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.

 Haighus wrote:

 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.

There is something to be said for the fact that the "trend" appears to be the girls try to look as much like a skeleton as possible these days, skinny women with narrow hips are the ones most likely to breed.

I doubt if it will ever really come to much, but it's an interesting theory.


As for "what is a god", I would suggest that a god is very much a relative term, and that a god is something which can purposefully affect something without any consequence.

For example: we are not gods to ants; we can affect them but could get bitten. Mythical gods who are immortal can affect us and there's nothing we can do about it, and as such are gods to us. Time is a god - it changes everything, but nothing changes time. The moon is a god to the earths light, as it can eclipse it without any consequence. The chaos gods cannot be affected by humans, and as such are gods to them. The emperor is not a god - the amount of defences he has proves that. But he might be a god to an ant, as his psychic capabilities would probably make it impossible for one to bite him. Khorne is not a god to Nurgle, neither is Gork a god to Mork.

It is very, very much a relative thing. A god is basically something or someone who's powers so exceed your own that you are irrelevant to them - there is nothing you can do to them.

Wow we are so far off topic here. Interesting chat though. I think the current research and findings in the fields are fascinating. Read that they believe now that behavioural traits acquired in life can be passed on genetically as the sperm are “altered” in the body by these activities and then can pass on these traits. If it pans out it puts pay to the whole acquired characteristics not being passed on theory and opens up ideas that things like elephants behaving a certain way and learnt behaviours actually having a genetic component to them.

What is a god really? A being of sufficient power and knowledge beyond our own, which possesses foresight and knowledge we cannot really understand, with a great deal of influence.

By definition, yes they are. That being said, considering their own minions (Skarbrand) have attempted to fight them, that means they COULD. (With an unfathomable amount of power) be killed in their home planes, which would be next to impossible. Sounds godly to me.

 iGuy91 wrote:
What is a god really? A being of sufficient power and knowledge beyond our own, which possesses foresight and knowledge we cannot really understand, with a great deal of influence.

By definition, yes they are. That being said, considering their own minions (Skarbrand) have attempted to fight them, that means they COULD. (With an unfathomable amount of power) be killed in their home planes, which would be next to impossible. Sounds godly to me.

Problem is the idea of death in the warp is as fluid as time space. It is a concept that the warp transcends. Hence ascension to daemon hood brings immortality.

No, they are made up by gw.

Andykp wrote:
Wow we are so far off topic here. Interesting chat though. I think the current research and findings in the fields are fascinating. Read that they believe now that behavioural traits acquired in life can be passed on genetically as the sperm are “altered” in the body by these activities and then can pass on these traits. If it pans out it puts pay to the whole acquired characteristics not being passed on theory and opens up ideas that things like elephants behaving a certain way and learnt behaviours actually having a genetic component to them.

suddenly makes aspects of Orks seem less insane don't it?

In one of the Horus Heresy novels, Magnus berates Lorgar for worshiping sentient warp storms as "gods". He clearly feels there is nothing divine about them. In a sense, the Chaos gods are just the mightiest of daemons, there is nothing fundemental separating Nurgle from a Nurgling other than size.

The gods in 40K are reflections of humanity's emotions. If humanity went extinct, the Chaos gods (at least in their current forms) would follow. Gods depending on mortals for their existence contradicts the traditional Abrahamic view of a Creator God who would still exist even if we did not.

On this basis, I would say that the Big 4 are not true gods. Having said that, different people have different definitions of what makes a "god" so you will not get a definitive answer. If your definition of a god is "powerful beyond all mortal comprehension" then the Chaos gods fit that bill.

 Karhedron wrote:
In one of the Horus Heresy novels, Magnus berates Lorgar for worshiping sentient warp storms as "gods". He clearly feels there is nothing divine about them. In a sense, the Chaos gods are just the mightiest of daemons, there is nothing fundemental separating Nurgle from a Nurgling other than size.

The gods in 40K are reflections of humanity's emotions. If humanity went extinct, the Chaos gods (at least in their current forms) would follow. Gods depending on mortals for their existence contradicts the traditional Abrahamic view of a Creator God who would still exist even if we did not.

On this basis, I would say that the Big 4 are not true gods. Having said that, different people have different definitions of what makes a "god" so you will not get a definitive answer. If your definition of a god is "powerful beyond all mortal comprehension" then the Chaos gods fit that bill.

I think pidgeonholing the concept of a god into just the Abrahamic understanding of such is very limiting though. Most religions historically have had pantheons of gods of greater and lesser power, with specific entities waxing and waning in power as their popularity changed amongst the populace worshipping them (like Pan being split into Pan and Hermes, with Hermes getting much of the cool stuff and making Pan a weaker god overall). A great example is Japanese kami, a word which refers to both great dieties that help run the world, and little spirits within a specific tree or shrine or something. To them, the concept of a god stretches across the entire supernatural power spectrum.

Gods requiring belief is rather akin to the Terry Pratchett interpretation of deities, in that they only exist so long as they are believed in, and belief gives them power. You could argue that all gods of actual religions follow this, in an abstract way. Small Gods is a great book

 some bloke wrote:
Time is a god - it changes everything, but nothing changes time.

Except for gravity and travelling really fast

And Chaos, don't forget how Chaos completely screws with Time.

Nurglitch wrote:
And Chaos, don't forget how Chaos completely screws with Time.

Time is a meaningless concept in the warp.
Hours become years.
Years become Tuesday
Tuesday becomes jam and dribbles down your chin.

BrianDavion wrote:

Andykp wrote:
Wow we are so far off topic here. Interesting chat though. I think the current research and findings in the fields are fascinating. Read that they believe now that behavioural traits acquired in life can be passed on genetically as the sperm are “altered” in the body by these activities and then can pass on these traits. If it pans out it puts pay to the whole acquired characteristics not being passed on theory and opens up ideas that things like elephants behaving a certain way and learnt behaviours actually having a genetic component to them.

suddenly makes aspects of Orks seem less insane don't it?

Exactly, I always liked the idea that ORKS are engineered to certain behaviours. Saw a mates 3 month old sheep dog pup trying round up anything that moved the other day. Never even seen a sheep. Idea of a mek knowing how to build stuff makes perfect sense.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Haighus wrote:

 Karhedron wrote:
In one of the Horus Heresy novels, Magnus berates Lorgar for worshiping sentient warp storms as "gods". He clearly feels there is nothing divine about them. In a sense, the Chaos gods are just the mightiest of daemons, there is nothing fundemental separating Nurgle from a Nurgling other than size.

The gods in 40K are reflections of humanity's emotions. If humanity went extinct, the Chaos gods (at least in their current forms) would follow. Gods depending on mortals for their existence contradicts the traditional Abrahamic view of a Creator God who would still exist even if we did not.

On this basis, I would say that the Big 4 are not true gods. Having said that, different people have different definitions of what makes a "god" so you will not get a definitive answer. If your definition of a god is "powerful beyond all mortal comprehension" then the Chaos gods fit that bill.

I think pidgeonholing the concept of a god into just the Abrahamic understanding of such is very limiting though. Most religions historically have had pantheons of gods of greater and lesser power, with specific entities waxing and waning in power as their popularity changed amongst the populace worshipping them (like Pan being split into Pan and Hermes, with Hermes getting much of the cool stuff and making Pan a weaker god overall). A great example is Japanese kami, a word which refers to both great dieties that help run the world, and little spirits within a specific tree or shrine or something. To them, the concept of a god stretches across the entire supernatural power spectrum.

Gods requiring belief is rather akin to the Terry Pratchett interpretation of deities, in that they only exist so long as they are believed in, and belief gives them power. You could argue that all gods of actual religions follow this, in an abstract way. Small Gods is a great book

Also the chaos gods aren’t made up of “human” emotions. But just emotions. From anything in the material universe. Otherwise the eldar wouldn’t have birthed slaanesh.

 A Town Called Malus wrote:

 some bloke wrote:
Time is a god - it changes everything, but nothing changes time.

Except for gravity and travelling really fast

only changes how you observe something else's time - your own has to keep ticking as normal, otherwise you wouldn't notice the difference

no matter how fast or how gravity you are, your clock keeps ticking at one second per second!

(It's all rather confusing really...)
.

I agree that trying to apply an Abrahamic concept of a god is a flawed definition at best. "Gods" have been worshipped in countless forms since mankind developed enough imagination to wonder "why". The only way you can get any idea of whether the chaos gods are actually gods is to see if they fit in with the majority of the gods which mankind has worshipped.

exist somewhere else but sometimes seen/represented in reality? Check.
powers to influence, create or destroy? debatable. tzeench can change things, but as people have said, they don't create things all that much.

It's also worth accepting that they are much better portrayed as demons. They are the worst parts of the galaxies emotions and repressed feelings, given power through the warp to become a plague on the galaxy. If there are gods in reality, then nothing we do can affect them, in general (some religions may vary). The chaos gods could be eradicated if everyone in the galaxy gave up warfare and focussed on competitive yoga, or at least they would be altered dramatically - Spandex for the Spandex God!.

One of my favourite parts of Master of Mankind is how the Emperor explains daemons seeming like independent people, but it's just the same psychic trick He himself uses to manage people's expectations (people see what they want, hear him in their own language, etc).

Andykp wrote:
Also the chaos gods aren’t made up of “human” emotions. But just emotions. From anything in the material universe. Otherwise the eldar wouldn’t have birthed slaanesh.

I have read that the Warp, though it is affected by all emotions, is particularly sensitive to negative ones, hence why it's such a dangerous place and the Chaos gods are so nasty. Still, it would be interesting to see how the Warp would look like if just about every individual in 40K's Milky Way was a pacifist.

 some bloke wrote:


only changes how you observe something else's time - your own has to keep ticking as normal, otherwise you wouldn't notice the difference

no matter how fast or how gravity you are, your clock keeps ticking at one second per second!

(It's all rather confusing really...)

Except for when it doesn't. if you sync two watches, and one guy stays at sea level and the other moves up to the top of mount Everest, call each other at the same exact point they will read differing time. thus one of theirs is not 1 second = 1 second. my own 1 second = 1 second can be the miss observation, which is why time is relative.

The really cool thing is that if we manage to make a sustainable base on the Moon or Mars, people there will actually live longer than the people on Earth, because of the difference in gravity.

 Beersarius Drawl wrote:

 some bloke wrote:


only changes how you observe something else's time - your own has to keep ticking as normal, otherwise you wouldn't notice the difference

no matter how fast or how gravity you are, your clock keeps ticking at one second per second!

(It's all rather confusing really...)

Except for when it doesn't. if you sync two watches, and one guy stays at sea level and the other moves up to the top of mount Everest, call each other at the same exact point they will read differing time. thus one of theirs is not 1 second = 1 second. my own 1 second = 1 second can be the miss observation, which is why time is relative.

But to you, one second was one second, and to him, one second was one second. it's only if you look at his clock that his second doesn't match your second.

It's not the clock that's ticking slow, it's time itself - observer included!


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 flandarz wrote:
The really cool thing is that if we manage to make a sustainable base on the Moon or Mars, people there will actually live longer than the people on Earth, because of the difference in gravity.

If the only reason they live longer is because of the time dilation due to gravity, only sort of.

the people on the moon wouldn't see time as travelling slower - whilst 50 earth years on the moon isn't exactly the same as 50 earth years on earth, on the moon it still lasts 50 years.

Think of it as 2 cars travelling next to each other. You are in the passenger seat and time is in the driving seat. Once car travels faster than the other. but to you in the passenger seat, time isn't moving - he's still there in the drivers seat.

The only time you would notice a difference is if you left your twin on earth (with an atomic clock) and then came back in 50 years. for starters, you would be late, as 50 years on the moon takes longer than 50 years on earth, and you would also be younger by however late you were.

it doesn't mean you live longer - it means you live slower.


In any case, it's not by very much!

As an aside, I don't think the definition of a god should require being untouchable by mortals. Human mythos is full of examples of plucky humans/demigods etc standing up to gods and achieving some kind of victory before typically being swatted. Greek mythology in particular is swimming in it, such as Arachne beating Athena at weaving (a mortal performing better than a god) or even beating up the god of war in the case of Diomedes at Troy. If a mortal can beat up the god of war, I think gods being injurable by lesser beings cannot be part of the universal definition of a god.

A mortal being better at war than a god of war makes sense, particularly if the god embodies (or perhaps is the platonic form of) unsuccessful war as well as successful war. Aries was the god of the bad aspects of war, with Athena getting the strategy, planning, and 'better' aspects of armed conflict. In one myth, for example, Hephaestus defeated Aries by catching him unawares (he was busy shagging H's wife...).

Also, here's a great place to start from when considering gods (and continue on with the bibliography...).

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

This has been an interesting read. Basically what it's boiled down to is the inability to find a consensus on what to consider a god. Imagine my shock when we couldn't do what theologians and religious people hasn't managed to do throughout our history.

My 2 cents is pretty much that since monotheism became popular the concept of god has been subject to power creep. And since I'm not monotheistic my personal definition doesn't require gods to be omnipotent, omniprescent, immortal or that they can't be created I don't really mind considering the chaos gods as gods.