Freefall/Headscratchers

Why were the Bowman Wolves created?
It would be a lot cheaper, safer, easier, and less ethically gray to simply hire and train human workers than to genetically engineer an entirely new sentient race. Each Wolf must cost a fortune to make.
 * They were "proof of concept" models for an attempt to colonize Pfouts by uplifting a native species. Unfortunately the project was cut and the prototypes were sold as pets due to a "clerical error".
 * Which of course means that the robots brains are designed for colonists, not workers. They were improvised after slight difficulties with the factory.

The Chimpanzee sociopaths.
Why is it that uplifted chimps were described as sociopaths, when chimps do in fact have empathy and compassion? On the other hand, wolves do not feel empathy. Florence should be the sociopath, although a loyal one socially compatible with humans.
 * Rule of Funny Get over it.
 * Evidence that wolves "do not feel empathy"? Been mindmelded to a wolf lately or something?


 * You think people don't study this stuff? Empathy and compassion are unique to primates, so wolves, dogs, cats etc. don't have empathy.
 * Source?
 * Yeah, I'm gonna need something pretty convincing if I'm going to believe that dogs have no empathy, all circumstantial evidence to the contrary.
 * All mammals have empathy, to an extent or another. It's a necessary survival trait for creatures that take care of their young.
 * Maybe the uplifting process does more than just give them extra intelligence, hands (for wolves), etc. If it messes with their brains then it's conceivable that uplifted chimps might be sociopaths even if normal ones aren't. So basically, AI Is a Crapshoot.
 * Empathy is more complicated than just a simple trait that either is owned or is not owned. Human understanding of the matter isn't great, but we do know that in neurotypical humans, the matter is highly dependent on what are called "mirror neurons" -- parts of the brain the echo similar results from other people who look similar.
 * People who have lowered mirror neuron responses, such as in autism, usually end up relying on entirely different metrics when determining empathy; because they do not tend to automatically mimic others' emotions, but still have a desire to connect with others, many will base their understanding of others on logic, creating a different, more analytical sort of empathy.
 * It's suspected that a sociopath's mirror neurons act entirely differently in certain areas (statistically speaking : individuals do vary). Monkeys are assumed to act in a similar way. A monkey could have impressive sorts of empathy, but an uplifted monkey might only emphasize with other uplifted monkeys, since neither humans nor normal monkeys would trigger the same array of empathy that a human would for another human. That this occurred despite the natural aptitude toward understanding other viewpoints that Bowman's Architecture provides (even robots based on Bowman's Architecture are more capable of understanding human or Bowman's wolf viewpoints than a normal robot), suggests that the resulting uplifted monkey architecture was dramatically more attached to those that appeared similar to it.
 * Florence, and the rest of the Bowman's Wolves, were picked not because the ability to empathize -- Florence in particular tends to assume canine motivations for human and squid-like individuals, as well as slowly deconstructing motivations in a way not typical for highly empathic individuals -- but because canine develop by instinct a large social net and pecking structure.
 * Oh i know that, as i said "Socially compatible." My issue wasn't with using wolves but that chimps were sociopathic failures. If i wanted to bring issues against Florence it would generally be the desire for romantic attachment which doesn't exist in wolves(but could easily be programmed since we are dealing with genetic engineering.)
 * That and Florence was raised by humans, which has influenced her desires.
 * The uplifting process for the chimpanzees was probably an earlier, inferior model that had Unpredictable Results. The investors in this comic have been depicted as dumb and short-sighted enough that they'd rather move on to another species than try again.
 * It could just be a reference to how wild Chimpanzees are not the cute and cuddly animal-actors we see on stage and screen but are brutally vicious simians known to hunt and kill for 'fun' as much as for food.
 * That is, they have much more common with us that we realize care to admit.
 * Not that this is an argument against the above explanations/discussion, but has anyone else considered Rule of Funny?
 * What, that the uplift failed, or the fact that they apparently make great CE Os?
 * According to This Page it's because the chimps, real or uplifted I have no idea, have so small frontal lobes, which deal with turning thought into action. When the uplifted chimps thought about hurting an annoying person, they were already halfway to acting on the thought. Florence has bigger frontal lobe that keeps thought and action more distinctly separate.
 * Wait a second... the uplifted chimps were natural sociopaths... humans are chimps uplifted by evolution... Oh. My. God.
 * Humans are not "uplifted" chimps. The chimpanzees are our genetic cousins, we share a common ancestor down the line. Humans did not evolve from chimps.
 * Two possibilities, one more Anvilicious than the other. First, the preachy: Humans Are Bastards by nature, and it's only the civilizing influence of technology and culture that turn us into something other than sociopaths ourselves. Who are the three most sympathetic characters in the comic, disregarding the robots (who are proponents of technology by their very nature)? Two engineers and a vet, all very technical jobs that require a lot of schooling. Who are the least sympathetic humans? The company executives and the mayor, both positions that can be achieved by connections rather than merit. The chimps, meanwhile, are closer to savage humans that anything else, and as such are pure sociopaths.
 * The other option is psychological; the chimps were raised in a sterile laboratory environment, meaning that they never had the proper socializing to teach them how to be nice to other folks. By contrast, Florence and the other Bowman's Wolves were raised by regular families that taught them all the social niceties, including how to be nice.
 * As of this strip it sounds like the Chimps went horribly right.

Fun with physics
"Sam: The station spins, my inertia resists. I'm starting to pick up speed relative to the station because I'm starting to stand still."
 * What exactly is happening here?
 * Sam mangled Newton's laws and aerodynamics so much that they started working for him. Alternatively, he gives himself a kickstart off-panel.
 * I thought that Sam just stopped moving with the station. Since the station is rotating clockwise, an individual who stops moving would appear to shoot counter-clockwise. Sam separates himself from the station by putting himself on wheels, allowing it to move underneath him.
 * He has to stop moving first. When he explains it, it sounds like he thinks that he'll slow down without a force being applied, which doesn't make sense.
 * Check the lifted foot in panel five. He isn't just standing there, he's skating against the spin. He just doesn't say that.


 * How can that possibly refer to him skating?
 * Here's how I see it: if the station is rotating clockwise at X rotations per minute, Sam starts skating counter-clockwise at X rotations per minute. Eventually, he stops moving with the station and becomes weightless. If he thinks his inertia will cause him to stop moving, then he absolutely mangles Newton's first law. Inertia is the tendency of an object to maintain a constant velocity, not its tendency to stand still. Currently, the only force acting on him is pushing him in, towards the center of the station.

The corollary to Clarke's Third Law
""Surely," protested the Herald Tribune, "there is a fundamental difference. We are accustomed to Science. On your world there are doubtless many things which we might not understand -- but they wouldn't seem magic to us."
 * See, Gehm's statement can be readily deduced if Clarke's Third Law is presumed true. Florence makes the assumption that a technology that is not understood is indistinguishable from magic. Clarke did not state what constitutes "sufficiently advanced", or what delineates magic and technology. So, it's not a real corollary, just a statement that bears some resemblance to the earlier ones.
 * Florence makes no distinction between "those who don't understand it" and those who cannot understand it. Because of this, unless a person understands how every piece of technology in existence works, they will encounter at least one technology that is "magic" to them. This would be fine, but Florence's self satisfied expression makes it seem like a put-down. The "no matter how primitive" is just rubbing salt in the wound.
 * It also seems like it would depend on the person in question. Personally, if I were abducted by aliens who had laser guns, holodecks and chips that let them breathe in space, I wouldn't think "magic," I'd think "technology more advanced than I'm currently capable of explaining. But there must be a scientific explanation, since I'm witnessing it right now."
 * Well Clarke himself wrote in Childhood's End:

"Are you quite sure of that?" said Karellen, so softly that it was hard to hear his words. "Only a hundred years lies between the age of electricity and the age of steam, but what would a Victorian engineer have made of a television set or an electronic computer. And how long would he have lived if he started to investigate their workings? The gulf between two technologies can easily become so great that it is -- lethal.""


 * Like the Mage: The Ascension JBM put it, "Belief is "I know this toaster will toast my bread in about two to five minutes because that is how toasters work, even though I'm no electrician."", e. g. those who do not understand tech treat it as magic.
 * Seeing it every time I go to here.
 * Besides, in what universe is a graffiti wall so sparse? Are Florence's poor dichromat eyes just not getting the full picture?
 * The planet Jean is vastly underpopulated, and its human population makes up a very small proportion of its total population. It is also in the early stages of terraforming, and a higher percentage of the human population is technically minded than would be typical elsewhere. Presuming that robots are less likely to use a graffiti wall than humans, and that technically minded humans are less likely to use the graffiti walls than the normal human populace, and that the city planners on Jean have begun construction to support the greater influx of population planned for later stages of terraforming, it's not unreasonable to conclude that Jean has many more graffiti walls per potential graffiti artist than would be typical elsewhere.

The DAVE Drive

 * They have a machine capable of increasing the rate at which time passes and they use it solely for transportation. They should put one around a colony and have them advance technology at insane rates. They could also use it to dramatically speed up the research on making intelligent animals, as they could grow them from babies to adults in a much shorter time. When they colonize a planet, they could use it to rapidly generate plants and animals for terraforming before sending the ship back.
 * Who says they can do it on that scale, and altering the density of space-time is said to be Dangerous And Very Expensive.
 * It's also possible that relativistic speeds are required.

Sam's environmental suit

 * It is established that Sam's species is native to a world with a much higher air pressure than humans. Sam is unable to stay awake and conscious in Earth-level pressure, and thus needs his environmental suit while he's staying on Jean. So it really bugs me that he can take off the faceplate and even a sleeve.
 * Higher oxygen content, not necessarily higher pressure.
 * Oh, right, higher oxygen content. Still, I don't understand how is that suit supposed to work if Sam can just take it apart on the go.
 * It's not that strange - after all, a human can easily survive for short periods of time in a low-oxygen environment, so there's no reason why Sam would be any different. As long as he doesn't leave his faceplace off for more than a minute or two, he wouldn't feel much of any effect. As for the sleeves,they appear to be fairly tight around the shoulder, so there wouldn't be much air-leakage. On the other hand, if his suit springs a leak in a less-tight area, it could depressurize the whole thing in short order, which would be potentially fatal...
 * I saw that as 'take a deep breath'.. more concerned with the 'yank a part of your face off'. It's been implied several times that Sam the squidoid is not as large as the suit. Like when he was talking to the short 'Texan', he pulled the legs of the suit up into the torso, calling them 'armatures'. (I don't remember the strip exactly, unfortunately; it was when they were getting the contract to launch the satellites.) The suit seemed to me kind of like the old guy from the first Men in Black movie, a little alien in a big suit.
 * Sam doesn't have any bones, so even though he has close to human body mass, he can pull it into a much tighter space without trouble.

'Not one good looting song'?
Picayune, I know, but when I saw Sam complain that Terrans don't have any looting songs, I couldn't help but think, "Yes, we do!"
 * If his species is way more likely to loot, shouldn't they also be lighter sleepers? I suppose they'd probably wake up instantly if you tried to take away their skeleton, but still.

Why colonize Pfouts?
As mentioned above, Bowman's Wolves were created as a proof-of-concept to show that uplifting nonsentient species was possible, in order for humans to have a colony on Pfouts, which is a garden world, but with opposite chirality to Earth's chemistry. Animals native to Pfouts would be uplifted by this process. But... why? The whole point of a colony is to have a new place for humans to live. No matter how many animals you uplift, Pfoutian life is still dextro-amino acid based, and Earthling life is still levo-amino acid based, and so the two are incompatible. All you're gaining that way is a new species on a planet that humans probably won't be touching and negative several billion dollars. Or is this the reason the whole project was cancelled, and I just missed it?
 * *Facepalm* resources. Ore deposits etc. This is the whole point of a colony.
 * But then why uplift any species at all? Just ship in food every month or so. If the uplifted species is going to be workers, what happens when the resources are gone? You've just given yourself a long-term problem for short-term gain. And what happens if they object to being used like that? And why terraform any planets? If you're just looking for resources, build a self-contained facility on a dead planet or asteroid and either use robots or equip every living worker with a breath mask, just in case; it's much simpler and cheaper.
 * Basically, Ecosytems Unlimited is an Expy for the Wayland-Yutani corporation. They do stuff because of greed, or just because they can. Note that they've harvested the female Bowman's Wolves' eggs and force them to buy them back if they want to have pups. The development of the Bowman's Wolves was so that they could have a species that they can control and who legally won't be people. So they can have slave labor without anyone considering them slaves. Or so they thought...
 * The point to the original question is that biology simply doesn't matter when you get down to it. Who cares what biological composition the colonists of a new planet are, as long as they are culturally compatible with us, and providing the trade and resources that the colony is set up to produce? It's much more cost-effective to just uplift a species instead of trying to turn the entire planet's ecosystem upside down for the sake of terraforming, and the end-result is identical from economic standpoint.
 * But you don't even need to uplift species, if all you care about is resources. Just have a bunch of mining facilities on the planet, and either ship in food or grow it in a greenhouse. We can already grow meat in Petri dishes (albeit not very good meat). Depending on how chirality works, you might even be able to grow plants in native soil and not have to worry about native fauna eating it because it'll make them sick. You could even bypass living workers altogether and just use robots.
 * Uplifted species are superior to robots in almost every way. They have a robotic A.I. package, so cultural issues would be the same regardless of Robotic or Uplifted populations. However, when it comes down to the physical performance, uplifted species have a sensory and physical structure that's been tweaked over thousands of years for optimal suvival and functionality in the environment. They also require less fuel and maintenance than a robot work-force (They can consume native flora and fauna for energy, and automatically self-repair minor to moderate damage). Furthermore, they self-propogate at an logarhithmical rate, and require few accomodations for such production, as opposed to massive, high-overhead factories that produce robots at a static rate. Robots are damn expensive compared to living organisms. As far as trying to sustain a human population: Not cost-effective on any level. Life support accomodations would be ludicrously expensive and have high operating overhead. On the other hand, there are naturally millions upon millions of acres for a "native" population to use for self-sustenance. Having a new, subservient species is also advantageous because they don't require oversight for innovation. Humanity is God to an uplifted race. They might develop cheaper methods on their own to accomodate their Lords and Masters. I could elaborate further on how this is cheaper than robots or trying to force the world to accomodate humans.