Questions about Elcarin biology (long)

[Aidan]

As a newbie to the list, let me say: (whoops. noticed a week later: to the board I meant. newbie indeed.)
Greetings all.

In introduction: I am a conworlder who seeks to address the complaint that the field too often ignores biology.

As such, I had some biological questions about two passages from the "Cultural Notes" section about the elcari:

(Though let me first say, before I get into critique, I loved the language, I wish I could think of things like that! Particularily the five-part syntax.)

They are egalitarian by nature; though they enjoy luxuries, they consider human hierarchies to be foolish, and they have no servants or even employees (though younger elcari assist older family members).

I was curious, is this a biological or cultural trait? It seems to be presented as an intrinsic trait, which would presumably mean it was biological. Also I've gotten the impression that the lack of hierarchy is shared by the murtani? which would also suggest it was biological.

I'm curious how such a lack of hierarchy evolved. How is access to limited resources, (mates, food, luxuries, etc.) prioritized? Especially in the pre-historical elcari as they evolved to their modern state?

Or, actually . . . I think I was being hasty in my interpretation. The elcari presumably have status, yes? But only as a chain of respect, rather than command?

But I'm still curious how this came to be a fixed trait. There are certainly some human societies like this, but not all, and its particularily rare among societies with agriculture and individual specialization, so in humans it's not a fixed trait like it seems to in elcari.

One major source of egalitarianism in large social animals seems to be very strong pair-bonds (pair-bonds and all the traits which go with them is a particular study of mine), but that doesn't seem to be the case for the elcari, as you say that realtionships are not lifelong. And since (the modern West not withstanding) I would characterize human reproductive relationships as generally lifelong, it seems that elcari have an even weaker pair-bond than humans.

And speaking of reproduction, my second question:

Elcari come to maturity in about thirty years, but live to over 300. As a corollary, children make up only a small fraction of society, and child-raising is only a short phase or two in an elcar's life. (Infant mortality is extremely low among elcari.) Probably because of this, elcar males and females are much less differentiated than humans, biologically and socially.

Hmm. I have to say this doesn't make any evolutionary sense to me. How did the elcari evolve so much unproductive (from an evolutionary viewpoint) lifespan? in other words, how does the vast extended lifespan benefit the elcari's children (and/or grandchildren, etc.)? And how could any creature ever evolve to not have offspring production be a central part of life?

What I would expect from a creature that matured in 30 years, but lived to 300, would be a creature that had heavy pre-reproductive mortality, but low mortality after maturity. This would lead to a situation where a mature individual had to live that long (and keep reproducing for a signifcant portion of that time) to make sure that enough offspring reached maturity (and thus escaped the danger period). Sort of like bristlecone pines, or sea turtles.

Perhaps for most of their evolutionary history elcari did have heavy mortality among children, but have conquered this in historical timescales. Maybe a few thousand years after they developed agriculture, or something like that.

In this case male and female elcari would probably be less differentiated just like it says, but for exactly the opposite reason, because child-rearing was so precarious that it required full participation of two parents to have any chance of success. Though after the child mortality had been overcome and the elcari could start spending less time on reprodction, the lack of sexual dimorphism would remain, and lead to a society like the modern elcari.

Hey, that brings up an even more interesting idea: that somehow the elcari overcame their child-mortality problem before they developed agriculture, which gave them the free time to develop agriculture and other cultural revolutions.

And dealing with the population explosion caused by the demographic transition, as elcari for a time continued reproducing at the old rate while no longer dying at the same rate, could have provided a driving force for the development of agriculture.

Um. That was long. Do I get extra points for really long posts? Or maybe I get points taken off

Oh, and Mr. Mark? I still say the that if the lesuniae or a taxonomic order, the name shold be different. Actually, just lesuasi would be better. Or lesuasia probably even better, if you wanted to make sure there was a difference between the Verdurian and the latinate.

[zompist]

They are egalitarian by nature; though they enjoy luxuries, they consider human hierarchies to be foolish, and they have no servants or even employees (though younger elcari assist older family members).

I was curious, is this a biological or cultural trait? It seems to be presented as an intrinsic trait, which would presumably mean it was biological. Also I've gotten the impression that the lack of hierarchy is shared by the murtani? which would also suggest it was biological.

I'm curious how such a lack of hierarchy evolved. How is access to limited resources, (mates, food, luxuries, etc.) prioritized? Especially in the pre-historical elcari as they evolved to their modern state?

It's both biological and cultural-- that is, they're less hierarchy-oriented than humans, and their belief system reinforces this.

More on this below.

And since (the modern West not withstanding) I would characterize human reproductive relationships as generally lifelong, it seems that elcari have an even weaker pair-bond than humans.

The biologists I've read generally emphasize that almost all animals cheat! Even strong pair-bonding doesn't change this: it can be a good strategy to pick one mate for living with, while choosing another partner for genetic material. Lorenz's greylag geese seem pretty similar to humans: a theoretical ideal of lifelong monogamy which almost no individual really attains.

Elcari come to maturity in about thirty years, but live to over 300. As a corollary, children make up only a small fraction of society, and child-raising is only a short phase or two in an elcar's life. (Infant mortality is extremely low among elcari.) Probably because of this, elcar males and females are much less differentiated than humans, biologically and socially.

Hmm. I have to say this doesn't make any evolutionary sense to me. How did the elcari evolve so much unproductive (from an evolutionary viewpoint) lifespan? in other words, how does the vast extended lifespan benefit the elcari's children (and/or grandchildren, etc.)? And how could any creature ever evolve to not have offspring production be a central part of life?

Well, look at your own species! Human females can reproduce at 15, and easily live to 90. That's a ratio of 1/6, not that different from the posited elcarin ratio of 1/10.

Now, you'll say that it wasn't necessarily thus in our ancestral environment; but we're not talking about the elcarin a.e. either. They've been civilized for 24,000 years or so-- twice as long as we have. That's time for some pretty "unnatural" behaviors to develop.

Still, there may be a biological propensity for long life. The experience of elders is an obvious benefit, especially for a generalist: there's always someone in an elcarin community who knows what to do when a half-century (or even a two-century) disaster strikes; and this may be even more important in the mountain environment than our own ancestral savannah.

Being able to choose when in life to reproduce may also make it near-certain that children can survive to adulthood themselves, since the parents can wait till they're experienced and well-established. Think of it as the K strategy taken to an extreme. At the same time it would be possible to populate a new territory relatively quickly.

There's some controversy in evolutionary psychology about menopause: is it just accidental that human females live longer than they reproduce? Last I heard, there was some evidence for a "grandmother effect": a hunter/gatherer woman can concentrate on feeding herself and her latest child, while grandma takes care of her older children.

The mountain environment would also be sensitive to resource depletion; rather like the desert-dwelling !Kung, there could be strong pressure not to overhunt or overproduce. Very fertile regions such as New Guinea or the Pacific Northwest encourage "big men" with ostentatious displays of consumption, the precursor to kingdoms and elites. In a resource-poor area, you have to husband your resources and avoid ostentation, which could bring ecological disaster... this may also explain the elcarin distaste for hierarchy and status displays.

Oh, and Mr. Mark? I still say the that if the lesuniae or a taxonomic order, the name shold be different. Actually, just lesuasi would be better. Or lesuasia probably even better, if you wanted to make sure there was a difference between the Verdurian and the latinate.

Yeah, I just haven't got to this yet. That whole page will have to be revised anyway.

[Guest]

And since (the modern West not withstanding) I would characterize human reproductive relationships as generally lifelong, it seems that elcari have an even weaker pair-bond than humans.

The biologists I've read generally emphasize that almost all animals cheat! Even strong pair-bonding doesn't change this: it can be a good strategy to pick one mate for living with, while choosing another partner for genetic material. Lorenz's greylag geese seem pretty similar to humans: a theoretical ideal of lifelong monogamy which almost no individual really attains.

Yeah, I agree. Though almost all, is not all, there really are some animals where the pair-bonding is so strong that it precludes cheating. As I think I said before, it's generally when reproduction is so intensive and chancy that it is assured to fail without total commitment to raising the young. This is most common in birds that live in extreme environments (birds have a big jump on mammals in this case since feeding young is non-gender specific) like Wandering Albatross and Emperor Penguins. Also my dolicocephalinae (at least if my web server goes back up any time soon), including my gnomes (which I've got a culture test for linked to from the amercult page, zompist of course already knows about this) are hominids built around these lines.

Basically if pair-bonding is important enough it can become physiologically hard-wired to the point that sexual behavior can only be stimulated by a certain individual (this also requires long, elaborate courting behavior to fix the association). (Beacuse anything less would still leave paternity uncertainty, and thus not reward the male enough to fix the extreme care-taking behavior required.)

But, getting back to the question at hand, what I was saying is that since in humans lifelong monogamy is the standard ideal, and it doesn't seem to be even that in elcari, presumably the pair-bond is weaker. And, as a matter of degree, the weaker the pair-bond the stronger the sexual dimorphism, as a general rule. Unless some other inluence intervenes.

Elcari come to maturity in about thirty years, but live to over 300. As a corollary, children make up only a small fraction of society, and child-raising is only a short phase or two in an elcar's life. (Infant mortality is extremely low among elcari.) Probably because of this, elcar males and females are much less differentiated than humans, biologically and socially.

Hmm. I have to say this doesn't make any evolutionary sense to me. How did the elcari evolve so much unproductive (from an evolutionary viewpoint) lifespan? in other words, how does the vast extended lifespan benefit the elcari's children (and/or grandchildren, etc.)? And how could any creature ever evolve to not have offspring production be a central part of life?

Well, look at your own species! Human females can reproduce at 15, and easily live to 90. That's a ratio of 1/6, not that different from the posited elcarin ratio of 1/10.

Now, you'll say that it wasn't necessarily thus in our ancestral environment; but we're not talking about the elcarin a.e. either. They've been civilized for 24,000 years or so-- twice as long as we have. That's time for some pretty "unnatural" behaviors to develop.

Still, there may be a biological propensity for long life. The experience of elders is an obvious benefit, especially for a generalist: there's always someone in an elcarin community who knows what to do when a half-century (or even a two-century) disaster strikes; and this may be even more important in the mountain environment than our own ancestral savannah.

Being able to choose when in life to reproduce may also make it near-certain that children can survive to adulthood themselves, since the parents can wait till they're experienced and well-established. Think of it as the K strategy taken to an extreme. At the same time it would be possible to populate a new territory relatively quickly.

(sorry for the long quotes)

Point 1: yeah, but you're saying lifespans are generally at least 300 years, extending up to 600. I would likewise characterize human lifespans in agricultural to early industrial technology level as being about 60 extending up to 90. So the ratios are more like 1/4 to 1/10, or 1/6 to 1/20. But that's not my main point.

What I was trying to get at was when you say that the fact that reproduction is a small part of their lifespan has had biologically effects (on sexual dimorphism). What's seems weird is that elcari seem to have not reproduced for much of their reproductive lifespan, even in their ancestral environment for it to have had biological consequences. The same can not be said about humans in the ancestral, or even most historical environments, where most women had children throughout their reproductive age.

I agree that they've been civilized for such a long time that unnatural behaviors could have developed. But, I don't expect those to have lead to biological effects like the reduction of sexual dimorphism. I think it's best to distinguish which behaviors are ancestral and which are "civilized" and only allow ancestral behaviors to have evolutionary effects.

I think you're point about choosing when in a long reproductive life-span to reproduce for a harsh environment is a very good point, I thinks that's a really good idea. But it brings it back to my idea of elcari being adapted to high, not low infant mortalities. Even if they now have low infant mortalities. (But if they do have low IM rates now, how have they accomplished this. Something to come up with a good story about .)

(last two sentences): Wow, K and r adapted, eh. Impressive . No, I think that's a good idea.

(For those who aren't familiar with population ecology/evolution K-adapted species are generally long-lived and slow reproducing to maximize the fitness of each indivudal and thus maximize K: carrying capacity. r-adapted species are generally short-lived, quickly reproducing species to maximize r: population growth rate.)

I also agree with your "grandmother effect" statement, and mountain->resource depletion:->lack of ostentation reasoning. Though my mountain dwellers (generally called dwarves for convenience, or else "hekaden") take a very different approach. But this post is already too long to go into it here. But it actually involves strong competition and a good deal ostentation.

[Aidan]

Whoops, that was me again above (fairly obviously ). I switched computers between one post and another and forgot to login again.

And, the log me in automatically feature doesn't seem to work?

[zompist]

But, getting back to the question at hand, what I was saying is that since in humans lifelong monogamy is the standard ideal, and it doesn't seem to be even that in elcari, presumably the pair-bond is weaker. And, as a matter of degree, the weaker the pair-bond the stronger the sexual dimorphism, as a general rule. Unless some other inluence intervenes.

Biologically speaking, their pair-bond is stronger than humans-- so their lessened sexual dimorphism is actually in line with that. They look less pair-bonded because of two things: a) their extremely long lifetimes, and b) their honesty.

Extremely long lifetimes just change a lot of things. I think this is happening to humans today, too; I've simply made it more obvious with the elcari. Lifetime monogamy is one thing when people only live to be 45; it's another when you live to be 90. And it's another thing yet when you live to be 300.

What would happen if we lived to be 300? Would we continue to idealize lifetime monogamy? We'd probably try to, but I don't think it'd work. Some people can survive a bad marriage for 50 years; but even they might rethink things if after that there were 200 more years to come.

(Of course there are long good marriages too. But, would they stay good for another 200 years? I think one can't expect two intelligent beings to stay in close orbit round each other for that long.)

But it brings it back to my idea of elcari being adapted to high, not low infant mortalities. Even if they now have low infant mortalities.

I don't really disagree... I think a lot of their behavior can be explained as an adaptation to a difficult environment. There isn't always a single solution to a biological problem; I think one can imagine either a K or an r solution here. They could have churned out more babies in hopes that some survive; instead, they wait for the perfect opportunity to raise only a couple of children, who have a very high chance of survival.

Have you ever read Niven & Pournelle's The Mote in God's Eye? I've always felt that they created a biological impossibility: k-strategists who treat their offspring like R-strategists.

[So Haleza Grise]

This raises the question - would an elcar ever be unfaithful? Or would he/she take steps to end or mend the relationship before things get to that stage?

(Hell, i've often wondered this about humans too - but hey, we're a confused bunch . . .)

[zompist]

This raises the question - would an elcar ever be unfaithful? Or would he/she take steps to end or mend the relationship before things get to that stage?

(Hell, i've often wondered this about humans too - but hey, we're a confused bunch . . .)

It's the ilii, not the elcari, who never cheat. Note that the anecdote in the Elkar?l grammar jokes about infidelity.

The elcari aren't as emotionally combustible as humans-- so they're unlikely to have flings or one-night stands. On the other hand, when they fall, they fall hard. (And remember, they're stubborn; it's hard to talk an elcar out of an inappropriate relationship.)

As for mending the relationship... some can do it, some won't... as with humans.

[So Haleza Grise]

It's the ilii, not the elcari, who never cheat. Note that the anecdote in the Elkar?l grammar jokes about infidelity.

Of course. Stupid of me not to notice - I had gone through that story a number of times . . .

The elcari aren't as emotionally combustible as humans-- so they're unlikely to have flings or one-night stands. On the other hand, when they fall, they fall hard.

This I suppose goes some way to explain why elcari are fierce about their ideology, despite not having any great love for normative, public religion; once they're convinced of something, woe betide anyone who tries to change their minds.

But does this means the murtani are equally stubborn? Or do they just gain pleasure out of enraging the elcari?

[zompist]

But does this means the murtani are equally stubborn? Or do they just gain pleasure out of enraging the elcari?

Heh, perhaps if Almea ever has an Internet, the murtani will constantly be flaming the elcari.

I expect they'll be pretty mule-headed in their own way. I think you could picture them as an entire nation of Draco Malfoys.

[Jaaaaaa]

But does this means the murtani are equally stubborn? Or do they just gain pleasure out of enraging the elcari?

Heh, perhaps if Almea ever has an Internet, the murtani will constantly be flaming the elcari.

I expect they'll be pretty mule-headed in their own way. I think you could picture them as an entire nation of Draco Malfoys.

SAVE MEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE!!!!!!!

[Aidan]

Biologically speaking, their pair-bond is stronger than humans-- so their lessened sexual dimorphism is actually in line with that. They look less pair-bonded because of two things: a) their extremely long lifetimes, and b) their honesty.

Ah, okay.

But it brings it back to my idea of elcari being adapted to high, not low infant mortalities. Even if they now have low infant mortalities.

I don't really disagree... I think a lot of their behavior can be explained as an adaptation to a difficult environment. There isn't always a single solution to a biological problem; I think one can imagine either a K or an r solution here. They could have churned out more babies in hopes that some survive; instead, they wait for the perfect opportunity to raise only a couple of children, who have a very high chance of survival.

Have you ever read Niven & Pournelle's The Mote in God's Eye? I've always felt that they created a biological impossibility: k-strategists who treat their offspring like R-strategists.

Okay, I'm beginning to see the shape of your design. I would point out that for the wait-for-oppurtunity strategy to evolve relies on being able to predict fairly accurately when such oppurtunities will be. Not to say elcari could or couldn't do that, just something to think about.

Also, I want to point out the K-strategist don't necessarily have as low infant mortalities as one might think. This is because K-strategy is not so much "invest heavily in a few offspring",(as it often comes across), as it is "invest heavily in a few quality individuals", including the parents. Adult K-strategists have a strong investment in themselves, they probably are pretty high quality individuals and can live for a lot longer potentially. This means that most K-strategists will, say in the face of lack of food, abandon their young offspring before putting even near-fatal stress on themselves. Simply because it's a better investment of resources, the long-lived adults can always have more offspring later. Of course, once their offspring are well on their way, that strategy may shift.

No, I haven't read The Mote in God's Eye. Maybe they were working with what I just said above? Or maybe they just didn't know what they were talking about .

Oh, and one odd point else about pair-bonding. Interestingly (sort of cynically?) a stronger pair-bond could well last longer, particularily if it's a species-wide trait. Because a stronger biologic component to a pair-bond could mean the pair didn't have to spend so much time together, reinforcing the bond and guarding against infidelity. Pairs of Wandering Albatross, really see very little of each other once they have established their pair-bond.

Because the only time the albatross congregate is during the breeding season, the rest of the time they're out, well, Wandering by singly. Courting age adolescents congregate at the breeding grounds during this time too, and spend 5-7 years or so carrying on extended, interrupted courtships. But once the bond is established and a pair starts breeding, they still spend the rest of the years alone, and during the breeding season one of them pretty much always has to be out gathering food in order to be able to feed both themselves and their enormous chick. (And "out gathering food" generally means being gone for at least 3 days, maybe 10. Albatross feed way out in the middle of nowhere, that's why they're such spectacular gliders).

So the elaborate, idiosyncratic courting dances and behavior the pair developed while courting, then never really get used much anymore. But the bond last life-long anyway. As far as anyone can tell at least, we haven't been able to track albatross for long enough to know everything about them. We still don't know how long they live exactly, because none of the albatross that we know how old they are, have died of old age yet, out living many of the original scientists who tagged them 50 years or so ago. And these are birds, typically some of the shortest lived of vertebrates.

So a strongly pair-bonding species doesn't necessarily have to spend so much time with their mate they get sick of them. Of course, doesn't necessarily not, I'm just pointing out the less obvious alternative.

Oh, and I'm happy to say, the automatic login worked this time, and my webserver is back up. Yay!

[zompist]

Also, I want to point out the K-strategist don't necessarily have as low infant mortalities as one might think. This is because K-strategy is not so much "invest heavily in a few offspring",(as it often comes across), as it is "invest heavily in a few quality individuals", including the parents. Adult K-strategists have a strong investment in themselves, they probably are pretty high quality individuals and can live for a lot longer potentially. This means that most K-strategists will, say in the face of lack of food, abandon their young offspring before putting even near-fatal stress on themselves. Simply because it's a better investment of resources, the long-lived adults can always have more offspring later. Of course, once their offspring are well on their way, that strategy may shift.

Nice point. (Also a good demonstration that biological strategies are often more subtle than they first sound.)

No, I haven't read The Mote in God's Eye. Maybe they were working with what I just said above? Or maybe they just didn't know what they were talking about .

The latter. They basically wanted a species that reproduced uncontrollably (and dangerously to other species, like humans). But they cooked the problem, systematically eliminating any natural barrier to unlimited fertility. A real species that reproduced like their "Moties" would simply kill off the excess, but this is presented as impossible for them.

I liked the story about the albatrosses, btw.

[Aidan]

While talking about this issue, and the other conbiology thread, I was reminded of my tree-climbing octopods, of which there is one sentient species of.

An aside, before I go on, in my world, there's a certain region and set of cultures that are supposed to be the "viewpoint". One of the ways I foster this is by giving familiar names ("translations" so to speak) to things familiar to that region (e.g. dwarves, trolls, wyverns, etc.), and unfamiliar names elsewhere. The sentient tree-octopods, being sort of familiar, and me having only the vaguest idea what the language is like, and no good way to represent it in any case, I couldn't resist calling them Dryads

But so anyway. I was trying to remember if I had really worked out their extension of lifespan to my satisfaction. I don't remember if I had before, but the answer was there for the taking, and it's no at least partly written down in the page linked to above (which, if I may say, is one of my favorite constructions).

Um, I got distracted and can't remember where I was going with this.

. . .

I don't know . I guess just to share my dryopods. They were really fun to design, because:

1. Octopus are already highly intelligent, emotional animals. Though nobody's quite sure why because:

2. They are short-lived, antisocial beasts, almost invariable.

Who also, of course, don't generally climb trees. So it required alot of story to explain how they came to be. The tree-climbing isn't really too much work, mere structural changes are easy enough, you just need a reason and an oppurtunity. And Earthly mangrove swamps breed all kinds if strange beasties, including lots of animals that have adopted more terrestrial lifestyles from groups not normally associated with such lifestyles. Like fish, for example. The mudskipper is an incredible (in the full old sense of the word) little fish that doesn't spend too much time in the water, and does itself climb trees.

Ohh! I remember! It was because in a sense, they could be described as K-strategists that treat their offspring like r-strategists, that impossiblity invoked by zompist. But only for part of their development, really.

They are r-like because they lay many, many eggs in the sea, and then leave their larvae to develop for themselves. But then when the young that survive their larval stage attain adult form and come out onto land, they pretty much become K-strategists. They are raised by older dryads, and grow relatively large and long-lived.

Since I had become intrigued by the possibility of a set-up where the adult tribes go down to the sea and stake out (i.e. compete over) the best young-harvesting (:P) areas. This implies that young do not re-join their parents. Reasonable, as child-rearing is a new phenomena to their lineage, and so they don't neccesarily have any way to distinguish their own young (or parents). But it requires much fancier evolutionary footwork to develop, because the child-rearers are not raising their own young, so they do not benefit from it in the same way.

Certainly adults would benefit by having their young raised, but what's their incentive to raise (potentially, likely) others young? Well, recruitment, that adds to the effectiveness of the band as a whole by adding new, young members, and thus increasing the adults later reproductive success. (And idea I also offered in the other conbio thread).

But it took a while to lay out the whole path. It was fun.

p.s. This was inspired by the Elcarin bio thread, so that's where I'm posting it. But maybe it drifted too far from that topic? I have no problem whatsoever if it gets moved somewhere else.

[eodrakken]

p.s. This was inspired by the Elcarin bio thread, so that's where I'm posting it. But maybe it drifted too far from that topic? I have no problem whatsoever if it gets moved somewhere else.

I had some thoughts about things you've been talking about here that seemed to merit a separate discussion, so I started a new thread in Conlangery. Just letting you know.

[So Haleza Grise]

I expect they'll be pretty mule-headed in their own way. I think you could picture them as an entire nation of Draco Malfoys.

Though presumably with a little less arrogance . . . . it's a bit hard to imagine being looked down on, at least credibly, by a murtani (unless it was standing on something . . .)