VN Ren'Py Hot Sand of Antarctica [v0.09] [Grinvald]

[Yngling]

Or any European royal family line during the middle ages.

Their problem was that they were more concerned with inheritance of land and creating political alliances than with genetic superiority.

It does makes you wonder how these 70 original Native Americans dealt with this topic.

 

[Slick Bean]

They adapted and were peak predators also fighting their tribal deadly enemies.

It does makes you wonder how these 70 original Native Americans dealt with this topic.

You must remember the facts that different tribes fough over different food/water/resources,
just like pack animals do, this is how you strengthen and cull the blood line,
this is how DNA gets written by the strongest that survive every winter/tribes war.

If Kennedy kids were warriors/scientitst investing their blood and tears into intense workloads,
fierce athletes or ruthless business women and men, with active professional lives and restless nights,
they would have culled and improoved their bloodlines every generation.

Instead, as with every rich family, they slumbered, degenerating their DNA into slumbering blobs.

If every dynasty had olympics for their progenies and put their fortune to work and turn their kids into athletes
with countless years of biological prowess, we would not have this discussion ... alas.

 

[-CookieMonster666-]

Their problem was that they were more concerned with inheritance of land and creating political alliances than with genetic superiority.

It does makes you wonder how these 70 original Native Americans dealt with this topic.

I think the assumption that there were only 70 is unfounded, TBH. Things decay and rot over time; bones turn to dust. There's no way to know accurately how many originally came over to the Americas. But, let's say anyway that the number is accurate. In that case, the DNA would have to have been very durable to resist mutations and flaws over time. Possible, I'd guess, but the likelihood is pretty low that you'd just happen to have a gene pool that is exactly what you need for that type of thing.

 

[DMon1981]

I think the assumption that there were only 70 is unfounded, TBH. Things decay and rot over time; bones turn to dust. There's no way to know accurately how many originally came over to the Americas. But, let's say anyway that the number is accurate. In that case, the DNA would have to have been very durable to resist mutations and flaws over time. Possible, I'd guess, but the likelihood is pretty low that you'd just happen to have a gene pool that is exactly what you need for that type of thing.

Not all mutations lead to bad, some have been beneficial. This is something I remember learning from science classes.

 

[-CookieMonster666-]

Not all mutations lead to bad, some have been beneficial. This is something I remember learning from science classes.

True. Since I said "mutations and flaws", I figured you could tell I meant specifically negative mutations. So, to be clear, I'm talking about bad mutations, things that might shorten a lifespan, cause a physical disability, and similar.

 

[DMon1981]

True. Since I said "mutations and flaws", I figured you could tell I meant specifically negative mutations. So, to be clear, I'm talking about bad mutations, things that might shorten a lifespan, cause a physical disability, and similar.

I get where you are coming from. Some see mutation and just think bad.

Like in this story, I can't remember if mutation is used to describe the dogs, but what happened to them is bad as in mutation is bad.

The only mutation off the top of my head that has some benefits is also not good by itself. That is sickle cell anaemia.

But sufferers of sickle cell anaemia or those that have the traits for it, either do not suffer as badly or do not suffer from malaria. So not a great mutation but does have some benefits.

I certainly agree with your point where you quoted if 70 people came to North America they would have had a hard time growing to the numbers that now exist. But life has a funny way of throwing a spanner in the works but bringing out the best qualities to overcome such challenges.

 

[Mommysbuttslut]

I get where you are coming from. Some see mutation and just think bad.

Like in this story, I can't remember if mutation is used to describe the dogs, but what happened to them is bad as in mutation is bad.

The only mutation off the top of my head that has some benefits is also not good by itself. That is sickle cell anaemia.

But sufferers of sickle cell anaemia or those that have the traits for it, either do not suffer as badly or do not suffer from malaria. So not a great mutation but does have some benefits.

I certainly agree with your point where you quoted if 70 people came to North America they would have had a hard time growing to the numbers that now exist. But life has a funny way of throwing a spanner in the works but bringing out the best qualities to overcome such challenges.

Persistent lactase production, or not developing lactose intolerance during adolescence or early adulthood is caused by a mutation. Mutations are a significant driver of evolution. There are good and bad mutations of all types. I'm pretty sure the HIV resistance genes are caused by a mutation as well.

 

[Yngling]

They adapted and were peak predators also fighting their tribal deadly enemies.

You must remember the facts that different tribes fough over different food/water/resources,
just like pack animals do, this is how you strengthen and cull the blood line,
this is how DNA gets written by the strongest that survive every winter/tribes war.

If Kennedy kids were warriors/scientitst investing their blood and tears into intense workloads,
fierce athletes or ruthless business women and men, with active professional lives and restless nights,
they would have culled and improoved their bloodlines every generation.

Instead, as with every rich family, they slumbered, degenerating their DNA into slumbering blobs.

If every dynasty had olympics for their progenies and put their fortune to work and turn their kids into athletes
with countless years of biological prowess, we would not have this discussion ... alas.

It's not about a person's occupation, but about that person's genetics.

If someone could genetically be an olympic 10.000m champion, if he doesn't join an athletics club as a child but as an adult chooses a career in IT he'll probably not become an olympic 400m champion.

But if he marries to another potential olympic 10.000m champion who is working as a lab assistant, their children probably still have the potential of becoming an olympic 10.000m champion.

If on the other hand, he marries a potential olympic shot put champion, the chance of their children becoming olympic 10.000m champion decreases, since the body types of an olympic 10.000m champion and an olympic shot put champion are not the same.

You are right in the sense that, because neither of them ever competed in athletics, they would have had no way of knowing any of this.

The question is, that if you have a group of 70 people (in all likelyhood, those 70 were probably already related to each other!), marrying the two potential olympic 10.000m champions would be a good idea for the group. Alternatively you could also marry the 10.000m champion to the shot put champion on purpose. Or marry the 10.000m champion to the person just genetically inclined to be a fat slob. In that last case, the children might not be 10.000m champions but not fat slobs either. That might actually be the most beneficial for the group because such a child could at least be a reliable hunter. I am not sure whether, if you have already a small group, just culling the fat slobs would be beneficial, or if that would just reduce the gene pool even further and risk future defects.

If you are only interested in your own bloodline, it might make sense to breed the line of the 10.000m champions (who are related to each other) into the line of medicine women (also related to each other), to create a mix of body and brains that might be better than just being good runners. But whether creating such an elite is a good idea for the group is yet another question.

But all of this assumes a scientific breeding program, discounting things like love, attraction and family life. Which I think cannot be assumed for those first 70 Native Americans. So I wonder how they did manage that.

I think the assumption that there were only 70 is unfounded, TBH. Things decay and rot over time; bones turn to dust. There's no way to know accurately how many originally came over to the Americas. But, let's say anyway that the number is accurate. In that case, the DNA would have to have been very durable to resist mutations and flaws over time. Possible, I'd guess, but the likelihood is pretty low that you'd just happen to have a gene pool that is exactly what you need for that type of thing.

The number of 70 is based on genetic research rather than on archeological remains of actual people.

You must be registered to see the links

I'm not a geneticist and therefore am not qualified to say something about the study either way.

 

[-CookieMonster666-]

The number of 70 is based on genetic research rather than on archeological remains of actual people.

You must be registered to see the links

I'm not a geneticist and therefore am not qualified to say something about the study either way.

Meh, color me still skeptical. The amount of change in what is "understood" science in just the past few decades leads me to believe that in another 30 or 40 years we'll "know" more and discount this entire study as well. It's totally possible they're right; but it's equally possible they are totally wrong. This is why things like this are theories and not facts of science. But they could be right.

 

[Tarock]

You'r all right and wrong. The only thing that matters is the DNA-GEN POOL.
THE NUMBER OF 1000 PEOPLE IS TO LOW,COURSE OVER TIME HUMENKIND WILL BE EXTINGUISHED OF DNA MALFUNTION
Therefor you must atleast have 50000 healthy breedeble people. It dos'nd matter where they comming from.

 

[Maviarab]

It's not about a person's occupation, but about that person's genetics.

If someone could genetically be an olympic 10.000m champion, if he doesn't join an athletics club as a child but as an adult chooses a career in IT he'll probably not become an olympic 400m champion.

But if he marries to another potential olympic 10.000m champion who is working as a lab assistant, their children probably still have the potential of becoming an olympic 10.000m champion.

If on the other hand, he marries a potential olympic shot put champion, the chance of their children becoming olympic 10.000m champion decreases, since the body types of an olympic 10.000m champion and an olympic shot put champion are not the same.

You are right in the sense that, because neither of them ever competed in athletics, they would have had no way of knowing any of this.

The question is, that if you have a group of 70 people (in all likelyhood, those 70 were probably already related to each other!), marrying the two potential olympic 10.000m champions would be a good idea for the group. Alternatively you could also marry the 10.000m champion to the shot put champion on purpose. Or marry the 10.000m champion to the person just genetically inclined to be a fat slob. In that last case, the children might not be 10.000m champions but not fat slobs either. That might actually be the most beneficial for the group because such a child could at least be a reliable hunter. I am not sure whether, if you have already a small group, just culling the fat slobs would be beneficial, or if that would just reduce the gene pool even further and risk future defects.

If you are only interested in your own bloodline, it might make sense to breed the line of the 10.000m champions (who are related to each other) into the line of medicine women (also related to each other), to create a mix of body and brains that might be better than just being good runners. But whether creating such an elite is a good idea for the group is yet another question.

But all of this assumes a scientific breeding program, discounting things like love, attraction and family life. Which I think cannot be assumed for those first 70 Native Americans. So I wonder how they did manage that.



The number of 70 is based on genetic research rather than on archeological remains of actual people.

You must be registered to see the links

I'm not a geneticist and therefore am not qualified to say something about the study either way.

I think you're missing a very big part of the equation in your analogy. Potential and mindset. Sure, you may have all the genetics in the world....but if you can't be assed or you'd rather do something else...

This itself amounts to more failed potential 'best' (in any sport) than actual champions.

 

[nameisjeff]

first one of these in a while where the story is more engaging than the porn. good work

 

[Yngling]

You'r all right and wrong. The only thing that matters is the DNA-GEN POOL.
THE NUMBER OF 1000 PEOPLE IS TO LOW,COURSE OVER TIME HUMENKIND WILL BE EXTINGUISHED OF DNA MALFUNTION
Therefor you must atleast have 50000 healthy breedeble people. It dos'nd matter where they comming from.

I'm not a geneticist but I doubt that. There were / are a lot of small villages and remote communities which consisted of maybe a few hundred individuals and they survived for centuries without too much outside interference. Sure, occassionally some fresh blood would arrive but I don't think they were actively looking for it.

I think you're missing a very big part of the equation in your analogy. Potential and mindset. Sure, you may have all the genetics in the world....but if you can't be assed or you'd rather do something else...

This itself amounts to more failed potential 'best' (in any sport) than actual champions.

That is exactly my question.

If you are breeding horses, cows or dogs, the breeder (hopefully) knows what he's doing. He is reinforcing the most desireable characteristics and removing the least desireable ones.

With humans, it generally doesn't work like that. The Nazi's tried, but it was not "universally well received" to say the least...

 

[Rocky the Hardplace]

I think the point here isn't the optimal number of genetic combinations for a functioning society and future survival of the human species, but rather that this is an adventure/porn game and meant to be entertaining and arousing. In fewer words....it's just not important

 

[Catherine♡]

v0.09 Development progress

Renders - 60%
Animations - 0%
Rendering post-processing - 60%
Music & Sounds - 0%
Translation - 10%

 

[gestved]

Based on the previous development progress updates, the dev's delivering about 10% per week (5% per item worked on). With a total of 500% possible and 80% complete, he has about another 42 weeks of work to perform (or roughly 10 months). I expect he'll begin increasing his efforts and shorten that time to around 5 months. I'm thinking February/March timeframe before the next release comes out. I enjoy the story and the graphics, so I'm anxiously awaiting the next update.

rendering and animations tends to be the worst part, as you need the script to come along to know what you are going to actually render, it shouldn't take THAT long. Coding can take a while as well, but since it's not included in the progress I'll assume it's occuring in parallel with each step. Translation and sound should be relatively quick.

 

[concord72]

Love this game, only thing missing is a replay gallery!

 

[DiTo]

v0.09 Development progress

• Renders - 65%
• Animations - 0%
• Rendering post-processing - 65%
• Music & Sounds - 0%
• Translation - 10%

 

[Kokodeska]

v0.09 Development progress

• Renders - 65%
• Animations - 0%
• Rendering post-processing - 65%
• Music & Sounds - 0%
• Translation - 10%

welp see you next year i guess

 

[Caeir]

I was hoping he'd ramp up, but it doesn't appear so. I'm thinking August timeframe now...