Dumbing of Age: Comic Strip Prep

[ysabetwordsmith]

My partner Doug showed me this scene about different people trying to brainstorm ideas for a comic strip.  He said the last panel reminded him of me.

I've spent the last 3 days destroying Europe and building a more robust North-South America.  So yeah ... that's me.  :D

Comments

[siliconshaman]

I tend to dive right in and explore, although world building is fun. So tell me, how did you destroy Europe?

Well ...

[ysabetwordsmith]

I ramped up the volcanic and earthquake activity. Vulcanism is governed by currents of magma under the crust, and flow is a chaos function. So once the tectonic plates are set, what heats up where along the seams is a fairly random function, but the possible places are established. In this setting, the Mediterranean is a hotspot, so the sea is a mess and most of southern Europe is inhospitable. That means Europe is cut off from Asia and Africa through the southern route (Turkey is completely uninhabitable) so the only ways to get anywhere are to cross the strait of Gibraltar or go overland through Russia. Farther north, there's more solid ground, but it's cut apart. Some groups are still recognizable, but the proportions and locations aren't all the same.

I also had fun building up technology in North America. In the last several decades, white people have found a lot more information about how advanced the natives were. Oh hey, I remember that, they finally noticed it. So that lays a good foundation for extrapolating how things could have developed more.

Contact is around 1450 CE. I started writing the first poem last night but kept running into more things I needed to name in order to describe it. With the languages so scrambled, I went for translated meanings on names, which means looking up etymologies or finding alternate names for places and peoples. 0_o Fun, but it adds up. I'm over 200 pages in notes, in about 3 days of work.

Re: Well ...

[siliconshaman]

Hm, that's not bad! Physically very plausible. Increased levels of volcanism also means more earth quakes, which would probably close the Bosporus Strait, maybe even the straits of Gibraltar... this would cause the sea levels in the cut off portions to drop, changing rainfall patterns as well. But it would mean there's an overland route to parts of Africa. [technically, also one via what was Istanbul, but as you say, parts south of that are uninhabitable.]

That would mean the silk road might run further north though, less precipitation means less snow in Siberia, turning a lot of the upper reaches of Russia in scrubby grass-land or cold desert. Which would favour the Mongols.

Re: Well ...

[ysabetwordsmith]

>> Hm, that's not bad! Physically very plausible. <<

:D Thanks for the vote of confidence! I love worldbuilding, and I also love looking at different types of catastrophe to consider their effects, what would work better when and how.

>> Increased levels of volcanism also means more earth quakes, <<

Yes. I have established two types of hazardous terrain:

* Fumelands have enough volcanic activity to have fumaroles, mudpots, geysers, and/or other features that make living there difficult or impossible depending on the intensity.

* Quakelands have enough shaking that buildings can't rise above 1-2 stories depending on intensity. People can live there, but are limited in their ability to grow cities because they can't build up, and building out quickly creates infrastructure problems.

So the main cities are all in the north where it's quieter. The British Islands, Scandinavia, and north-central Europe have some of the best territories. Spain and France each have a patch of nice land, but they're pretty isolated. Losing the Mediterranean Sea, Southern Europe, and connectivity has gutted civilization there.

>> which would probably close the Bosporus Strait, <<

Irrelevant. Turkey is impassable clear to the Caspian Sea. The easy overland route through which Europe connected to the Middle East and thence Africa and Asia is effectively closed. A few daring traders might make it through during a quiet phase, but it's too dangerous to make regular traffic at all feasible. The contact is negligible.

>> maybe even the straits of Gibraltar... this would cause the sea levels in the cut off portions to drop, changing rainfall patterns as well. But it would mean there's an overland route to parts of Africa. <<

Gibraltar is passable. Sort of. All the extra activity has made the Mediterranean Sea a seething morass of unpredictable waters, noxious pollutants in places, and not much life except for the toughest species and a few that have learned to harness the hazards for their own benefit. So Gibraltar isn't the easy and profitable passage that it is here, but it's the only gate to Africa. People do use it, progress just travels slower.

I knew from the beginning that Greek and Roman cultures wouldn't develop, but it was only later that I realized:

* No Turkey means that Christianity and Islam barely made it into Europe; most is still Pagan.

* The shakier northwest coast of Norway undermined the Viking ability to launch from there.

* Spain and France each have a central area of safety and civilization, but they're cut off from easy overland access. Their best connections are through the northern waterfront access.

>> [technically, also one via what was Istanbul, but as you say, parts south of that are uninhabitable.] <<

See above re: Turkey is closed.

This is the map I'm working with as base inspiration, although I've elaborated on some things because the situation in this setting is worse.

Re: Well ...

[(Anonymous)]

>>Contact is around 1450 CE.<<

How are you handling the germ exchange portion of first contact given that:
a) A lot of deadly diseases come from farm animals
b) Access to a diversity of farm animals is rather limited outside of Europe/Asia/Africa
...?

Is farming less popular in this 'verse? Do the Americas still have megafauna? Did the Americas take to farming more than Eurasia? Did some farm animals make it over along with Polynesian wayfarers? Did folk start intensive aquaculture, or multispecies hunting collaboration?

Re: Well ...

[ysabetwordsmith]

* Europe is broken into smaller parts. That makes it harder for them to exchange livestock, among other things.

* Europe has fewer large populations, let alone cities. That makes it harder for them to develop widespread communal diseases and immunity to same.

So Europe still has some of its own diseases, as every place with people does, but not the preponderance of communal diseases.

* The Americas had a rather wider selection of livestock than Europeans wanted to admit.

http://faculty.marianopolis.edu/c.belanger/quebechistory/encyclopedia/DomesticationofanimalsbyIndians.htm

https://indiancountrytoday.com/news/yes-world-there-were-horses-in-native-culture-before-the-settlers-came?redir=1

https://soar.wichita.edu/bitstream/handle/10057/1824/LAJ%2021_p42-54.pdf?sequence=1&isAllowed=y

That's more than enough to swap around some germs.

* The Americas had MUCH MORE and MUCH LARGER civilization and cities than Europeans wanted to admit.

* In this setting, various advances building on established history make it possible for them to keep those civilizations going longer and stronger rather than repeatedly crashing back and having to start over (which admittedly Europe also did, but it bounced better in our timeline).

That's more than enough to build up communal diseases. Chances are, the Americans had them but the Europeans simply got lucky, landing at a time when the population was spread out enough to avoid much of a backflash.

Note that researching this stuff is challenging because the Europeans went out of their way to lie, cheat, destroy evidence, and generally cover up the fact that they were demolishing civilizations rather than "savages." I am, however, gratified to see that in recent decades much more evidence has resurfaced indicating higher levels than Europeans had previously been willing to document.

So in this setting, Europe has smaller, scattered populations that are less conducive to communal diseases.

The Americas have larger populations, more cities, and some communal diseases unique to their context.

The impact on the Native American travelers will thus be minor, while the impact on the Europeans will be considerably worse. It may do less damage in populations who have the closest contact with multiple livestock, or other ways to build resistance.

Re: Well ...

[(Anonymous)]

>>It may do less damage in populations who have the closest contact with multiple livestock, or other ways to build resistance.<<

I'd have guessed that being on a trade route would increase population resistance because of genetic diversity in the population.

Livestock might count if they are transferring similar pathogens (i.e. smallpox and cowpox).

Various social practices (cosleeping, purification/cleanliness rituals, understanding of miasma/germ theory or equivalent) may either spread or suppress disease.

Also, environmental factors may play into it:
- Rats become more active when their food supply is disturbed.
- Lack of clean water leads to uncleanliness which often spreads illness.
- A disturbance to the water supply [such as an earthquake] or even just being downstream might spread waterborne illness.
- Mosquitoes. Just...mosquitoes. (I read that many cities were founded at altitudes that mosquitoes didn't live at...)

Re: Well ...

[ysabetwordsmith]

>> I'd have guessed that being on a trade route would increase population resistance because of genetic diversity in the population. <<

Well, it's better than nothing. At least you've got variation so somebody has a chance of surviving.

>> Livestock might count if they are transferring similar pathogens (i.e. smallpox and cowpox). <<

So far I have fungal disease spread by mushroom farms and a germ carried by mosquitoes.

>> Various social practices (cosleeping, purification/cleanliness rituals, understanding of miasma/germ theory or equivalent) may either spread or suppress disease. <<

True. Muslims have an edge there, and there's a settlement of them in Spain.

>> Also, environmental factors may play into it:
- Rats become more active when their food supply is disturbed. <<

Everything is disturbed in this Europe.

>> - Lack of clean water leads to uncleanliness which often spreads illness.
- A disturbance to the water supply [such as an earthquake] or even just being downstream might spread waterborne illness. <<

This would contribute to the quakelands having fewer or no people living there. The fumelands are even worse; it's almost impossible to find fresh water in volcanic areas.

>> - Mosquitoes. Just...mosquitoes. (I read that many cities were founded at altitudes that mosquitoes didn't live at...) <<

Most of Europe is not very hospitable to mosquitoes. Consequently few people have resistance to mosquito-borne diseases. So while that isn't a problem that will go to Europe, when Europeans go to the Americas then they will often drop dead, which is a problem people had here trying to dig the Panama Canal. An interesting difference is that, while European diseases scythed through North and South America, in this setting the American diseases will hit Europeans, but Africans will have some resistance to the mosquito-borne one.

Re: Well ...

[(Anonymous)]

>>Most of Europe is not very hospitable to mosquitoes. Consequently few people have resistance to mosquito-borne diseases.<<

It occurs to me that the cultural framing of 'Native Americans had no resistance to smallpox' vs 'tropical regions are a death zone [for Europeans] because of the tropical diseases' shows a bias...

Also, I wonder how much of the 'hide in swamplands' was due to inaccesability/undesirability of terrain to potential pursuers, or if the mosquitos and potential illness might have had a disproportionate effect on whitefolk pursuers.

(Mosquitoes think I am delicious, so I am very reluctant to go anywhere with any mosquitoes, myself.)

I also recall that benefits of 'settled' life as admired by some modern day traditional peoples include such things as table salt, umbrellas and /bug spray/.

Re: Well ...

[ysabetwordsmith]

>> It occurs to me that the cultural framing of 'Native Americans had no resistance to smallpox' vs 'tropical regions are a death zone [for Europeans] because of the tropical diseases' shows a bias... <<

One half of it is that; they simply didn't equate "lack of resistance" across the two scenarios.

The other is that those are the two kill modes of low resistance. One involves introducing a disease to a new place with a virgin field of nonresistant victims. The other involves introducing a nonresistant victim to a new place with unfamiliar diseases. The death rates tend to be similar, but the pattern looks different. In the first, a disease wipes out a big swath of an established population. In the second, a disease prevents establishment of a population, or at least makes it very difficult and dangerous.

>> Also, I wonder how much of the 'hide in swamplands' was due to inaccesability/undesirability of terrain to potential pursuers, or if the mosquitos and potential illness might have had a disproportionate effect on whitefolk pursuers. <<

Likely both.

*ponder* It makes me wonder if populations in mosquito-heavy areas have a higher portion of the traits that make people less attractive to biting insects. This would certainly be an advantage. Conversely, people from places with few or no mosquitoes would have no reason to weed out traits that make them delicious to biting insects.

We visited a Lewis and Clark museum exhibit once. Someone with a quirky love of history had made a sign listing the dozens of ways that the journals had spelled the word "mosquitoes," and talked about how miserable the explorers were because of biting insects. It also talked about the severe digestive problems they had from a mostly-meat diet. I'm guessing Sacagawea didn't have those problems ... and either didn't share, or the guys didn't want to share, the edible plants she must've been gathering along the way. LOL Europeans were soooo unprepared for America.

>> I also recall that benefits of 'settled' life as admired by some modern day traditional peoples include such things as table salt, umbrellas and /bug spray/. <<

It's not far from my list. That always freaked out the teachers when they'd ask what you couldn't live without.

Oxygen, food, water; all the survival needs.

Then antibiotics, refrigeration, air conditioning, heating systems, flush toilets -- newer things that can make a difference in survival and health.

Meanwhile other people were listing things like hair dryers and television. 0_o Of which at least TV has the capacity to deliver valuable weather news, but that wasn't why they were listing it.

Re: Well ...

[(Anonymous)]

>>It makes me wonder if populations in mosquito-heavy areas have a higher portion of the traits that make people less attractive to biting insects.<<

I would suggest looking at two factors (for mosquitoes):

1) Compare how much carbon dioxide different ethnic groups emit. I think mosquitoes track people by CO2 emissions. (Boy, that's an unusual sentence to write...)

2) Check blood types, compare as above. (I think mosquitoes prefer certain blood types.)

Of course, if you're talking about other critters like ticks or lice, you'd have to find out what attracts them and keeps them around. (Body heat? Specific texture, length, or body coverage of hair?)

>>Then antibiotics, refrigeration, air conditioning, heating systems, flush toilets -- newer things that can make a difference in survival and health.<<

Technically,you can live without them - but it is much more difficult and a lower quality of life.

I wonder if anyone listed person-spicific needs like NICU incubators, insulin, or wheelchairs.

Heck, the wheel [and a few other transportation advances], settlements and agriculture are major reasons our culture can suppourt people who are are a) more than 40lbs and b) unable to self-locomote over long distances (or do much work), rather than 'Here's some water and trail mix, catch up when you can.'

I wonder if the teacher was mor freaked out at your list, the other students' lists, or the contrast.

>>Well, it's better than nothing. At least you've got variation so somebody has a chance of surviving.<<

While researching something else, I found an article suggesting the expression of the current unpleasantness is startlingly different in Africa vs many First World countries, and it may be due to age of the population and distribution of the population*. (Of course, there are other theories as well.)

*Specifically, the First World has a lot of old folks, and a lot of people packed together, while Africa has (in comparison) very few old folks, and a much more scattered population.

I'd never really considered age of the population to influence disease spread...

Re: Well ...

[zeeth_kyrah]

Depending on the species, some mosquitos prefer certain blood types. But most or all mosquitos tend to follow people with active metabolism (they can smell carbon dioxide, and active animals emit more CO2), ripe fruit (it attracts animals, and many species of fruit emit ethylene when ripening to encourage nearby fruit to ripen at the same time), and phosphorus (vital for their metabolism, found in high amounts in bananas and some other foods animals like).

Ripe fruit also attracts gnats, flies, and other insects for various reasons, some of which can bite or sting.

Re: Well ...

[(Anonymous)]

>>But most or all mosquitos tend to follow people with active metabolis...<<

Ha! That explains the family joke about mosquitoes choosing me as a free-range meal. [As opposed to my relative, who is not active for medical reasons and never gets bit.]

I wonder if eating more/less fruit would attract or repel them...

Re: Well ...

[ysabetwordsmith]

Biting creatures in general dislike allium. Some people take garlic oil or hide it in pet food for that purpose. Many traditional recipes for bug repellent use allium and other strong-smelling plants both to disguise the mammal smell and to discourage them from biting.

Re: Well ...

[ysabetwordsmith]

>>Technically,you can live without them - but it is much more difficult and a lower quality of life.<<

Things in that second list sometimes make the difference between life and death. All of them. Air conditioning is life support for me in hot weather. Without refrigeration, food poisoning kills more people. Folks today have absolutely no idea how dependent modern life is on antibiotics. Lose that, which we are by the way, and surgery becomes usually lethal due to secondary infections. And so on.

>>I wonder if anyone listed person-spicific needs like NICU incubators, insulin, or wheelchairs.<<

Never outside of online spaces like here that are populated by highly intelligent people with disabilities who do a lot of intellectual edgeplay such as reading and writing survival literature. Not once in the wild, in a mixed group, which is pathetic considering how many people do rely on such things.

>>I wonder if the teacher was mor freaked out at your list, the other students' lists, or the contrast.<<

Always my list, but it varied whether I frightened or angered the person with the differences.

Only once have I ever had a stranger respond positively to that sort of thing, and it was a classroom guest speaker talking about survival scenarios if the world broke down while we were at school. While the other kids were arguing over trivialities, I rapped out a series of questions about the cause of disruption, resources we had, and what we knew. He pointed and said, "If anything ever goes wrong, you better have her on your side." I shrugged and said, "They'd never listen to me." He looked sad. I think he knew I was right. That was freshman high school, I think, so I was ... 14 maybe?

People just got upset that I didn't fit in. They didn't stop to think about what that meant. And I've subsequently seen lists that mock people who made them, but rarely anyone talking about how to fix that problem by alerting folks to what survival really rests on. I mean hell, we can't get them to stop feeding antibiotics to farm animals to fatten them up, and we're going to run out of antibiotics that work because of it. >_<

>>I'd never really considered age of the population to influence disease spread...<<

It's always a factor. The vast majority of diseases kill the old, the young, and the weak. But occasionally you see one that skips them and attacks the strong young adults. At least once, influenza did that, and nobody knew why. AIDS spreads well among sexually active people, so mostly young adults (except Africa's weird belief that having sex with a virgin cures it, which creates a secondary spread from adults to children).

Re: Well ...

[(Anonymous)]

>>Folks today have absolutely no idea how dependent modern life is on antibiotics. <<

Read a post-apocalyptic book once where the author has a horrifying death scene...because the kid stepped on a nail and got tetanus. Possibly the worst part of it was that all the medically-trained adults in attendance knew /how/ to save her...but didn't have any antibiotics, so they couldn't do anything but watch her die. /Every/ adult involved in that was traumatized.

>>Never outside of online spaces like here that are populated by highly intelligent people with disabilities who do a lot of intellectual edgeplay such as reading and writing survival literature. Not once in the wild, in a mixed group, which is pathetic considering how many people do rely on such things.<<

I have seen it once, in a Baby Boomer variously trained as mechanic/engineer, and in a [non-doctor, non-nurse] medical profession who did house calls very poor neighborhoods and has a severely physically disabled stepchild. Back-up plans for that household must include electricity, and there is a hard limit on how long living without electricity is possible.

This person is also good at thinking up solutions for things like 'need a second bathroom, but [for whatever reason] can't get plumbing.'

Its possible that there are more people like that out there, but they don't really congregate highly outside of internet spaces. I'd suggest looking among poorfolk, specifically those with disabilities and their close relatives/caregivers. Also correlate for people skilled in handiwork [carpentry, construction, welding] and medical professions. Also, add in really rural [like the crossroads store is a couplea hours' drive] folks.

>>Only once have I ever had a stranger respond positively to that sort of thing, and it was a classroom guest speaker talking about survival scenarios if the world broke down while we were at school. <<

I'd be willing to bet he'd seen some stuff...

>>He pointed and said, "If anything ever goes wrong, you better have her on your side." I shrugged and said, "They'd never listen to me." He looked sad. I think he knew I was right. That was freshman high school, I think, so I was ... 14 maybe?<<

It's worth noting that the three people I've known who I'd /specifically/ want on my side in an apocalypse include a mechanic from a Third-World country, a refugee who (I think) has some relevant training before fleeing, and a ex-military guy I knew who had that 'I don't care about your petty nonsense' vibe that people get when they know they can handle trouble. (Also, none of them are the sort of person where ego-wrangling would be an issue...)

And it is very relaxing when people actually know when to listen to you...

>>...weird belief...<<

Some people just want to justify whatever silly o selfish thing they want to do.