Yes, it does. Check out the article on Fantasy on Wikipedia. The genre covers a multitude of media, RPGs among them.Imaginary and fantasy are one and the same, Traveller per se is not literature, so it does not fall under the title of speculative fiction.
What's the difference between a drug and a toxin? Dosage. Quinine has beneficial effects on Malaria patients, but it's still not a good idea to replace all the blood with Indian Tonic water. I'm confident that "treated with C. concholepas" does not mean "had all blood replaced with C. concholepas blood".No, that is incorrect. From the wiki article posted:
The hemocyanin found in Concholepas concholepas blood has immunotherapeutic effects against bladder and prostate cancer. In a research made in 2006 mice were primed with C. concholepas before implantation of bladder tumor (MBT-2) cells. Mice treated with C. concholepas showed significant antitumor effects: prolonged survival, decreased tumor growth and incidence, and lack of toxic effects.[5]
No, in a literal sense science fiction is not fantasy. They are two distinct genres characterized by different tropes. And the same genres are, unsurprisingly, found in RPGs.In a literal sense, yes, science fiction is fantasy; however as a genre of literature you are correct in the definitions, but Traveller is not literature, it is an RPG based on science fiction.
Because the chemistry would be different. To quote the wikipedia article: "Although the respiratory function of hemocyanin is similar to that of hemoglobin, there are a significant number of differences in its molecular structure and mechanism" (Emphasis mine). Unless you can find me a quote about an organism that has had its blood replaced by hemocyanin-based blood and continued to function, I will continue to regard this notion as pure unadulterated gibberish. I really don't feel the need to prove that you can't replace ordinary blood with crustacean blood and expect anything other than a rapid and messy cessation of all life functions.How do you know this? It would be my pleasure to read the source, it has been quite interesting reading about hemocyanin as is.rancke said:Every cell of the body would need to be radically different to work with hemocyanin instead of hemoglobin.
It looks like we shall have to agree to disagree on this one. If you really feel that restructuring one's genetic makeup to cut oneself off from almost every other member of one's species is preferrable to emigrating to a world that supports human life without such drastic measures, then all I can say is that I disagree with you.No, not at all, as a matter of fact emigration would be the last act of desperation, because they would be abandoning their property, wealth and power that they had built up.
In their old environment their new blood would be only one fourth as efficient as their old blood. Since the reason you gave for doing the switch was to get blood that was more efficient, this means that they would have to go live where this was, in fact, the case. [Note: This argument is not to be taken as evidence that I believe such a switch would be feasible in the first place.]No, with their domes failing, their homes would be abandoning them as it were, but there is no reason to say they would be unable to survive in their old enviornment, maybe just uncomfortable in the same way Sherpas are at lower altitudes.
'These circumstances' being cold environments with low oxygen pressure. In other words, places where humans can't survive. And the very next line says, "Most hemocyanins bind with oxygen non-cooperatively and are roughly one-fourth as efficient as hemoglobin at transporting oxygen per amount of blood."From the wiki article:
Species using hemocyanin for oxygen transportation are commonly crustaceans living in cold environments with low oxygen pressure. Under these circumstances hemoglobin oxygen transportation is less efficient than hemocyanin oxygen transportation.
No, it gives an edge if and only if living in conditions of extreme cold and low oxygen pressure.Having the hemocyanin would give one an edge over an unaltered human, esp if you retreated underground where there would be higher temps and oxygen pressure.
Why do you think most organisms on Earth use hemoglobin instead of hemocyanin or neo-hemocyanin? That's because that unless you live in the kind of environment those crustaceans thrive under, hemoglobin is superior.No, not the horseshoe crab's, its hill coeficient is as high as hemoglobin; though I've been writing of neo-hemocyanin for quite a few posts, it's even better. It's irrational to believe they would chose the worse hemocyanin over the better.
But this whole line of argument is moot, because it presupposes that you can just substitute blood based on one set of chemical reactions with blood based on a different set of chemical reactions.
Denmark hasn't fought a war in two generations now, and we're not feeling the urge to do so. And it's been 145 years since we started one.You are mixing individuals with nations and I don't think any nation is without violence, humans are humans, and we are violent, very much so.
This is a logical fallacy called the Converse accident.No it is contrary to science (and exactly the concept of parallel human evolution); only one group of hominids evolves to be modern Humans, all others go extinct.rancke said:No one is talking parallel evolution here. The postulate is that everybody is descended from the same ancestral species (Homo sapiens antiquus and that those human races who remain Homo sapiens do so because they have not diverged enough to be a different species. All perfectly scientifically sound.
You're arguing that because here on Earth Homo sapiens wiped out all other hominids, it is a law of nature that only one species of every genus will survive the evolutionary process, which is obviously not true. I'm also puzzled as to how you imagine Homo sapiens sapiens on Earth would be able to wipe out Homo sapiens darrianus on Darrian.
Hans
Last edited: