Question The benefit of being homo sapiens?

Looking at the whole Whateley universe with a bird's-eye view, it appears that, taking into account time and the raw principle of "survival of the fittest", plain unaugmented homo sapiens is on the way to eventually becoming the "disabled" of the future. Mutants appear - most of the time - to be faster/better/stronger/smarter/more capable than humans, with the main disadvantages appearing to be lack of social acceptance, and emotional issues due to lingering "humanity". While the former could be overcome by the eventual creation of mutant "nations" or mutant-friendly territories by mutants, the latter seems to be a teething problem as mutants are relatively new in the greater scheme of things and most of them still manifest their powers in human families. It appears to me that there is really no benefit to being regular homo sapiens except a time-dependent case of being the larger percentage of the population, society, and government.

Am I wrong, and is there a place for regular humans in the Whateley universe besides becoming the new "differently-abled"?

There where other species of homo-somethings on the planet before, and now there is only Homo-sapiens.

All other things being equal, we seem to have the "we'll survive" genes all sewn up.

Homo sapiens sapiens may have non-obvious competitive advantages in comparison to Homo sapiens mutandis (mutants are at best a subspecies rather than a separate species, since they can easily interbreed).
For instance, you will see now and then somebody mistakenly "pointing out" that humans have no particular physical advantage over other animals -- generally speaking, we are not fastest, nor strongest, nor quickest to breed, nor fiercest, nor equipped with bio-weaponry either of an offensive (claws, fangs, horns) or defensive (thick hide) quality. But, that's a false statement, because there's a trait where humans are really, really good: long-distance running. There's a reason we still commemorate the story of Phidippides, and not, say, Phidippides' horse -- Phidippides ran from Athens to Sparta and back on foot, because lacking any Pony Express-style changing horse stations on the way, a human on foot can actually maintain a higher average speed than one on horseback over long distances.
Similarly, the disadvantages of the MGC may not be obvious, but they are probably there. We know of one: lowered mental stability -- there are a number of mental diseases associated with mutation.

It may be that due to that, mutant-heavy societies are inherently unstable, in the sense that they are highly likely to fragment. That is, you are unlikely to see a mutant-heavy country (meaning, that mutants are a large enough group to be noticeable in terms of, say, election demographics) rise to the prominence of, say, Italy -- any internal tensions will be amplified by the presence of (powerful, mentally unstable) mutants, and before long we will see a civil war and either the mutants kill enough of each other that the situation reverts, or the country goes the way of Yugoslavia. Probably both.

Sir Lee wrote: Homo sapiens sapiens may have non-obvious competitive advantages in comparison to Homo sapiens mutandis (mutants are at best a subspecies rather than a separate species, since they can easily interbreed).
For instance, you will see now and then somebody mistakenly "pointing out" that humans have no particular physical advantage over other animals -- generally speaking, we are not fastest, nor strongest, nor quickest to breed, nor fiercest, nor equipped with bio-weaponry either of an offensive (claws, fangs, horns) or defensive (thick hide) quality. But, that's a false statement, because there's a trait where humans are really, really good: long-distance running. There's a reason we still commemorate the story of Phidippides, and not, say, Phidippides' horse -- Phidippides ran from Athens to Sparta and back on foot, because lacking any Pony Express-style changing horse stations on the way, a human on foot can actually maintain a higher average speed than one on horseback over long distances.
Similarly, the disadvantages of the MGC may not be obvious, but they are probably there. We know of one: lowered mental stability -- there are a number of mental diseases associated with mutation.

It may be that due to that, mutant-heavy societies are inherently unstable, in the sense that they are highly likely to fragment. That is, you are unlikely to see a mutant-heavy country (meaning, that mutants are a large enough group to be noticeable in terms of, say, election demographics) rise to the prominence of, say, Italy -- any internal tensions will be amplified by the presence of (powerful, mentally unstable) mutants, and before long we will see a civil war and either the mutants kill enough of each other that the situation reverts, or the country goes the way of Yugoslavia. Probably both.

I like your analysis, though there are a lot of maybes.

Ahimsa wrote: Mutants appear - most of the time - to be faster/better/stronger/smarter/more capable than humans, with the main disadvantages appearing to be lack of social acceptance, and emotional issues due to lingering "humanity".

Except that for every Kodiak, there's a Miasma or Kamuro or many of the Thornies, probably more than one. Not all turn out to be "faster/better/stronger/smarter/more capable." Especially the more capable part., even if they get some of the faster/better/stronger/smarter part.

Consider an Exemplar 1 is worse off than your (slightly above) average baseline, and can't actually physically improve.

Consider that the out of training and older Dragonslayers beat the crap out of the Lamplighter.

Also, Dr. Amazing, Sensei Ito, Journeyman, and others all "compete" with mutants on a fairly even basis. Plus in theory anyone can learn magic.

There was also some chatter about how low-level mutants are gonna be outclassed by good powered armors... Also BIT and Regens can't get nano-upgrades and stuff...

High level EX-es can't get drunk, etc.

in order to become a new speces Mutants have to breed true. So far in the whateley universe this apepars to be inconsitant. We see some Whateley students with powers that are a variation on that of one of their parents but we also see others whos powers are completly unrelated. SO the question is are we going to see subgroups in which the mutations become stable and predictably hereditary?

There are a few subpopulations in Whateley that may have already done this:

We do have the Shide re-emerging and presumably they are going to breed true (though we have not see this yet) and their children will be born full blood shide. Which begs the question of can you get someone who is born a shide undergo mutation?

The Drow may be another one, though the lack of any male drow could prevent this.

And finally as of G2 we have the various human animal hybrids who appear to be seperate species with viable breeding populations, and definatly do breed true. Incidently we know that some of them also cary the mutant genes, and can be subject to mutation.

End result is we are well on the way towards a future with mutliple seperate inteligent speices sharing the planet.

Likely Sidhe can't mutate, 'cause no Metagenes? MGC is a human or human-derivative only thing... ... The Bloodline apparently got some Truebreeds?

Valentine wrote: Except that for every Kodiak, there's a Miasma or Kamuro or many of the Thornies, probably more than one. Not all turn out to be "faster/better/stronger/smarter/more capable." Especially the more capable part., even if they get some of the faster/better/stronger/smarter part.

Consider an Exemplar 1 is worse off than your (slightly above) average baseline, and can't actually physically improve.

Consider that the out of training and older Dragonslayers beat the crap out of the Lamplighter.

Also, Dr. Amazing, Sensei Ito, Journeyman, and others all "compete" with mutants on a fairly even basis. Plus in theory anyone can learn magic.

But even an Exemplar 0 has advantages over an unaugmented human: "The mutant exhibits some of the precursor abilities commonly associated with the trait but doesn't actually express the trait in a usable way." - wiki. To me that indicates straight out that they are slightly "better" than a plain human. Also, the Dragonslayers were trained and nowhere near the average human being. Likewise with Sensei Ito, etc. The same with learning magic. If people have to learn magic to compete at the same level, then those that do not learn magic will be the new "disabled".

Also, Hawthorne has nowhere near as many residents as the rest of the Whateley campus, which indicates that, according to what we currently know, the number of "difficult to handle" mutations are not anywhere near even on par with the manageable ones.

Ahimsa wrote: Also, Hawthorne has nowhere near as many residents as the rest of the Whateley campus, which indicates that, according to what we currently know, the number of "difficult to handle" mutations are not anywhere near even on par with the manageable ones.

The numbers are skewed by the point of view of the stories, and many more cases of GSD probably occur outside Whateley that either don't survive the mutation or don't survive long enough with the mutation to face angry mobs. The students that make it to Whateley are few and lucky, and should not be taken as a representation of the mutant situation in the world at large. If you accept that there is a significant percentage of mutants that die within two months of manifesting for one reason or another, this definitely counts as a drawback to being a mutant.

GrimGrendel wrote: If you accept that there is a significant percentage of mutants that die within two months of manifesting for one reason or another, this definitely counts as a drawback to being a mutant.

Where do you get this supposition from? There are plenty of drawbacks to being a mutant, as Sir Lee pointed out mental being the most obvious of them, but there is not this kind of death rate from GSD, or anything even remotely like it.

What's missed here is that the vast majority of mutants have low powers and live among baselines without showing any signs of being a mutant. We see this in some of Morpheus' works, like Round and Round - Pinball's partner. In Mama's Boy, Setup doesn't appear to be powerful at all; she just tried to live a normal life.

Of the mutants, a small percentage have powers that they can't hide, and a smaller percentage have GSD.

As Elrod said, we are dealing with the upper section of the curve at Whateley.
Dragonsfyres's sister is a gageteer-1. Whoop.

Heavy GSD tends to occur more among the higher power levels. And low-moderate GSD, with no obvious powers, can be mistaken for a more 'normal' abnormality or medical condition. Sure, the medical tests will show whats really gone on, but the man in the street doesnt.

E. E. Nalley wrote: Where do you get this supposition from? There are plenty of drawbacks to being a mutant, as Sir Lee pointed out mental being the most obvious of them, but there is not this kind of death rate from GSD, or anything even remotely like it.

Headcanon I suppose. With how agressive most of the baseline, Humanity First! and MCO are toward them in a majority of stories, I always just assumed that a lot of the more visible mutants wouldn't survive very long during that confusing period after manifestation. As for the potential GSD cases that die from the change, they'd be quickly covered up by family and the MCO and never make the news, meaning nobody in universe would truly know the numbers. I mean, that's what made sense to me. Thanks to point out that it's not canon.

Ahimsa wrote: Looking at the whole Whateley universe with a bird's-eye view, it appears that, taking into account time and the raw principle of "survival of the fittest", plain unaugmented homo sapiens is on the way to eventually becoming the "disabled" of the future.

From the vantage point of The Braeburn Report , H. sapiens is on the way to becoming the "extinct" of the future - just like H. neanderthalensis and company. Or not - no model's perfect, nor any sampling/testing procedure (IRL, National Genographic estimates 2.6% of my genome better matches Denisovans than Neanderthals (2.1%), or everybody else.)

One of the advantages that "baseline" humans have is that we're still the primary breeding population. No matter how successful a mutant is in some areas, if they can't produce successfully-breeding offspring, they're a genetic dead-end. So what? There's plenty more potential parents where that one came from. Racially "pure" offspring as a breeding pool may still be doomed, if for no other reason than the fact that our species will try just about anything with just about anything (We're really "adaptive" that way - I didn't get those archaic genes without someone having gotten adventurous!)

I know the original point was about unaugmented Homo sapiens, but where do you draw that line? Eyeglasses, dentures, prosthetic limbs, cybereyes? Instead, I'd say that another advantage stemming from the more child-friendly (?) uses of our adaptability is that most transhuman tech is going to be made to work for our basic bipedal form. Economy of scale does NOT favor the population outliers, mutant or otherwise. We're probably also cheaper to hire and retain than mutants. So if those mass-produced tech augmentations turn out to open up better pay, a better quality of life, or even more fun with the pay one has, they could spread into the general population faster than Captain Condom's paternity suits. Not unaugmented, but still H. sapiens.

It's also been noted above that (at least as adults) this generation's mutants are highly resistant to biotechnical augmentations or changes, compared to baselines. Those alterations that have taken, haven't all turned out so well. Granted, it's very unlikely that a species-level threat would require an equally-massive genetic solution, but you don't want to be a manifested mutant when that disaster hits.

Then again, maybe it's all just an undocumented feature of Homo sp. genetics, that once the population can support this sort of adaptive radiation, it proceeds to do just that. No "winners" or "losers", just a new combination with a few added features. Homo sapiens may still end up with a random subpopulation of catboys/girls, but it's only a gross structural dystrophy if you're going it right, right?

Astrodragon wrote: As Elrod said, we are dealing with the upper section of the curve at Whateley.
Dragonsfyres's sister is a gageteer-1. Whoop.

Heavy GSD tends to occur more among the higher power levels. And low-moderate GSD, with no obvious powers, can be mistaken for a more 'normal' abnormality or medical condition. Sure, the medical tests will show whats really gone on, but the man in the street doesnt.

Actually, I think the readers focus more on the upper curve than the writers. Remember that all the Underdogs are at the bottom of that curve, and Aquerna is really the only one described with any GSD. There are 15 named underdogs, and we don't know if that is all of them, plus all the low powered Devisors and Gadgeteers that aren't Underdogs, so it's not that Whateley doesn't have its share of the bottom.

I don't think that Aquerna's adaptations even count as GSD, since they don't affect her appearance. Sure, she has lighter bones, stronger muscles and tougher nails -- but they still look normal.

Valentine wrote:

Astrodragon wrote: As Elrod said, we are dealing with the upper section of the curve at Whateley.
Dragonsfyres's sister is a gageteer-1. Whoop.

Heavy GSD tends to occur more among the higher power levels. And low-moderate GSD, with no obvious powers, can be mistaken for a more 'normal' abnormality or medical condition. Sure, the medical tests will show whats really gone on, but the man in the street doesnt.

Actually, I think the readers focus more on the upper curve than the writers. Remember that all the Underdogs are at the bottom of that curve, and Aquerna is really the only one described with any GSD. There are 15 named underdogs, and we don't know if that is all of them, plus all the low powered Devisors and Gadgeteers that aren't Underdogs, so it's not that Whateley doesn't have its share of the bottom.

The Underdogs are the bottom of the curve - for Whateley.
Not for manifested mutants as a whole. A few might be, like Kamuro, but many are not.
Just because a power doesn't have an obviously powerful used doesnt mean its at the weak end of the mutant curve.

elrodw wrote: What's missed here is that the vast majority of mutants have low powers and live among baselines without showing any signs of being a mutant. We see this in some of Morpheus' works, like Round and Round - Pinball's partner. In Mama's Boy, Setup doesn't appear to be powerful at all; she just tried to live a normal life.

Of the mutants, a small percentage have powers that they can't hide, and a smaller percentage have GSD.

I understand this, but lack of visible signs does not mean that there are no benefits of the mutation as such, hence my reasoning that mutation is largely more beneficial to the subjects than being a normal human. Thus, eventually, like Sylvia Plath's mushrooms, "We shall by morning inherit the earth. Our foot's in the door."

null0trooper wrote: One of the advantages that "baseline" humans have is that we're still the primary breeding population. No matter how successful a mutant is in some areas, if they can't produce successfully-breeding offspring, they're a genetic dead-end. So what? There's plenty more potential parents where that one came from. Racially "pure" offspring as a breeding pool may still be doomed, if for no other reason than the fact that our species will try just about anything with just about anything (We're really "adaptive" that way - I didn't get those archaic genes without someone having gotten adventurous!)

According to http://whateleyacademy.net/index.php/forum/review-session-concepts/1203-on-the-heritability-of-mutant-powers#22033 there is nothing to suggest that mutant genes have any less chance of surviving conception than any other genes.

null0trooper wrote: I know the original point was about unaugmented Homo sapiens, but where do you draw that line? Eyeglasses, dentures, prosthetic limbs, cybereyes? Instead, I'd say that another advantage stemming from the more child-friendly (?) uses of our adaptability is that most transhuman tech is going to be made to work for our basic bipedal form. Economy of scale does NOT favor the population outliers, mutant or otherwise. We're probably also cheaper to hire and retain than mutants. So if those mass-produced tech augmentations turn out to open up better pay, a better quality of life, or even more fun with the pay one has, they could spread into the general population faster than Captain Condom's paternity suits. Not unaugmented, but still H. sapiens.

When I said unaugmented, I meant that term in the sense of not exceeding the capabilities of average humans, i.e. average eyesight, four limbs, etc. obviously including all naturally occurring exceptions by birth. Glasses, prosthetic limbs, etc are all meant to give members of society back something that they are "missing" as compared to the rest.

Ahimsa wrote: According to http://whateleyacademy.net/index.php/forum/review-session-concepts/1203-on-the-heritability-of-mutant-powers#22033 there is nothing to suggest that mutant genes have any less chance of surviving conception than any other genes.

But first, they have to take part in that conception! Barring artificial insemination, some mutants just aren't going to get that far with another person of the appropriate sex.

Ahimsa wrote: When I said unaugmented, I meant that term in the sense of not exceeding the capabilities of average humans, i.e. average eyesight, four limbs, etc. obviously including all naturally occurring exceptions by birth. Glasses, prosthetic limbs, etc are all meant to give members of society back something that they are "missing" as compared to the rest.

That's the approximately the current state of prosthetics and assistive technologies in our world. That doesn't mean that the state of the art cannot (or even does not already) exceed that state in the Whateley Universe. Replacing or augmenting body parts with prosthetics that have a superior capability would still not constitute a new species, because the underlying genetics remain the same. The only thing that really would be expected to change is the cultural context around such aspects of transhumanism.

null0trooper wrote:

Ahimsa wrote: When I said unaugmented, I meant that term in the sense of not exceeding the capabilities of average humans, i.e. average eyesight, four limbs, etc. obviously including all naturally occurring exceptions by birth. Glasses, prosthetic limbs, etc are all meant to give members of society back something that they are "missing" as compared to the rest.

That's the approximately the current state of prosthetics and assistive technologies in our world. That doesn't mean that the state of the art cannot (or even does not already) exceed that state in the Whateley Universe. Replacing or augmenting body parts with prosthetics that have a superior capability would still not constitute a new species, because the underlying genetics remain the same. The only thing that really would be expected to change is the cultural context around such aspects of transhumanism.

We know that the prosthetic/cybernetic tech is far in advance of the real world, at least for some people. Dr. Yablonski has cybernetic parts, Techno Devil has an artificial eye, Gizmatic, the Cybertribe, etc all have artificial parts, one of which saved the world from nuclear war.

null0trooper wrote: That's the approximately the current state of prosthetics and assistive technologies in our world. That doesn't mean that the state of the art cannot (or even does not already) exceed that state in the Whateley Universe. Replacing or augmenting body parts with prosthetics that have a superior capability would still not constitute a new species, because the underlying genetics remain the same. The only thing that really would be expected to change is the cultural context around such aspects of transhumanism.

Taking your point further, the only way cultural context could meaningfully change without exacerbating class differences would be if those augmentations were actually added by default to all to give each the same start in life. Any who did not have them (and, as such, were unaugmented) would be "disabled".

Ahimsa wrote:

null0trooper wrote: That's the approximately the current state of prosthetics and assistive technologies in our world. That doesn't mean that the state of the art cannot (or even does not already) exceed that state in the Whateley Universe. Replacing or augmenting body parts with prosthetics that have a superior capability would still not constitute a new species, because the underlying genetics remain the same. The only thing that really would be expected to change is the cultural context around such aspects of transhumanism.

Taking your point further, the only way cultural context could meaningfully change without exacerbating class differences would be if those augmentations were actually added by default to all to give each the same start in life. Any who did not have them (and, as such, were unaugmented) would be "disabled".

It could be that we're using functionally different meanings for "disabled".

It seems that you are using the term as a catchall category for anyone who cannot perform any or all tasks, chosen (by whom?) to be socially valuable, within a reasonable range of the population median.

I would not use the term except where such performance deficits significantly impair a person's life in one or more broad categories of life activities. Furthermore, it doesn't necessarily matter whether the overall population agree whether impairment exists or not, unless actual laws are being broken as a consequence.

E.g., If my livelihood does not depend on juggling tanks, my inability to do so is not a disability.

I've been holding off on this, gauging the waters, but now I feel I must finally post.

The benefit or evolutionary advantage to being a homo-sapiens, when you get right down to it, is hands and speech, which lead to tool use.

Now I know what you're going to say: "But mutants and other powered individuals can do that too, and in many cases, they can do it better!" and you're right. But humans don't need to do it better, they just need to do it well enough.

To put this in perspective, you're talking about a population that vastly outnumbers mutant kind, a sleeping giant that is not yet fully awakened. Prod the bear enough, and you go to war with a brutal species that thinks nothing of exterminating other species to keep itself on top (an example, the Neandertals, was mentioned earlier in this post).

I'm not bashing the species, they all do it. It seems to be a large part of how species on earth are selected and we humans just happen to be on top. Humans are a brutal and clever species that are more than capable of trapping Tenyo, nuking Fey, or just plain out crazy-ing Jade, and they have access to some pretty good tech all their own in the Whateley Universe.

Don't count them out.When they are threatened with a mass extinction event, or realize that they are? the results for any species attempting to supplant them won't be pretty.

If I might throw in something from Nietzsche?

Man is something to be surpassed

Let's get real, people: is there any of us on this board so full of love for our fellow Man that they haven't stepped back, looked around and said, 'WTF was God THINKING?'

Bek D Corbin wrote: If I might throw in something from Nietzsche?

Man is something to be surpassed

Let's get real, people: is there any of us on this board so full of love for our fellow Man that they haven't stepped back, looked around and said, 'WTF was God THINKING?'

More than once; it's why I came to certain conclusions about God that I will not air for fear of sparking a massive debate. As it stands, humans are on top on our planet because they deserve to be. Not because of some moral high ground or decision, but because they have proven their fitness by clawing to the top and staying there. mutants in any such world, well as powerful as they are, the burden of proof is on them.

I believe that homo sapiens largest benefit is that we are, as a species, NOT too specialised. We can adapt to a wide variety of environments, or devise equipment that allows us to survive well enough. The animal kingdom has numerous examples of where over-specialisation can place a whole species at risk because just one environmental factor changes. The classic example being the giant panda because it can only eat one food plant and is very slow/difficult to reproduce.

I'm a former motor mechanic and, as such, I regular worked on and even lifted vehicles much larger and heavier than myself. Because I had the use of properly designed and built lifting equipment - not because I was superstrong. When used correctly the human brain is a wonderfully creative thing, capable creating things that are a wonder to behold. It is a very sad thing, however, that during far too much of our history that creativity has been turned to finding more effective ways to kill more and more other people.

John.

Nagrij wrote: I've been holding off on this, gauging the waters, but now I feel I must finally post.

The benefit or evolutionary advantage to being a homo-sapiens, when you get right down to it, is hands and speech, which lead to tool use.

Now I know what you're going to say: "But mutants and other powered individuals can do that too, and in many cases, they can do it better!" and you're right. But humans don't need to do it better, they just need to do it well enough.

To put this in perspective, you're talking about a population that vastly outnumbers mutant kind, a sleeping giant that is not yet fully awakened. Prod the bear enough, and you go to war with a brutal species that thinks nothing of exterminating other species to keep itself on top (an example, the Neandertals, was mentioned earlier in this post).

I'm not bashing the species, they all do it. It seems to be a large part of how species on earth are selected and we humans just happen to be on top. Humans are a brutal and clever species that are more than capable of trapping Tenyo, nuking Fey, or just plain out crazy-ing Jade, and they have access to some pretty good tech all their own in the Whateley Universe.

Don't count them out.When they are threatened with a mass extinction event, or realize that they are? the results for any species attempting to supplant them won't be pretty.

Does this mean that humankind truly has no advantages over mutants except numbers and savagery?

Numbers, savagery, society and technology.

Society and technology have long been humanities greatest advantages.

Society allows us to specialise and be greater then the sum of our parts.

Technology has allowed us to overcome the weaknesses of our humanity, and the barriers of our environment.

Phoenix Spiritus wrote: Numbers, savagery, society and technology.

Society and technology have long been humanities greatest advantages.

Society allows us to specialise and be greater then the sum of our parts.

Technology has allowed us to overcome the weaknesses of our humanity, and the barriers of our environment.

And a fanatical devotion to the Pope...


From my understanding in most cases Whateley Tech isn't that much more powerful than real world tech. Yes it has lots of stuff we don't (energy weaponry, force fields, powered armor, etc), but in most cases real world weapons are just as powerful. Fighting the top end mutants, Jimmy T, Tennyo, Sirrush, Diz, or whatever the top end adults are would be costly, but eventually sufficient force or chemicals could be found to stop them with real world weaponry.

Plus with a few exceptions, the mutants have to sleep.

In addition to the above-mentioned responses to your post, I feel you shouldn't rule out savagery; it is, after all, a perfectly adapted evolutionary trait all top end animals on the planet possess. Even the herbivores; ever seen an elephant charge? Even deer aren't as defenseless as one might think from watching Bambi.

Bearing in mind that for mutant powers there's always a cost, some sort of drawback. The biology of many mutants is more demanding, requiring more energy to fuel their powers and therefore the vast amounts of food that energizers (and others) can put away. Granted, in these days of modern excess it doesn't have as great an impact as it would have in a more primitive/non-existent society where "survival of the fittest"-styled evolution would have heavily punished them with such things as food scarcity.

And bringing it back to that mention of modern excess, it nullifies many of the classic forces driving evolution. In this setting, humans are spawning mutants that then have higher odds of spawning mutants themselves, yes. But there are no particular pressures for or against either baseline mutants or mutants - until society creates them. While tensions in the stories have peaked, it seems to me that it would take systematic eradication (an all-out race war) to create any real evolutionary pressure on the populations of either form.

One high school will hold all of the school age mutants in a country of 300+ million people. The mutants are not taking over the county. They are a rounding error in population numbers. When mutants are a percentage not a fraction of a percent of high school students then it will be time to worry.

sam105 wrote: One high school will hold all of the school age mutants in a country of 300+ million people. The mutants are not taking over the county. They are a rounding error in population numbers. When mutants are a percentage not a fraction of a percent of high school students then it will be time to worry.

Um, not quite.

Whateley is only a small FRACTION of mutant students; it is for those with exceptional circumstances, such as extreme powers they need to learn to control or those with significant family/community issues that leaves them with nowhere to go, and even then, it'd be more likely that hero groups would find a 'foster' location for them than pack them off to Whateley.

What you see in the canon fiction AT Whateley is the small group who go there. You have to note in canon tales that it's stated that many mutant children don't need to go there.

sam105 wrote: One high school will hold all of the school age mutants in a country of 300+ million people. The mutants are not taking over the county. They are a rounding error in population numbers. When mutants are a percentage not a fraction of a percent of high school students then it will be time to worry.

Just for an example: The Cadet Crusader Cadets weren't at Whateley. Glow isn't. From Jade and 'Shine's intro stories we know that not even all that apply get in. And from Nacht's Christmas story and the Silver Ghost stories that not even all mutants or other powered people know that it exists. The two yahoos that Jade beat up in Dunwich didn't know about the school, and they would have been the right age to be alumni.

Ahimsa wrote:

Nagrij wrote: I've been holding off on this, gauging the waters, but now I feel I must finally post.

The benefit or evolutionary advantage to being a homo-sapiens, when you get right down to it, is hands and speech, which lead to tool use.

Now I know what you're going to say: "But mutants and other powered individuals can do that too, and in many cases, they can do it better!" and you're right. But humans don't need to do it better, they just need to do it well enough.

To put this in perspective, you're talking about a population that vastly outnumbers mutant kind, a sleeping giant that is not yet fully awakened. Prod the bear enough, and you go to war with a brutal species that thinks nothing of exterminating other species to keep itself on top (an example, the Neandertals, was mentioned earlier in this post).

I'm not bashing the species, they all do it. It seems to be a large part of how species on earth are selected and we humans just happen to be on top. Humans are a brutal and clever species that are more than capable of trapping Tenyo, nuking Fey, or just plain out crazy-ing Jade, and they have access to some pretty good tech all their own in the Whateley Universe.

Don't count them out.When they are threatened with a mass extinction event, or realize that they are? the results for any species attempting to supplant them won't be pretty.

Does this mean that humankind truly has no advantages over mutants except numbers and savagery?

Like real mutations, some are strictly better, some are strictly worse, and many are somewhere in between. The difference between WU mutants and real mutations is how extreme and dramatic the changes are.

Ametros wrote: Bearing in mind that for mutant powers there's always a cost, some sort of drawback. The biology of many mutants is more demanding, requiring more energy to fuel their powers and therefore the vast amounts of food that energizers (and others) can put away. Granted, in these days of modern excess it doesn't have as great an impact as it would have in a more primitive/non-existent society where "survival of the fittest"-styled evolution would have heavily punished them with such things as food scarcity.

Exactly. This kind of thing is why humans survived the Sundering but the Sidhe died. They require magic to live, but we do not. Nor do we need extra-planar energy sources, worship, virgin blood, or any other weird shit. This isn't necessarily true of mutants. That means there may be locations or events where certain types of mutants cannot survive, but where baselines would be unaffected. Wherever mutants get their power (and it isn't always from food), it's clearly sufficient to sustain the several thousand mutants who currently exist... but what happens when you have a million times as many mutants trying to pull from those sources? It's not unreasonable to guess that there are limits to how many of the more interesting sorts of mutants can survive, and that these limits would naturally restrict their population. Even with the mutants who just need mundane energy sources like food, it's possible they're cheating during the manifestation process and that environmental pressures could then restrict the rate of manifestation.

And this is all ignoring the fact that "mutants" are not some natural result of human evolution. Something or someone is causing mutants to exist, and we don't know what their limits and agenda are. Perhaps one benefit of being a baseline human is not having that thing's hooks in you.

Phoenix Spiritus wrote: Numbers, savagery, society and technology.

Society and technology have long been humanities greatest advantages.

Society allows us to specialise and be greater then the sum of our parts.

Technology has allowed us to overcome the weaknesses of our humanity, and the barriers of our environment.

I will give you society, but technology is at least on par and available to all sides.

Ametros wrote: Bearing in mind that for mutant powers there's always a cost, some sort of drawback. The biology of many mutants is more demanding, requiring more energy to fuel their powers and therefore the vast amounts of food that energizers (and others) can put away. Granted, in these days of modern excess it doesn't have as great an impact as it would have in a more primitive/non-existent society where "survival of the fittest"-styled evolution would have heavily punished them with such things as food scarcity.

Thank you for this. Food scarcity, especially, would be a problem in countries like India and China where the population is so high. Or in many places in Africa and the Arctic and Antarctic where being someone with a big appetite can be difficult. Maybe this explains the shortage of mutants there. Phew, imagine being an Energiser and dying of starvation...

Ahimsa wrote:

Phoenix Spiritus wrote: Numbers, savagery, society and technology.

Society and technology have long been humanities greatest advantages.

Society allows us to specialise and be greater then the sum of our parts.

Technology has allowed us to overcome the weaknesses of our humanity, and the barriers of our environment.

I will give you society, but technology is at least on par and available to all sides.

Actually, no it is not. Technology is on the side of the rich and powerful, and most particularly, the richest and most powerful society, for they have the time, money and resources to develop it, and then, most importantly, the time money and industrial base to build and field the latest and greatest technology.

There is a reason the United States is the most feared military power on the planet.

Phoenix Spiritus wrote:

Ahimsa wrote:

Phoenix Spiritus wrote: Numbers, savagery, society and technology.

Society and technology have long been humanities greatest advantages.

Society allows us to specialise and be greater then the sum of our parts.

Technology has allowed us to overcome the weaknesses of our humanity, and the barriers of our environment.

I will give you society, but technology is at least on par and available to all sides.

Actually, no it is not. Technology is on the side of the rich and powerful, and most particularly, the richest and most powerful society, for they have the time, money and resources to develop it, and then, most importantly, the time money and industrial base to build and field the latest and greatest technology.

There is a reason the United States is the most feared military power on the planet.

Yes, but rich and powerful are adjectives that apply to humans as well as mutants, unless mutants are somehow much less fortunate financially. Not to mention devisors and gadgeteers can create their own technologies, with things like Gizmatic's creations being available to all.

Yes, but the humans massively outnumber mutants, which means that a disproportionate amount of the societies, especially the rich ones, are in human hands.

The mutant might have advantages, but the shear numbers of humans, not to mention the longevity of their societies, mean that the vast majority of resources remain in their hands.

And with technology, especially when wanting to build and field large numbers of some technology, these that have the resources have the trump cards.

Phoenix Spiritus wrote: Yes, but the humans massively outnumber mutants, which means that a disproportionate amount of the societies, especially the rich ones, are in human hands.

The mutant might have advantages, but the shear numbers of humans, not to mention the longevity of their societies, mean that the vast majority of resources remain in their hands.

And with technology, especially when wanting to build and field large numbers of some technology, these that have the resources have the trump cards.

So: numbers, savagery, environmentally-optimised resource usage, and resources.

Humanity's capacity for reason (and thus compassion, understanding, compromise, etc.) sets them apart from the rest of the animal kingdom. While mutants may be "better" than humans in the raw physical and mental aspects, I feel that it is debatable whether any mutations actually make it easier or more difficult for mutants to deal with the emotional and spiritual aspects of existence. In most cases in the Whateley universe, the mutations and their resultant effects on the mutants themselves seem to raise more questions than provide answers. Humanity has had millennia to deal with the limitations of their advantages and the formation of their world-view, and perhaps this is another hard-to-quantify advantage.

I'll go back to my original point... I have serious doubts that a mutant-heavy society would be stable. So, while mutant-dominated societies may be stable (even if it's the "stability" of a dictatorship, like Karedonia or Wallachia), they are still composed of 99% baselines. Unless mutants learn/evolve to work better with each other, they are self-limiting -- any time they start making a significant percent of the population, they also start killing each other.

That's true more generally as well. Diversity is strength.