)
ไทย (Thai)
Български (Bulgarian)
Čeština (Czech)
Dansk (Danish)
Deutsch (German)
Español - España (Spanish - Spain)
Español - Latinoamérica (Spanish - Latin America)
Ελληνικά (Greek)
Français (French)
Italiano (Italian)
Bahasa Indonesia (Indonesian)
Magyar (Hungarian)
Nederlands (Dutch)
Norsk (Norwegian)
Polski (Polish)
Português (Portuguese - Portugal)
Português - Brasil (Portuguese - Brazil)
Română (Romanian)
Русский (Russian)
Suomi (Finnish)
Svenska (Swedish)
Türkçe (Turkish)
Tiếng Việt (Vietnamese)
Українська (Ukrainian)
Report a translation problem
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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
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.
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.
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.
Areas may be short term planning, narrow focus, social disconnection.
Motives may be self preservation, blindness, uncaring or spite.