Are the chaos gods actual gods?

Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you:

No adverts like this in the forums anymore.
Times and dates in your local timezone.
Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance.
Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely.
Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net.

If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

**solkan**

So much goal post moving in this thread. How many C'tan agents are there?

**Apple fox**

You could say, if you are asking if something may be a god. Then it may not matter if they are or are not at that point.

**Formosa**

you've got very... odd twists to 'beings,' 'spirits' and 'soul.' And possibly 'people,' since you're throwing that in quotes as well.

that is because each one of those things has a definition behind them too and if you understand the definitions of those words you will understand why I put them in quotations

If the C'tan have self-awareness, by definition they aren't non-sentient. They aren't even non-sapient at that point.

before the necrodermis they were not self aware, any "sentience" they have is purely technological in nature, a machine (the necrodermis) that interprets the actions and intentions of the occupant of the necrodermis, they are basically energy suits, so the debate here is if programmed behaviour is the same as independent thought, would the C'Tan pass the Turing test, does that make them any less a technology ? either way they are not gods, but very very powerful technology.

**Bharring**

1hadhq wrote:
'=
The Chaos Gods however, don't show up in the material realm. Ever.

Slanesh fought Khaine and Asuryan's court in the Materium at his/her birth.

Eldar Gods need a vessel ( avatar )

Only Khaine has his Avatars - and even then, only after he was destroyed. Before that, he was "just another god" like the Big Four.
Cegorath hides in the webway, but doesn't have 'Avatars' the way Khaine does. He certainly didn't need one when he pasted Eldanesh.
Isha is captured by Nurgle - again no Avatar.
Asuryan and the rest were killed by Slanesh, but again no mention of "needs a vessel".

C'tan need one ( avatar )

C'tan are beings of the Materium - it's not their avatar, it's their being. They don't exist in the Empyrium like the Eldar/Ork/Chaos/Human gods.

Chaos gods are rather changing existing things, they don't create. 2nd tier gods IMO. Maybe thats why the ork gods wipe the floor with them. 1st class vs 2nd class...

I never realized before now that they don't ever seem to create anything. Intereseting.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

Formosa wrote:
you've got very... odd twists to 'beings,' 'spirits' and 'soul.' And possibly 'people,' since you're throwing that in quotes as well.

that is because each one of those things has a definition behind them too and if you understand the definitions of those words you will understand why I put them in quotations

If the C'tan have self-awareness, by definition they aren't non-sentient. They aren't even non-sapient at that point.

before the necrodermis they were not self aware, any "sentience" they have is purely technological in nature, a machine (the necrodermis) that interprets the actions and intentions of the occupant of the necrodermis, they are basically energy suits, so the debate here is if programmed behaviour is the same as independent thought, would the C'Tan pass the Turing test, does that make them any less a technology ? either way they are not gods, but very very powerful technology.

Can you show that a human is capable of 'independent thought' beyond their 'programmed behavior'? Are they not simply very advanced biological machines?

**Formosa**

Can you show that a human is capable of 'independent thought' beyond their 'programmed behavior'? Are they not simply very advanced biological machines?

Well since we are now going down the Rabbit hole of philosophy I would ask you to first prove that we are artificial in nature and thus could even possibly have programmed behaviour which in and of itself implies a programmer, long story short you cannot possibly prove this assertion as we are none of these things, we have no programmer, we are not artificial creations, the C'Tan ARE artificial in nature, the energy that occupies the suit has not been stated to be sentient (unless this has been retconned) and until these energies occupied these suits they simply moved from star to star like animals and fed, its the Necrodermis that allows them to function the way they do and in order to do that it must have some way of deciphering the intentions of a species that does not even have a language at that point, everything the C'Tan are, the Necrontyr made them and in turn the C'Tan made the Necrons, but they are still not gods.

**Red Marine**

The chaos gods are not gods.

They have massive influence over our dimension, but this is largely dependent upon the presence of certain energies. Warp "energy" is like a kind of radiation that they can manipulate to create a desired result. The more warp energy there is the more power they have and can wield. Without this energy they cant even exist in our dimension. Human souls appear to be mostly made from this energy, and therefore are of interest to the chaos "gods". Human souls are also a convenient portal for warp entities. Otherwise I think of the chaos gods as Kings of kingdoms in the warp and the other lesser beings that are native to the warp as their feudal vassals. These chaos gods are similar to other alien kings native to the IoM's dimension. The chaos gods merely use the term God because the term is beneficial to them.

**AndrewGPaul**

Platuan4th wrote:
AndrewGPaul wrote:
To quote myself from another thread:

AndrewGPaul wrote:
My understanding is that generally "gods" in the sense that we understand from Egypt, Greece, Scandinavia and possibly Hinduism may or may not have created the universe, but they were at least here before humans, and had something to do with our creation. From that point of view, the Chaos powers aren't "gods", as we (well, Old ones and Necrontyr) were here first.

Which doesn't always work. Even in Greece, there were several demi-gods that were born post-human creation that achieved apotheosis and ascended to true godhood. To claim they weren't God's because they weren't here first doesn't really work.

Well, never mind, then. Now that you mention it, I also didn't think of the Roman Emperors either. Or the Pharoahs of Egypt, although I don't know if they were supposed to have a pre-existing divine ... entity of some sort.

**Bharring**

Formosa wrote:
Can you show that a human is capable of 'independent thought' beyond their 'programmed behavior'? Are they not simply very advanced biological machines?

Well since we are now going down the Rabbit hole of philosophy I would ask you to first prove that we are artificial in nature and thus could even possibly have programmed behaviour which in and of itself implies a programmer, long story short you cannot possibly prove this assertion as we are none of these things, we have no programmer, we are not artificial creations, the C'Tan ARE artificial in nature, the energy that occupies the suit has not been stated to be sentient (unless this has been retconned) and until these energies occupied these suits they simply moved from star to star like animals and fed, its the Necrodermis that allows them to function the way they do and in order to do that it must have some way of deciphering the intentions of a species that does not even have a language at that point, everything the C'Tan are, the Necrontyr made them and in turn the C'Tan made the Necrons, but they are still not gods.

Just how much meddling from a designer does it take to be 'Artificial'?
Are Eldar 'artificial' because the the Old Ones developed them?
Are the Koruk? And if so, are the Orkz that deviated from them?
How about the T'au Empire - is it artificial because it (and the Ethereals) were made by (Space Elves of Tzeench, not clear)?
And then we've got Eldar meddling in Human development - doesn't that make us 'Artificial' to a degree?
Are dogs artificial? After all, they're the product of human engineering, not "nature".
Beyond that, Mankind has modified it's own development as well - does that make them artificial?

"Natural" vs "Artificial" isn't as discretely defined as you might think.

**locarno24**

BrianDavion wrote:
moving back to the first definition for a moment, it mentions creator. and yes just about every divine Pantheon has an aspect of creation to it. The gods, or someone related to the gods created aspects of the universe. Making them the universe's elders who watch oiver it yadda yadda ya. This does NOT apply to the chaos gods.

Assuming what we've been told is true.... remember that time in the materium and time in the warp are only vaguely linked at best, so whilst, for example, Sla Neth/Slaanesh was born some time in roughly M.30, he/she/it was around to a less-defined extent before that point, and time travel and causality loops is something they can definitely do (the scattering of the primarchs and kaldor draigo for two examples). We don't know for definite that the chaos gods didn't kick-start the universe (or at least sentient life in it) at some point in the distant past.

Black Crusade does actually include a chaos-perspective creation myth, as it happens.

Be proud on this day of your ascension to manhood. Now that you have seen two hands of winters pass you are children no more. Breathe deep of the dream smoke and listen.

On this, your first trip into the men’s yurt, I impart to you a great mystery of our people (the tale of our origins) so that you might know your place in the universe.

In the beginning there was the void, and only the void, and the gods moved across the face of the void and they were made wholly of it. Some will tell you that a void is a nullity, a nothingness. They are fools. The void is everything; its infinitude encompasses all possibilities and their ultimate annihilation.

It pleased the gods to shape the void as they passed through it, giving it form at their fancy for a time before their makings collapsed back into primordial sea. When the gods met they battled and coupled in equal measure, their shapeless offspring sleeting into the void to lie forgotten in the shadows. So it was for an eternity, with only the void lit by the fire and lightning of the gods at sport.

Eventually tiring of the vastness the gods at last laid aside their differences and determined to create a Reality for their mutual pleasure. They took turns naming the laws they would make for the place:

The Warrior ruled that the strong would always dominate the weak. He did this because he knew his followers would triumph as they were mighty and warlike.

The Prince decreed that the heart would always rule over the head. He did this because he knew that the honeyed tongues of his followers would be able to sway their enemies through desire.

The Deacon demanded that all beings should be mortal, so that which lived must inevitably die. He did this because he knew that then all would ultimately come to rest within the narrow houses of his domain.

The Magus forbore to name any single rule of his own and instead reserved the right to make exceptions later as he saw fit, with much grumbling from his fellows.

The gods were satisfied that they had shaped the crude frame upon which mortal life would be borne, each taking a part of it eternally as their own. They went on to shape the universe as they saw fit. They made a thousand times a thousand laws; that things fall down and not up, that fire needs air to burn, that rock should be solid, that water should flow, on and on they went, now trying to outdo one another in the many ways to bring restriction upon the formless void.

Their laws crystallised inside the primordial ocean and became the skein that we know as the loom of fate, and upon that skein the detritus that we know as Reality began to gather. So it was that our miserable, mortal realm was made and life stumbled forth, a plaything for the god’s sport woven from the dross of primordial Chaos by their passing whimsy.

So think not to call upon the gods and have them hear your prayers, they gave us the gift of all that we are and they care nothing for it. Less than the dust beneath their feet are we.

**Formosa**

Just how much meddling from a designer does it take to be 'Artificial'?

Any interference that would not have occurred through natural means given the environment of the organism in question.

Are Eldar 'artificial' because the the Old Ones developed them?

Given that we do not know exactly what the Eldar were prior to the old ones, I do not know, so possibly and possibly not.

Are the Koruk? And if so, are the Orkz that deviated from them?

Yes, based on the information that we got from the beast arises series the orks are artificial beings.

How about the T'au Empire - is it artificial because it (and the Ethereals) were made by (Space Elves of Tzeench, not clear)?

Interfering with "fate" is not the same as literally changing the nature of the species through artificial means, such as genetic manipulation or changing a chreature of energy with of no known sentience into a solid entity.

And then we've got Eldar meddling in Human development - doesn't that make us 'Artificial' to a degree?

See above, they are not changing the creature into another creature through manipulation of its genetics in an artificial manner or some other manner.

Are dogs artificial? After all, they're the product of human engineering, not "nature".

Yes and no, Dogs as they are now are man made creations, they would not have naturally taken on so many forms and deformations had we not used our intelligence and technology to do so

Beyond that, Mankind has modified it's own development as well - does that make them artificial?

Not yet as we currently lack the technology en mass to do so, if and when we do and reach the "post human" state, we will become an artificial species

"Natural" vs "Artificial" isn't as discretely defined as you might think.

maybe, seems pretty clear to me

**Andykp**

This is some low grade philosophy and theology going on here. In the definition of the setting they are gods, they fit the definition and are called gods, in the warp they are all powerful and they aren’t aliens or demons they are sentient gods coalesced from pure emotion. They aren’t like any gods in the world as we know it, but in setting they are gods. They don’t control the material universe buts only a very human centric view that says the materium is the “real” universe and the warp the other. To them the warp is the “real” place. And the emotions that they are made off and bolstered by aren’t purely a human thing. Many types of creature has emotions.

As for paramedics raising the dead, bacon cat bug is dead wrong. As a paramedic I can say that dead people are dead, those revived were never dead. Dead is a legal term not a medical one. Cardiac arrest is one thing, but you aren’t dead until you fit the legal definition of the term and someone qualified declares you such. It’s a lot kore Administrative than god like.

**Red Marine**

Andykp wrote:
This is some low grade philosophy and theology going on here. In the definition of the setting they are gods, they fit the definition and are called gods, in the warp they are all powerful and they aren’t aliens or demons they are sentient gods coalesced from pure emotion. They aren’t like any gods in the world as we know it, but in setting they are gods. They don’t control the material universe buts only a very human centric view that says the materium is the “real” universe and the warp the other. To them the warp is the “real” place. And the emotions that they are made off and bolstered by aren’t purely a human thing. Many types of creature has emotions.

As for paramedics raising the dead, bacon cat bug is dead wrong. As a paramedic I can say that dead people are dead,
those revived were never dead. Dead is a legal term not a medical one. Cardiac arrest is one thing, but you aren’t dead until you fit the legal definition of the term and someone qualified declares you such. It’s a lot kore Administrative than god like.

All philosophy that a person disagrees with is "low grade". These discussions in a public forum are "useful philosophy". Philosophical conversations that are high grade merely have a professor's stamp of approval, aka graded philosophy homework.

So true death is what? The permanent inability to heal?

**flandarz**

I believe true death is when the human body is no longer able to be revived. I believe the general timeframe is usually 4 minutes without a heartbeat, when brain death occurs. Not just the functions related to thinking, perceiving, and the like. But brainstem death, when the body would be unable to perform the basic necessities to continue functioning. Of course, at this point, we could go into discussions into whether or not a comatose or vegetative state would be considered death or not, as without the functions required to seek out food and water and consume them, the human body would die without external interference, but I feel like it's kind of a moot point, and definitely unrelated to the OP.

As was said, within the lore of 40k, the Chaos Gods are considered to be deities. Even from an "outside" perspective, they would certainly fill the same criteria as the Greek/Roman Gods. Because there are many interpretations of what a God can be, I believe we need to separate them into different categories. There is a stark difference between a Creator God and a Dominion God, for example. The former would be deities such as the God of Judaism, while the latter would be closer to Zeus or Thor. And while Khorne doesn't fit the criteria for the former, he certainly fits the criteria of the latter.

If you want the most unbiased answer, I believe HP Lovecraft wrote something that may be relevant. "The Old Ones are as to the Gods, as the Gods are to Mortals, and Mortals are to Ants." To an insect, humanity would seem very much like Gods. We would be inscrutable and our strength would appear unlimited. I believe we can apply this to the 40k deities as well. So, is the average human in 40k as helpless before the Chaos Gods as an ant is to us? Absolutely.

**Andykp**

Red Marine wrote:
Andykp wrote:
This is some low grade philosophy and theology going on here. In the definition of the setting they are gods, they fit the definition and are called gods, in the warp they are all powerful and they aren’t aliens or demons they are sentient gods coalesced from pure emotion. They aren’t like any gods in the world as we know it, but in setting they are gods. They don’t control the material universe buts only a very human centric view that says the materium is the “real” universe and the warp the other. To them the warp is the “real” place. And the emotions that they are made off and bolstered by aren’t purely a human thing. Many types of creature has emotions.

As for paramedics raising the dead, bacon cat bug is dead wrong. As a paramedic I can say that dead people are dead,
those revived were never dead. Dead is a legal term not a medical one. Cardiac arrest is one thing, but you aren’t dead until you fit the legal definition of the term and someone qualified declares you such. It’s a lot kore Administrative than god like.

All philosophy that a person disagrees with is "low grade". These discussions in a public forum are "useful philosophy". Philosophical conversations that are high grade merely have a professor's stamp of approval, aka graded philosophy homework.

So true death is what? The permanent inability to heal?

By low grade I meant it was barley even philosophical but masquerading as some how higher quality than it actually was. It was barely even reasoned discussion. Can’t say I either especially agreed with it or disagreed. We are talking about made up fantasy gods in space. People declaring opinions as facts isn’t really much philosophical discourse. I personally find philosophy I disagree with very interesting. The only way to grow as a person is to have your mind changed.

As for true death, as a philosophical point of view it’s a very complicated one, but as I said, in the uk at least death is a legal term. Someone isn’t dead until a qualified person declares life extinct. It’s very little to do with the biological status. I have declared people dead who could well have been resuscitated, who still had electrical responses in their hearts and brains. But because of various reasons did not want resuscitating so were declared dead.

**Andykp**

Ooh, touched a nerve. You seem to be the prime candidate for present opinion as fact but maybe it’s just how it comes across in text. I have stated my opinion, in the context of the setting they are gods. In the context of the real world they are fictional gods.

So I will carry on observing the amazingly non philosophical discussions and bear in mind that you are stating zero facts in your argument. I might even have a biscuit.

**Melissia**

Insofar as "gods" exist in 40k, the Chaos Gods, the Emperor, the Eldar Gods, Gork and Mork, and the Tyranid Hive Mind probably qualify.

**Formosa**

Andykp wrote:
Ooh, touched a nerve. You seem to be the prime candidate for present opinion as fact but maybe it’s just how it comes across in text. I have stated my opinion, in the context of the setting they are gods. In the context of the real world they are fictional gods.

So I will carry on observing the amazingly non philosophical discussions and bear in mind that you are stating zero facts in your argument. I might even have a biscuit.

Ah projection, the most base of all emotions, carry on offering nothing but your trollish behaviour big mind

If you want to join the conversation though please jump on in, I cannot wait to see what amazing insights you have to offer from such god tier intellect.

**Andykp**

Formosa wrote:
Andykp wrote:
Ooh, touched a nerve. You seem to be the prime candidate for present opinion as fact but maybe it’s just how it comes across in text. I have stated my opinion, in the context of the setting they are gods. In the context of the real world they are fictional gods.

So I will carry on observing the amazingly non philosophical discussions and bear in mind that you are stating zero facts in your argument. I might even have a biscuit.

Ah projection, the most base of all emotions, carry on offering nothing but your trollish behaviour big mind

If you want to join the conversation though please jump on in, I cannot wait to see what amazing insights you have to offer from such god tier intellect.

I have stated my opinion twice now, but on the discussion you were having before I don’t agree with you that the difference between “artificial” and “natural” is a binary as you claim. I think it is much more nuanced than that. As with the original topic it all depends upon the definition you prefer to use. U seem to imply that technology is the difference between artificial and natural, but creatures have been manipulating the environment around them for thousands of years. We didn’t use technology to engineer dog breeds we just used selective breading to encourage traits we were after. And in effect creatures selecting breading partners based beneficial traits is the same thing. So natural processes produce what you consider artificial creations. I believe that it all falls under umbrella of nature.

I also was not aware that the ctan were not “sentient” creatures until moving across the starlight bridge. It’s not something I’ve ever seen in the books and I in fact quite the opposite impression.

That’s my two cents worth so far. I stand ready to be told I’m wrong by you but please try to be convincing.

**Galas**

The Ctan were allways sentient even before the necrodermis
https://wh40k.lexicanum.com/wiki/C%27tan

"After several million years, the race known as the Necrontyr discovered a being feeding from their very sun. The Necrontyr, under the leadership of Szarekh, "the Silent King," managed to communicate with this being, naming its species the C'tan; which in native Necrontyr means "star gods," or "star vampires".[1] Eventually the Necrontyr built physical bodies for the C'tan made from Necrodermis or living metal. The C'tan were then transferred, supposedly across an "incorporeal starlight bridge," into their new bodies - thousands of miles of energy creature compressed into comparatively tiny bodies."
Ctan are gods in the lovecraftian and most accurate for all form of fantasy definition: They are so powerfull, they are gods for lesser beings.

**Formosa**

I have stated my opinion twice now,

No you made two ad hominum attacks in a row.

but on the discussion you were having before I don’t agree with you that the difference between “artificial” and “natural” is a binary as you claim.

Then why have you not said this yet?, if you disagree say why rather than take passive aggressive snipes at me and others and we can discuss it.

I think it is much more nuanced than that. As with the original topic it all depends upon the definition you prefer to use. U seem to imply that technology is the difference between artificial and natural

That is because technology is the difference between natural evolution and artificial evolution, in order to deviate from natural selection you must have the most basic technology but also the most complex, language, now it is possible this is not true but we are yet to see any example of that being true anywhere in 40k or nature.

but creatures have been manipulating the environment around them for thousands of years.

I agree and the distinction is arbitrary, humans have decided that there is a difference between the two and the distinction is method.

We didn’t use technology to engineer dog breeds we just used selective breading to encourage traits we were after.

Dog breeds WERE the technology we manipulated for our own gain until other technology came along and replaced them but that is not what they are now in the vast majority of cases

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turnspit_dog

And in effect creatures selecting breading partners based beneficial traits is the same thing

its not because natural selection and artificial selection are distinctly different, if we interfere to create a desired result then that result will be different to the one that would have occurred had we not interfered, there is a word for this but I cannot remember for the life of me what it is (not being sarcastic)

So natural processes produce what you consider artificial creations. I believe that it all falls under umbrella of nature.

possibly, due to chaos theory we simply cannot know and it is much more likely that it will not occur, nature will not for example produce an eye for humans that can see on multiple spectrams we currently cannot see because we have mostly removed ourselves from natural evolution, but we can create (well not yet) an eye that is superior in everyway in such a manner that nature would have never evolved for us.

I also was not aware that the ctan were not “sentient” creatures until moving across the starlight bridge. It’s not something I’ve ever seen in the books and I in fact quite the opposite impression.

" no known sentience into a solid entity."

We do not know if it was or was not, so no known sentience based on the information we have, in fact all we are told is that they move around and feed then they were discovered, i do not think this has changed much since 3rd if at all.

"It is said that the C'tan were created at the very beginning of the universe, spawned from swirling gases and enormous amounts of energy, and as such are etheric creatures by nature. In their natural form they are vast beings and spread themselves over the surface of a star, sucking at its energy to feed themselves. After a time, they learned to use diaphanous wings to travel to other stars to continue their consumption. The matter around them was so insignificant that it didn't even register to their voracious appetites."

That’s my two cents worth so far. I stand ready to be told I’m wrong by you but please try to be convincing.

no need to be so defensive, if you are wrong you are wrong, if you are right you are right, that is all there is to it.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

Galas wrote:
The Ctan were allways sentient even before the necrodermis
https://wh40k.lexicanum.com/wiki/C%27tan

"After several million years, the race known as the Necrontyr discovered a being feeding from their very sun. The Necrontyr, under the leadership of Szarekh, "the Silent King," managed to communicate with this being, naming its species the C'tan; which in native Necrontyr means "star gods," or "star vampires".[1] Eventually the Necrontyr built physical bodies for the C'tan made from Necrodermis or living metal. The C'tan were then transferred, supposedly across an "incorporeal starlight bridge," into their new bodies - thousands of miles of energy creature compressed into comparatively tiny bodies."
Ctan are gods in the lovecraftian and most accurate for all form of fantasy definition: They are so powerfull, they are gods for lesser beings.

Comunication does not equal sentience/self awareness in all fairness, this is a debate that has been raging for decades, we can communicate with dogs but they are not what we deem as "self aware" and that is a key component to sentience.

**nareik**

I don't want to interrupt this thing you have going on, but I have a technicality to interject on your artificial vs natural discussion. It was stated that 'artificial' influence is an influence that is outside the natural environment of a thing. Consider this: humans and their interference are part of the natural environment of dogs.

**Formosa**

nareik wrote:
I don't want to interrupt this thing you have going on, but I have a technicality to interject on your artificial vs natural discussion. It was stated that 'artificial' influence is an influence that is outside the natural environment of a thing. Consider this: humans and their interference are part of the natural environment of dogs.

I would agree but we have removed ourselves from the natural environment, so much so that that we affect the environment on such a massive scale that it is being forced to change from its "normal" cycle, because of this any animal that we change is now artificial until such a time as our influence ends (3 generations in dogs IIRC) and that is why its called artificial selection and not natural selection.

**Bharring**

Formosa wrote:
That is because technology is the difference between natural evolution and artificial evolution, in order to deviate from natural selection you must have the most basic technology but also the most complex, language, now it is possible this is not true but we are yet to see any example of that being true anywhere in 40k or nature.

To deviate from "natural selection" to "artificial evolution", you only need a selection bias that can be considered "artificial". You certainly don't need complex language or technology to do that; if you hate all calico cats, and kill them all, you've replaced natural selection with artificial evolution. It can be done without any language at all.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

Dog breeds WERE the technology we manipulated for our own gain until other technology came along and replaced them but that is not what they are now in the vast majority of cases

The same way E. Coli used technology to develop mankind as a good host?
Mankind is not the only species to cause adaptation in a symbiotic partner.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

its not because natural selection and artificial selection are distinctly different, if we interfere to create a desired result then that result will be different to the one that would have occurred had we not interfered, there is a word for this but I cannot remember for the life of me what it is (not being sarcastic)

Natural selection and artificial selection are distinctly different only in the distinction we make - which is between "natural" and "artificial". Beyond that, it has no meaning. "Artificial" is a fiction we use to make Mankind's impacts have more meaning/impact than other factors. Outside humanity, there's no reason to consider that fiction any more than considering all the impacts of salt-water invertebrates as "artificial".

**Formosa**

To deviate from "natural selection" to "artificial evolution", you only need a selection bias that can be considered "artificial". You certainly don't need complex language or technology to do that; if you hate all calico cats, and kill them all, you've replaced natural selection with artificial evolution. It can be done without any language at all.

the second you codify "hate" as a concept you have the beginnings of a language and if you kill all the cats you have not changed their evolution, you have ended it and the concept of "ending" a species also requires a level of intelligence not seen anywhere in the animal kingdom or 40k, language is the most complex technology humans have and also the most basic needed in order to advance as a species.

The same way E. Coli used technology to develop mankind as a good host?
Mankind is not the only species to cause adaptation in a symbiotic partner.

and that is natural evolution not artificial evolution as for the E-Coli to have done so intentionally it would require a level of self awareness to adapt its surroundings that is does not possess.

Natural selection and artificial selection are distinctly different only in the distinction we make - which is between "natural" and "artificial". Beyond that, it has no meaning. "Artificial" is a fiction we use to make Mankind's impacts have more meaning/impact than other factors. Outside humanity, there's no reason to consider that fiction any more than considering all the impacts of salt-water invertebrates as "artificial".

yep, I am pretty sure I did say its arbitrary, we have decided this distinction exists, if the animals do not like it they can argue the point.... ah, they cant, because they lack the intelligence to do so and it does have meaning because we as a species have given it meaning in the same manner that money has no real meaning other than that with which we give it, as for mankinds impacts, that does not require more meaning its massive and tangible and objective reality shows us that we have had a massive impact on the environment (not talking about global warming), outside humanity it does not matter as so far no one has turned up to argue with us and 40k is written by us so the rules likely still apply unless otherwise stated, Necrons are an artificial species that used to be the Necrontyr, Orks are a Designed species and are thus artificial, Eldar are the same, Tyranids are a big grey area here as they may be sentient enough due to the hive mind and artificially create species to suit the task at hand, Humans have artificial sub species including ad mech and space marines, given more thought I consider the Tau a self made artificial species as they have the caste system and many almost sub species like the humans but not as extreme, Chaos Deamons are not a species at all but the result of all the other species.

with that all being said back to the point, no, I do not think any of the "gods" in 40k are actually gods, all are mortal as far as we know, several are artificial creations and just technology and other are extradimentional entities of great power.

**Andykp**

Any time an animal selects a mate to breed with it is doing selective breeding. That’s why males of many species demonstrate strength and virility in mating rituals. It’s still natural. I think your idea of natural evolution is flawed. Species do not exist in vacuums, they co exist in complex ecosystems where each species has a direct effect on the next. More and more discoveries in biology and ecology show the complex intertwining of species and their development. Humans are far from the only creatures to have an effect on their environment. By your definition any creature altering its environment is creating an artificial environment.

As for the gods in 40k as I have said, they should be judged by their setting. The chaos gods are gods in the purest sense of the word. They aren’t mortal or entities. They are manifestations if pure emotion in a alternatuve reality devoid of space and time. Real world definitions have no bearing on the warp. Mortality is entirely dependent on time and in the warp time exists diferently than in real space if at all. So the gods cannot die because if they did at the same time they would still exist.

**nareik**

Yes, there is artificial selection vs natural selection. However your point was about artificial vs natural influences. The definition you gave of artificial and natural meant that sometimes artificial selection fell under your definition of 'natural influences'.

Firstly it is in mans nature to domesticate plants and animals. Indeed the progress goes two ways. Grasses are the dominant life form on Earth in part as they evolved to exploit the behaviours of animals and man. Furthermore there is an argument that dogs domesticated man. Research suggests man didn't steal some wolf pups; wolf packs decided to live closer and closer to man, integrating themselves into a symbiotic mixed species pack. Men tolerated the wolves as they were more useful than they were dangerous.

The wolves that were best adapted to this mixed pack survived and reproduced. It is only relatively recently that me. Started selectively breeding for certain traits. And by then man was already part of the 'natural environment' (as you called it) of dogs.

Based on such evidence I believe your dichotomy of natural and artificial is false.

**some bloke**

I think it's fair to state that "natural" evolution is that which occurs without conscious decision, and "Artificial" evolution is that which occurs with forethought and desired results.

an animal selecting a mate is natural, run by instinct, and hasn't a desired result, it has a pre-coded result in that a species predisposed to mating with the strongest will out-compete on predisposed to mating with the weakest.

Pugs, on the other hand, are artificial in nature- they were bred with the specific purpose of becoming as ~~pug-ugly~~ pug-like as possible, squashed faces and respiratory issues and all.

An elephant knocking trees over to create their paths is artificial - whilst it is natural, the elephant has decided to remove the trees for a purpose. The paths caused by sheep on the moors are natural - the sheep just follow the easiest route, which happens to be that which has already been walked over by other sheep. They aren't trying to make paths, they are just using them, and by doing so inadvertently make them.

For something to be artificial, it has to have been intended, or the result of intention. A human having a child is artificial, as it was intended - the human wanted the child, and so created the child. But the child that they create is natural, as it is not interfered with. Whereas the Nazi ubermesch business where there was a "superior race" was essentially selective breeding for humans - people were having kids with other ariens (probably spelt wrong) with the desire to have arean kids. Or pure-bloods marrying pure-bloods in harry potter, if you want a lighter setting for the analogy that's based firmly in fiction. I can't say anything for sure about wizards, but there is a disproportionately high amount of blond-haired blue-eyed germans out there now, as a direct result of this. This statistic is artificial - it is the result of intent. the grandparents wanted this result.

I've lost how this fits into the god/not god argument here, but that's my 2 cents on artificial and natural.

**Andykp**

some bloke wrote:
I think it's fair to state that "natural" evolution is that which occurs without conscious decision, and "Artificial" evolution is that which occurs with forethought and desired results.

an animal selecting a mate is natural, run by instinct, and hasn't a desired result, it has a pre-coded result in that a species predisposed to mating with the strongest will out-compete on predisposed to mating with the weakest.

Pugs, on the other hand, are artificial in nature- they were bred with the specific purpose of becoming as ~~pug-ugly~~ pug-like as possible, squashed faces and respiratory issues and all.

An elephant knocking trees over to create their paths is artificial - whilst it is natural, the elephant has decided to remove the trees for a purpose. The paths caused by sheep on the moors are natural - the sheep just follow the easiest route, which happens to be that which has already been walked over by other sheep. They aren't trying to make paths, they are just using them, and by doing so inadvertently make them.

For something to be artificial, it has to have been intended, or the result of intention. A human having a child is artificial, as it was intended - the human wanted the child, and so created the child. But the child that they create is natural, as it is not interfered with. Whereas the Nazi ubermesch business where there was a "superior race" was essentially selective breeding for humans - people were having kids with other ariens (probably spelt wrong) with the desire to have arean kids. Or pure-bloods marrying pure-bloods in harry potter, if you want a lighter setting for the analogy that's based firmly in fiction. I can't say anything for sure about wizards, but there is a disproportionately high amount of blond-haired blue-eyed germans out there now, as a direct result of this. This statistic is artificial - it is the result of intent. the grandparents wanted this result.

I've lost how this fits into the god/not god argument here, but that's my 2 cents on artificial and natural.

The only problem with this definition is that humans are far more driven by natural instincts than we realise. All the research shows it. Having a child is not just a conscious decision it is instinctive, it’s a natural imperative to breed. And this is the the problem with the natural vs artificial thing. No one definition will cover it fully because the lines are blurred totally. I would argue the elephant pushing down a tree to get by is instinctive. The desire to breed with the most desirable mate with the most sort after characteristics is instinctive too. A lot less conscious than most people like to accept. Any man who like breasts is an example of this, or a woman who wants to mate with a strong able man. That behaviour drives us as humans massively.

**some bloke**

Andykp wrote:

The only problem with this definition is that humans are far more driven by natural instincts than we realise. All the research shows it. Having a child is not just a conscious decision it is instinctive, it’s a natural imperative to breed. And this is the the problem with the natural vs artificial thing. No one definition will cover it fully because the lines are blurred totally. I would argue the elephant pushing down a tree to get by is instinctive. The desire to breed with the most desirable mate with the most sort after characteristics is instinctive too. A lot less conscious than most people like to accept. Any man who like breasts is an example of this, or a woman who wants to mate with a strong able man. That behaviour drives us as humans massively.

Yes and no; Elephants are taught how to clear trees by their elders, it's a skill passed down rather than an instinct (another example, fishing for ants with a stick is not an instinct, it's a skill learnt from an orang-utans parents). Whilst their instinct is to find a route, they have been taught that they can instead clear one. The fact that they remember their paths is testament that it is an intentional decision to make them - otherwise they would just knock down any tree in their way. In this vein, the paths are artificially created - no differently than a human chopping down trees with an axe to create a path, or carving an arrow in a tree to direct themselves in the future.

Humans are led by instinct, and having kids with the partner they have chosen is indeed natural, most of the time - in my example though, I mention the whole arian "master race" business from war-time Germany, where people were choosing arian partners (blonde hair blue eyes) for unnatural reasons. This has led to a higher proportion of such people in Germany than in other places - the people are of course natural., but the proportion of them was artificially created based on the preferences of a dictatorship.

It's also worth noting that humans have other means to artificially affect their average population. As well as contraceptives, abortions and the like, we have one which I firmly believe has potential to lead to problems in our evolution; C-sections. In ancient history (I know the romans did C-sections (and the mother died) so we're going before that) if a human couldn't give birth due to narrow hips or some other genetically dictated issue, they died in childbirth, and their genes were removed from the gene-pool. Nowadays, you could be entirely genetically incapable of natural birth, and yet still have a child and contribute your naturally detrimental genes to the next generation. After so many generations, you have a race entirely reliant on C-sections to procreate. Then if society collapses, and the doctors run dry, the species ends. Maybe that's what happened to the Eldar...

(I realise this can be seen as a controversial point, and please be assured that it is presented simply as a logical observation and in no way one of judgement.)[/disclaimer]

How does contraception affect our evolution? I recommend watching Idiocracy.

**Haighus**

some bloke wrote:

It's also worth noting that humans have other means to artificially affect their average population. As well as contraceptives, abortions and the like, we have one which I firmly believe has potential to lead to problems in our evolution; C-sections. In ancient history (I know the romans did C-sections (and the mother died) so we're going before that) if a human couldn't give birth due to narrow hips or some other genetically dictated issue, they died in childbirth, and their genes were removed from the gene-pool. Nowadays, you could be entirely genetically incapable of natural birth, and yet still have a child and contribute your naturally detrimental genes to the next generation. After so many generations, you have a race entirely reliant on C-sections to procreate. Then if society collapses, and the doctors run dry, the species ends. Maybe that's what happened to the Eldar...

That is unlikely to happen unless natural births are selected against- an allelle in a population with no selection pressures will remain at a constant proportion. If 75% of the population carries genes that are favourable for a natural birth, and there is no additional selection pressures on those genes, then even with universal c-sections 75% will remain favourable for natural births. The number requiring C-sections will plateau at whatever proportion of the population already carries susceptible genes (considering multiple c-sections carries an increasing risk, it is very unlikely the number of offspring of c-section-gene carriers would be higher than natural birth-gene carriers).

Of course, if (hypothetically) having a large head is associated with increased intelligence, and large-head babies require c-sections, then yeah, c-sections will increase proportionally. But it requires that positive selection pressure.

Plus, there are a lot of issues which already provide negative pressures, such as the aformentioned issues with multiple sections (more than two or three c-sections forvthe same women is asking for trouble due to the adhesions and other artefacts of previous surgery making the operations more risky), or things like the hygeine hypothesis.