Archived Forum Thread: A new collective conworld
This is an archived forum thread from the old forum (that went offline in May 2015).
| Lajos |
Is there any interest in collectively creating a conworld ultimately* evolving into an interaction project on roughly sociocratic principles?
What I mean (with that), is a project that takes Realism seriously (and thus severely limits the Autonomy of the Creator) and that designs everything from scratch in a (roughly) sociocratic process in which anything can be discussed and decisions are made only if no particpant has reasonable objections. (A process like this is more or less implied by adherence to Realism, by the way.)
Something like this was proposed in another thread, but that proposal never got off the ground.
note (*): "ultimately" might mean "in a few years" given that it will take some time to get to a point where interaction is possible.
| Olof |
It does sound interesting although I am not sure how active I would be. I have few problems with the Autonomy of the Creator issue so I would be a useful player. Realism is not an issue either for me, although that is mostly because there are only a few fields of interest where I would voice my opinion and with the rest I would adapt to the restraints.
| Lajos |
Would you be active enough to take part (relatively intensively) in discussion about topics that interest you or that you know a lot about? (Not participating in discussions that don't interest you is no problem, of course.)
| Olof |
Topics that interest me would probably generate (plenty of) activity on my side but at the moment it is still very unclear what the setup of the project will be and how it will actually be developed. That could influence my activity a lot. As said, it is too early to say so at this stage. Let's just see what happens.
| Lajos |
Well, to a considerable extent the "order of things" is fixed, I think.
- astronomy / planetology
- plate tectonics / physical geography / geologogy / (paleo-) climate
- evolution / ecology
- technological and economic world history
- cultural world history (incl. languages)
- political world history
There are some feedback, of course, which will necessitate going back to a previous step occasionally, but this seems to me the basic order. After all this is done, we can divide up the world and - while continuing discussion and feedback - further develop cultures, countries, etc.
The main organizational principle of the design process is the consent principle: Decisions are made when there are no remaining "paramount objections", that is, when there is informed consent from all participants. Objections must be reasoned and argued and based on the ability of the objector to work productively toward the goals of the organization.
Thus far, two other people showed interest, by the way, but one of them has no time until September or so.
Concerning #1, by the way, I think it would be interesting to have a somewhat different solar system than the one we're used to - if possible. A moon of a gas giant may be interesting, for example, but there are many complications in such a scenario.
| Olof |
I am fine with this setup.
As I know quite a bit about the astronomy component I would hesitate going for any peculiarities in regard to the planet setup. If you want to ensure realism is maintained I would prefer to stay away from binary/triple star systems or moons of gas planets as these involve a large range of complexities that would also have a huge impact on climate and the development of civilizations. Stability is the keyword here. Regarding the planet there is already planet of variables to play around with like the planetary orbit (closer,further away,elliptic), planetary size, landmass/sea ratio, no or multiple moons, availability of metals.
| Dumeria |
This does sound like a very interesting project to me.
Regarding Olof's prior post:
Recent research regarding binary stars actually shows they can offer stable circumstances for life to evolve. In certain aspects they would even offer much better circumstances than generic "sol-like" systems.
http://www.space.com/19962-habitable-planets-binary-stars.html
http://astrobites.org/2012/10/26/can-binary-star-systems-harbor-habitable-planets/
"Such stars would have similar lifetimes, dying out in approximately the same time frame, but have a habitable zone 40 percent farther away than the single star counterparts. In the case of the lower-mass stars, such periods could far supersede the Sun's lifetime, lasting as long as twenty billion years.
"Other groups have recently shown that planets close to stars of any type suffer water loss, like Venus, and atmosphere erosion, mostly early in the star’s life. These effects may occur even for planets with magnetic field protection," Mason said. "The beauty of close binaries is that their habitable zones are located farther out."
| Lajos |
Let's continue the discussion about stars, planets, and moons here.
| Atomic 440 |
Big Hello to everyone on the board. I'm a newbie to Wikis so bear with me whilst I find my feet...
I would be interested in contributing to this project although it would depend on how frequent and intensive the discussions would be. But all in all I'm happy to work with other interested parties in designing this new world. I like the order of actions as proposed by Lajos, first by looking at the bigger picture and magnifying down to the intricacies of a 'real' conworld.
Shall we agree on a timeline for having discussions? And how many people will need to sign-up before we can start creating the world?
| Olof |
Hello Atomic440, welcome on board
Frequency will vary depending on the time of the members and of the topics involved. In my experience there are always topics where only a few have much to add (varying on the nature of the topic who that will be) and others where everyone has something to say. In the first case frequency and intensity will be low while others will be high. I have no clue how it all will play out but that is part of the experiment.
| Lajos |
I'm not too fond of the idea of a timeline. That seems much too restrictive, especially considering that we have no idea how many obstacles we'll find and how much time we're going to need for the various phases.
Neither do I really want to wait to see how many others join, by the way, but I do not want to make definitive decisions yet either.
My own best (?) guess with regards to these issues is that we'll need the next few months to create a workable model of the topics mentioned in phases #1 and #2 (roughly: planet + physical geography). And that around the end of summer we'll make final decisions about these. During that process, we'll probably already start discussions about phase #3 (and perhaps even later phases).
Regarding intensiveness: that will probably wax and wane, but it is important to keep in mind that no one is obliged to participate in all discussions or to participate all the time, as long as one is willing to accept the results of discussions in which one doesn't participate. (That is, a proposal/idea is rejected if there are reasonable objections, but reasonable objections voiced weeks or months after agreement about a proposal/idea has been reached will generally be too late. Unless, of course, there is a consensus to go back on the prior decision.)
| Lajos |
In the thread "Stars, Planets, and Moons" there is some discussion about more or less exotic scenario's for the planetary setting of the new project. I want to make a more general comment about scenario's here, but I'll use some suggestions in that thread as examples.
A scenario for a conworld can differ from our known reality in three kinds of ways; that is, there are three kinds of differences:
- fundamental differences;
- apparently superficial, but really fundamental differences; and
- superficial differences.
I'm not convinced that there are any interesting differences of the third kind, however. Rather, any proposed difference of the third kind will most likely turn out be of the second upon closer investigation.
Fundamental differences screw up everything. That's the clearest summary of type (1) I can give.
An example: in the aforementioned thread, it was suggested to switch around the ratio of land and ocean from Earthly 30/70 to 70/30. Let's look into this scenario:
problem 1: explanation. Significantly more continental rock is possible only if the planet in question has a significantly different composition from Earth. That, however, would screw up everything. We would have to figure out a planetary composition that has the desired effect, then (or simultaneously, actually) figure out how physical geography and geology would work on a planet with that composition, and so forth. And we would have nothing to go on, as all science in these fields deals with Earth and the Earthly rock types. In other words, we wouldn't just be designing a world, but it's rock types, physical processes, and the science to explain these as well, and all of that from scratch. That's much more than we can handle.
problem 2: consequences. The 70/30 ratio screws up everything. No (significant) ocean circulation and dryer atmosphere screw up climate, for example. Even if we assume that the different types of rock produce equally fertile soils when weathered, there will be less weathering and less precipitation available for plants. There may not be much habitable space on land, possible even none. But the scenario would also completely screw up evolution. We can't even assume that life would start and/or that it would start in a similar way on such a planet. If it would start, it would evolve completely differently from life on Earth. Hence, we'd have to completely design the planet's plants' and animals' evolution (in addition to its climates). There is, moreover, little reason to assume that humanoid life, or even intelligent life in general, would develop on such a planet.
conclusion: The 70/30 scenario would require us to develop physical geography, geology, ecology, climatology, evolution, and so forth in all necessary details and with nothing to go on. It would be an immensely ambitious project, while it would be almost completely certain from the start that there would be no pay-off: the planet would be too different to host humanoid life.
The more general conclusion: a scenario that differs fundamentally from known Earthly reality screws up everything. Differences must be as superficial as possible, or merely cosmetic even, but even then, as suggested above, what may seem to be superficial may actually be fundamental (and thus screw up everything). The difference between the second and third category is ignorance, I fear. The only reason that some difference seems superficial, is that we don't know why it would screw up everything.
There are very many aspects in which the world of this project cannot differ much from Earth:
- it must have seasons, because otherwise there would be disastrous effects on climate, and it would have completely different plants and animals;
- it must have similar climatic variation for that same second reason;
- and related to those points: it must have had a very similar evolution, unless we want to design historical ecosystems and their evolution ourselves, which would be an insane amount of work;
- therefore, it must have very similar plants and animals;
- therefore, it must have had similar extinction level events (although those may be of a different nature);
- it must have a roughly 30/70 land/ocean ratio because otherwise physical geography and climate would have to be developed from scratch with probably too alien results;
- because it must have roughly similar climates (and also for reasons related to those underlying the previous point) it must have a very similar atmosphere;
- it must have a very similar composition, similar rock types, similar geology, and similar physical geography;
- (to go back to the first point) it must have axial tilt to cause seasons and to cause sufficient variation in wind patterns;
- it must have a moon to stabilize axial tilt at least a little bit (Edit: This has been contested. See this thread.); it may have many additional tiny moons, but it cannot have multiple middle size moons because that - depending on their distance - would destabilize axial tilt;
- …
This list probably should be much longer. In other words, what we can and should aim for is cosmetic differences that after sufficient scrutiny remain plausibly cosmetic (to us!). That is, differences that have no significant effect on physical geography, climate, evolution, and so forth. Differences, that merely make the project world look different from Earth, because anything beyond looking different will be too different: it will result in something unrecognisable, unworkable, and probably impossible. In other words, it will screw up everything.
| Dumeria |
Another important consideration is the following:
Do we want to create a setting that is comparable to earth 2015, a historical setting or perhaps a futuristic setting?
| Lajos |
We're not creating any fixed setting, I think. We'll just go through history step by step (going back when needed). We'll start millions of years ago and with a very high speed. The speed will gradually slow down, and will at some point become similar to the real "speed of time". Given the realistic premise, that will have to happen before the current state of development on Earth, I think. But when exactly will have to be decided by the participants together. (My preference would be late 19th or early 20th century.)
@Dumeria: I moved your other post to the Stars, Planets, and Moons thread, because it seemed more appropriate there.
Except, perhaps for your last point:
| quote: Dumeria |
| I have to concur with the other points (and probably many more). The planet could be little smaller or larger, could contain more or less land.... but in the end these variations have to be minor. |
| Olof |
Regarding Dumeria's suggestion for a 70-30 land-water ratio and the desire for something exotic we could do something different that has been on my mind for a while. Instead of making multiple continents I would like to explore the idea of a Pangaea, one huge continent (islands can be still plenty around it, just mainly smaller ones). We could make it so it mainly lies on one half of the planet and spans almost all the way around. You could do this by making the polar region a sea so the usable land will be mostly in the moderate zones. There could be plenty of inland seas or mediterranean type seas.
This setup would change the development because civilization developments would be more equal all around (a question to explore and debate during the project). There would also not be something like an age of exploration or colonization (only on a lower level). I like this because it removes Earth analogies we would else easily implement out of habit. We would really need to rethink how societies and cultures would interact and develop.
| Lajos |
Although I quite like this idea, I propose to wait with that decision until we're modeling plate tectonics. In that modeling process, we can stop as soon as we have a continental configuration we like. You're suggestion is something we should keep in mind in that process.
An alternative: what if there are two large continents, and somehow dinosaurs survived on one of them?
| Dumeria |
I like this idea Olof.
| Olof |
| quote: Lajos |
| Although I quite like this idea, I propose to wait with that decision until we're modeling plate tectonics. In that modeling process, we can stop as soon as we have a continental configuration we like. You're suggestion is something we should keep in mind in that process. |
Yes, the Pangeaa could also be an end-result of a plate tectonics process where it was once apart and then rejoined.
| quote: Lajos |
| An alternative: what if there are two large continents, and somehow dinosaurs survived on one of them? |
I don't really see any interesting scenarios. If humans would have developed on the dinosaur continent they would have remained primitive and that would be dull. Besides that we know very little about dinosaur (group) behavior to make realistic predictions about domestication (more unlikely than likely). Besides that, I prefer to avoid simple 1-on-1 configurations because that automatically triggers power-blocks or empires.
| Lajos |
You're probably right.
| Dumeria |
Islands the size of New Zealand can already cause very different species to develop (haast's eagle for example).
Dinosaurs most likely showed some degree of parental care. This is known both from direct fossil evidence and comparison to their living relatives. It isn't that unreasonable to suppose that certain species of dinosaurs would have been domesticable.
I would prefer a pangaea setup with various islands for possible variation.
Would a single continent lead to higher mountains?
| Lajos |
| quote: Dumeria |
| Would a single continent lead to higher mountains? |
No. The Himalayas are pretty much the maximum.
| Dumeria |
A sort of Olympus Mons would be interesting, 25km high, just like on Mars.
| Olof |
| quote: Dumeria |
| Islands the size of New Zealand can already cause very different species to develop (haast's eagle for example). |
I would prefer to avoid large islands (except perhaps inside the Pangaea). No larger than Ireland (just a random pick here) and not too many. My reason for this is that some members of a project have a tendency to place themselves in a safe location where their nation/culture can resist outside influence easier (like a Britain or Japan) while still influence or do power play elsewhere. I prefer to reduce that sort of position. If a position of relative isolation is chosen then that should also reduce the chance of developing a strong civilization or sphere of influence.
This may sound strange or odd, but to make this a really different kind of project I would like to remove certain variables that would mimick too easy Earth analogies. I want to challenge the members to expand their horizon and into really thinking about consequences and interaction with neighboring cultures.
| Lajos |
| quote: Dumeria |
| A sort of Olympus Mons would be interesting, 25km high, just like on Mars. |
That's impossible.
| quote: Olof |
| I would prefer to avoid large islands (except perhaps inside the Pangaea). |
If the continents have been moving together in recent geological time, then it is unlikely that there are (large) islands on the outside.
| quote: Olof |
| to make this a really different kind of project I would like to remove certain variables that would mimic too easy Earth analogies. |
Such as?
(I'm not necessarily against an idea like this, as long as it the difference in question is not of the kind that screws up everything, and has more or less predictable consequences.)
| Olof |
| quote: Lajos | ||
Such as? (I'm not necessarily against an idea like this, as long as it the difference in question is not of the kind that screws up everything, and has more or less predictable consequences.) |
I already named a few:
- 2 large continents of equal footing that would tend to form power blocks/empires
- Several minor continents that would be less developed and populated and allow an expansionist period for many nations to explore and colonize
- Large islands at the edge of the civilized region that allow protection of own culture while do allowing to expand their own
| Dumeria |
| quote: Lajos | ||
That's impossible. |
I'm well aware of that, as far as I read 12km high would be the maximum range of mountain height.
| quote: Olof |
| I would prefer to avoid large islands (except perhaps inside the Pangaea). No larger than Ireland (just a random pick here) and not too many. My reason for this is that some members of a project have a tendency to place themselves in a safe location where their nation/culture can resist outside influence easier (like a Britain or Japan) while still influence or do power play elsewhere. I prefer to reduce that sort of position. If a position of relative isolation is chosen then that should also reduce the chance of developing a strong civilization or sphere of influence. |
A strong civilization on an isolated island the size of Ireland is virtually impossible. It is highly unlikely that required plant types and domesticable animals to create sufficient abundance are present.
Large islands close to the coast offer a different situation though. (Japan/Britain)
| Olof |
I was talking about close to the coast in all cases as even large isolated islands will have trouble building a civilization. There are few examples of large isolated islands on Earth and the best one, New Zealand, did not develop one.
| Matt |
I am also interested in this project. I see there is already quite some discussion going on here. I will put this discussion in my followed threads.
| Lajos |
Welcome Matt.
The ongoing discussion is still in its earliest phase. We're not really deciding anything yet; just clarifying limitations and discussing some basic ideas.
| Dumeria |
I'm glad to see there's some interest in this project. The one big landmass idea is agreeable for me.
How likely is it to create a single large landmass with tectonics?
| Lajos |
Very. Continents drift together and then apart again, after which the process keeps being repeated. On Earth a new supercontinent will form in a few 100 mln years.
| Matt |
I think a single landmass like Pangea would be interesting for climates. There will be much more dryer areas than we have on today's earth.
| Olof |
| quote: Matt |
| I think a single landmass like Pangea would be interesting for climates. There will be much more dryer areas than we have on today's earth. |
That's what we will have to figure out. If we figure out where the most influx of rain can happen we can make sure there are no mountains from blocking them reaching deep inside. As a compensation you could add inland seas that are still connected to the main sea or huge lakes that are fed by rivers from the wetter areas.
| Lajos |
We have to figure out where mountains are before we can figure out climate. Mountains depend on plate tectonics, climate depends a.o. on geomorphology and thus on plate tectonics. Nevertheless, obvious climate effects may be a reason to prefer a particular phase in plate shifts as the current era, or to make small changes in plate tectonics. What we cannot do, however, is just move some mountains because we don't like their effects.
It is not necessarily the case, by the way that a supercontinent is dryer. That depends very much on its shape and other factors. Let's see what we get out of the plate tectonics modeling. The first thing we'll need to know for that process, by the way, is what the previous supercontinent looked like. So if anyone wants to propose a nice shape, feel free to do so.
By the way, there are two participants who have mentioned to me in private that they will join the project later because they are too busy right now.