Back to the main page

Mailing List Logs for ShadowRN

Message no. 1
From: Luke Kendall <luke@********.CANON.OZ.AU>
Subject: Good, evil, and insect spirits (Was: Re: Insect Spirits)
Date: Wed, 29 Mar 1995 14:07:43 +1000
Eve Forward writes:

> Insects are not alien.

They're not alien to earth. But they are highly alien from a human
point of view. They're even very alien from a sentient viewpoint.

> Their behavior is as instinctive an natural as
> a tiger's stalking or a lizard's climbing.

I'd say that it's more instinctive, since their `brains' are so simple
that (along with flatworms and so forth), they're the closest thing
to a biological robot. That is, if you don't anthropomorphise them.

> They are fascinating creatures, superbly adapted for their ecological
> niches.

Yes. One especially fascinating aspect of the hive insects is the
way the individual workers etc. interact via pheromones etc. to
construct more complex behaviours than the individuals are capable
of. The complexity of actions, and adaptability, is expressed not
by an individual, but by the group as a whole.

> They are not bad guys, [...]

No, they're not bad, just very alien to human modes of thought. They
don't fit anywhere on the scale of good to evil.


any more than snakes are agents of Satan (another very popular view, still
held by some idiots today).

> I had not read the reference stating that IS are not actually insects, but
> rather things that choose to look like insects. That I can accept. But
> having the SR verision of IS being the real metaphysical and natural
> manifestation of the essence of insects, no, I don't buy that. That's just
> goofy.

I suspect you're romanticising insects. They are driven by certain
pieces of biological programming, and these goals often conflict with
human goals.

> The insects in question don't use humans to procreate, and the
> whole thing's just picking one group of living things to be the boogeyman,
> always a bad sign.

True. But this is done for cinematic/dramatic reasons, not because
of some desire to `persecute insects', which is the tone I'm reading
into your post.

> You play your games however you like. Just realize that a lot of cruelty
> to a lot of what you'd probably call "real" animals has been caused
> because of this sort of attitude; "they're not like us, so they don't
> matter (and/or "they're bad.")"

Not all people are like this. Consider the Native Americans (or most
aboriginal cultures with close ties to their co-dependents on this
planet).

> Yes I know it's only a game. I just was explaining why I think it's lame,
> and I still don't agree with your ideas for why you think it's so great
> that insects should be protrayed as horrible evil things. Let's just
> agree to disagree, hmm?

I thought they were portrayed as horrifying `alien' (non-human) things.
Imputing motives like good/evil is as outrageously humanocentric as
thinking they don't matter because they're not like us, in my opinion.

Sure, it's only a game. They're just portrayed this way for dramatic
purposes. And it's a lot less corny than introducing `real' aliens,
you have to admit. :-)

Of course, the fact that the queen of a hive is intelligent, and the
workers etc. once were, too, adds a whole new dimension of complexity
to the situation!

luke
Message no. 2
From: Eve Forward <lutra@******.COM>
Subject: Re: Good, evil, and insect spirits (Was: Re: Insect Spirits)
Date: Wed, 29 Mar 1995 05:37:32 -0800
I never said they were GOOD, eithe I said they were -NATURAL-.
As for being "alien to human modes of thought", or "biological
robots",
take a few animal behavior classes and you'll see you can make the
same case for all animals. A peacock doesn't *think* "Hey! I'll spread
my tailfeathers to look pretty!" it just goes and -does- it. It's
driven by instinct to perform a certain behavior in the presence of
certain stimuli. Thinking that other animals have some greater spiritual
link with humankind is, in my opinion, far more anthropomorphic and
"romanticising" than stating that insects are a part of the natural
ecosystem.
Why am I defending insects? I'm not. I'm defending all living
things for the right to be what they are, not what we want them to be.
I'm not some hippychick; I'm a student at the Exotic Animal Training
and Management Program in SoCal and going on to get a Zoology degree
after this.
I like to see animals treated, in literature as in life, with
the respect they deserve. But this includes understanding of their
true behavior patterns and evolutionary history. Wasps, Mantids, Roaches,
and whatfuck ever else SR has, are not being protrayed witthis.
I'll wager, tell me if I'm wrong, but I'll be there isn't even any
Native American or ANY real good cultural reference for these totems as
they are portrayed, unlike the various others (Raven, Coyote, etc.)
If there is some cultural reference, other than "Humans think
bugs are icky!" then I will graciously step down and accept the SR
system. You never can beat the BS that the human race can come up
with regarding animals, and that is a fact and realistic, at least.

-E
Message no. 3
From: Luke Kendall <luke@********.CANON.OZ.AU>
Subject: Re: Good, evil, and insect spirits (Was: Re: Insect Spirits)
Date: Thu, 30 Mar 1995 11:22:18 +1000
Eve Forward writes:

> As for being "alien to human modes of thought", or "biological
robots",
> take a few animal behavior classes and you'll see you can make the
> same case for all animals. A peacock doesn't *think* "Hey! I'll spread
> my tailfeathers to look pretty!" it just goes and -does- it. It's
> driven by instinct to perform a certain behavior in the presence of
> certain stimuli. Thinking that other animals have some greater spiritual
> link with humankind is, in my opinion, far more anthropomorphic and
> "romanticising" than stating that insects are a part of the natural
> ecosystem.

I used the word `robotic' to mean that there was no self-awareness.
They're like stimulus-response driven automata. Through my casual
observations and reading, they seem to behave as though that's all
there is - I haven't seen any behaviour that can't be explained in
such purely `mechanistic' terms.

Whereas most animals have some self awareness. I don't think I'm

anthropomorphising if I say that animals are more like humans than
insects are. If you've watched animals play, or indulge themselves in
other ways, then you would see similarities in the way humans
behave. I've never seen an insect play.

> Why am I defending insects? I'm not. I'm defending all living
> things for the right to be what they are, not what we want them to be.
> I'm not some hippychick; I'm a student at the Exotic Animal Training
> and Management Program in SoCal and going on to get a Zoology degree
> after this.

Okay. I guess I picked up a non-intended tone in your earlier mail.

> I like to see animals treated, in literature as in life, with
> the respect they deserve. But this includes understanding of their
> true behavior patterns and evolutionary history.

No argument here!

> Wasps, Mantids, Roaches,
> and whatfuck ever else SR has, are not being protrayed witthis.

I don't know if they're portrayed according to their `real' Totem. But
ultimately, the Totems have originated from some human culture, so ...


By the way, a very nasty mammal Totem would be a Mink Totem, from what
I've been told. Apparently these animals are one of the few that seem
to kill for pleasure, rather than food. I've heard them described as
vicious, cruel, and fond of wanton slaughter.

Have others heard this? Or seen documentaries?

luke
Message no. 4
From: NIGHTFOX <DJWA@******.UCC.NAU.EDU>
Subject: Re: Good, evil, and insect spirits (Was: Re: Insect Spirits)
Date: Wed, 29 Mar 1995 18:58:21 -0700
>> Wasps, Mantids, Roaches,
>> and whatfuck ever else SR has, are not being protrayed witthis.
>
>I don't know if they're portrayed according to their `real' Totem. But
>ultimately, the Totems have originated from some human culture, so ...

Remember though that FASA has never said that human consciousness created what
the totems are. There is a possibility that the Totems ARE and that they
created the image we have of them and and began attribute them to being like
certain animals because it was something we could understand.

Also - What a totem is viewed as does not always coincided with most of their
true nature - ie Snake is a healing totem - though most people think of snakes
in a negative light and remember the poisonous ones.


Insects - Insect Shamans get their powers from the queen. It is never stated
that the insect spirits follow what human culture thinks of them.


Nightfox
Message no. 5
From: Gurth <gurth@******.NL>
Subject: Re: Good, evil, and insect spirits (Was: Re: Insect Spirits)
Date: Thu, 30 Mar 1995 11:24:48 +0200
>I'm not some hippychick; I'm a student at the Exotic Animal Training
>and Management Program in SoCal and going on to get a Zoology degree
>after this.

That looked like it was coming already :)

>I'll wager, tell me if I'm wrong, but I'll be there isn't even any
>Native American or ANY real good cultural reference for these totems as
>they are portrayed, unlike the various others (Raven, Coyote, etc.)

They're not totems in the same way Coyote or Snake or Carp or whatever are
totems (anyone remember that last one? :), but I see your point. I don't
think anything I say about insect spirits will change your mind so I won't,
except that I have a nice little idea running around inside my head that
should put an unexpected twist on the whole insect spirit business...

> If there is some cultural reference, other than "Humans think
>bugs are icky!" then I will graciously step down and accept the SR
>system. You never can beat the BS that the human race can come up
>with regarding animals, and that is a fact and realistic, at least.

Then design an "As Humans Perceive <insert animal here>" totem :)


Gurth@******.nl - Gurth@***.nl - http://www.xs4all.nl/~gurth/index.html
Mr. Buzzcut sent us over to say hi to someone named Gene
Geek Code v2.1: GS/AT/! -d+ H s:- !g p?(3) !au a>? w+(+++) v*(---) C+(++) U
P? !L !3 E? N++ K- W+ -po+(po) Y+ t(+) 5 !j R+(++)>+++$ tv+(++) b+@ D+(++)
B? e+ u+@ h! f--(?) !r(--)(*) n---->!n y? Unofficial Shadowrun Guru :)
Message no. 6
From: Gurth <gurth@******.NL>
Subject: Re: Good, evil, and insect spirits (Was: Re: Insect Spirits)
Date: Thu, 30 Mar 1995 11:25:09 +0200
>I used the word `robotic' to mean that there was no self-awareness.
>They're like stimulus-response driven automata. Through my casual
>observations and reading, they seem to behave as though that's all
>there is - I haven't seen any behaviour that can't be explained in
>such purely `mechanistic' terms.

I saw a documentary on tv about future software (I think), and they pulled
ants out of the closet to illustrate a point. It was something like ants
behaving according to four guidelines, which ones I'm not completely sure,
but it went something like this:

1) if you don't have anything to do, look for food.
2) if you find food, pick it up and bring it to the nest.
3) if you're carrying food, leave a scent trail
4) if you wander across a scent trail, follow it in one direction

That way, all the ants eventually end up carrying food to the nest, and they
don't really seem to use their own initiative very much.

Correct me if I'm wrong, Eve and others.


Gurth@******.nl - Gurth@***.nl - http://www.xs4all.nl/~gurth/index.html
Mr. Buzzcut sent us over to say hi to someone named Gene
Geek Code v2.1: GS/AT/! -d+ H s:- !g p?(3) !au a>? w+(+++) v*(---) C+(++) U
P? !L !3 E? N++ K- W+ -po+(po) Y+ t(+) 5 !j R+(++)>+++$ tv+(++) b+@ D+(++)
B? e+ u+@ h! f--(?) !r(--)(*) n---->!n y? Unofficial Shadowrun Guru :)
Message no. 7
From: Damion Milliken <adm82@***.EDU.AU>
Subject: Re: Good, evil, and insect spirits (Was: Re: Insect Spirits)
Date: Fri, 31 Mar 1995 02:23:55 +1000
Gurth writes:

> Then design an "As Humans Perceive <insert animal here>" totem :)

I thought all totems were "As Humans Perceive Them" (or at least "As Native
Armericans Perceive Them" in FASAs case). Like Gator for example. From this
it isn't too hard to extrapolate to insect totems...

--
Damion Milliken Nominee for the title of _Shadowrun Guru_ adm82@***.edu.au

(GEEK CODE 2.1) GE -d+@ H s++:-- !g p0 !au a19 w+ v(?) C++ US++>+++ P+ L !3
E? N K- W M@ !V po@ Y+ t+ 5 !j R+(++) G(+)('''') !tv(--@)
b++ D B? e+$ u@ h* f+ !r n----(--)@ !y+
Message no. 8
From: Kay and Pete Hanson <kidkaos@******.NET>
Subject: Re: Good, evil, and insect spirits (Was: Re: Insect Spirits)
Date: Thu, 30 Mar 1995 11:33:04 -0600
>E
>By the way, a very nasty mammal Totem would be a Mink Totem, from what
>I've been told. Apparently these animals are one of the few that seem
>to kill for pleasure, rather than food. I've heard them described as
>vicious, cruel, and fond of wanton slaughter.
>
>Have others heard this? Or seen documentaries?
>
>luke
>

Personal experience, yes they are mean,vicious little animals. Will kill
for the sake of killing, the term 'bloodlust' comes to mind. I've seen one
kill a
16 chickens in less than 5 minutes. Didn't eat any of them. It is in the
same family as a weasil. They will attack and kill animals 4 and 5 times
bigger than themselves. However, they are fairly predictable and if you
want to trap them, easy to catch. A weasil moved in to a neighbor's house
last winter, (probably after mice) and he had a new baby and 2 small
children in the house. He set traps for it, but couldn't catch the weasil.
My husband had trapped a few years back, When he went over and set a trap
for it, he caught it within 4 hours.
So as a good fighting totem, yes. However does not work well with others :)
Also I would say, if anyone had any knowledge or studied up on this totem, they
would be fairly easy to defeat. (If you want I'll tell you there downfall:))
Also in this family is the wolverine. martin, and fisher. The wolverine
would be a good fighter :) But again a very solitary character.
Kay

Further Reading

If you enjoyed reading about Good, evil, and insect spirits (Was: Re: Insect Spirits), you may also be interested in:

Disclaimer

These messages were posted a long time ago on a mailing list far, far away. The copyright to their contents probably lies with the original authors of the individual messages, but since they were published in an electronic forum that anyone could subscribe to, and the logs were available to subscribers and most likely non-subscribers as well, it's felt that re-publishing them here is a kind of public service.

Thwap!