GENERAL DISCUSSIONS

The Reaver Breed

POSTED BY: CHRISTHECYNIC
UPDATED: Thursday, May 5, 2005 04:01
SHORT URL:
VIEWED: 7420
PAGE 1 of 1

Thursday, April 28, 2005 5:48 AM

CHRISTHECYNIC


I’ve just had a thought, Reavers do not appear to the type to raise their young, at all, but they must have a fairly steady supply coming in if the female Reavers are rapists too, which they probably are. If they don’t kill the infants outright that would mean that only the strong would survive, and human babies are not all that strong.

In other words for a Reaver to survive beyond infancy it would have to be a very exceptional individual. We don’t know how long the Reavers have been out there, but how many generations would it take of that kind of selection before the average Reaver was a hell of a lot stronger than the average normal human?

-

I mean they go out mating almost constantly, and probably do that among themselves as well, so a female Reaver would probably have a kid almost every nine months like clockwork, that’s a large population of infants, but only a few would survive.

Isn’t that like pushing up selection to a completely new level? I’m not saying they would evolve or anything (haven’t had that much time yet) but wouldn’t the resulting Reaver race tend to be much stronger?


NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, April 28, 2005 6:29 AM

HOWDYROCKERBABY1


Quote:

Originally posted by christhecynic:
I’ve just had a thought, Reavers do not appear to the type to raise their young, at all, but they must have a fairly steady supply coming in if the female Reavers are rapists too, which they probably are. If they don’t kill the infants outright that would mean that only the strong would survive, and human babies are not all that strong.

In other words for a Reaver to survive beyond infancy it would have to be a very exceptional individual. We don’t know how long the Reavers have been out there, but how many generations would it take of that kind of selection before the average Reaver was a hell of a lot stronger than the average normal human?

-

I mean they go out mating almost constantly, and probably do that among themselves as well, so a female Reaver would probably have a kid almost every nine months like clockwork, that’s a large population of infants, but only a few would survive.

Isn’t that like pushing up selection to a completely new level? I’m not saying they would evolve or anything (haven’t had that much time yet) but wouldn’t the resulting Reaver race tend to be much stronger?




Perhaps they don't even procreate at all? We saw in Bushwacked that the guy was turning himself into a reaver, perhaps they don't kill everybody, taking a few from each town they destroy for the precise reason of turning them?

Either way, whether it's survival of the fittest from birth, or just surviving through cutting up your own skin, they would probably get pretty damn strong, pretty damn fast.

~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~
MAL: This is my scrap of nowhere. You go on and find your own.
SAFFRON: You can't just leave me here, on this
lifeless piece of crap moon...
MAL: Sure I can.
SAFFRON: I'll die.
MAL: Well, as a courtesy, you might start
getting busy on that, cause all this chatter ain't doin' me any kindness.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, April 28, 2005 6:58 AM

CHRISTHECYNIC


Quote:

Originally posted by howdyrockerbaby1:
Perhaps they don't even procreate at all?


Well I didn't see anything to make me think there are not female Reavers and Reavers as a whole go around raping people, so unless they say, “Please put on a condom before I rape you,” I figure they do have kids. Of course it is entirely possible that they kill them at birth (or before I suppose.)

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, April 28, 2005 8:53 AM

HOWDYROCKERBABY1


Quote:

Originally posted by christhecynic:
Quote:

Originally posted by howdyrockerbaby1:
Perhaps they don't even procreate at all?


Well I didn't see anything to make me think there are not female Reavers and Reavers as a whole go around raping people, so unless they say, “Please put on a condom before I rape you,”



perhaps with all that mutilation they are unable to procreate... not that they don't try with all that raping...it's just not possible.

~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~
MAL: This is my scrap of nowhere. You go on and find your own.
SAFFRON: You can't just leave me here, on this
lifeless piece of crap moon...
MAL: Sure I can.
SAFFRON: I'll die.
MAL: Well, as a courtesy, you might start
getting busy on that, cause all this chatter ain't doin' me any kindness.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, April 28, 2005 9:50 AM

CHRISTHECYNIC


Quote:

Originally posted by howdyrockerbaby1:
perhaps with all that mutilation they are unable to procreate... not that they don't try with all that raping...it's just not possible.


That occured to me, but I didn't want to think of it, much less say it.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, April 28, 2005 10:30 AM

CALLMEATH


Did it occur to anyone that Zoe never said the Reavers were just gonna rape the women? I imagine they don't do it for any need to multiply, but rather to hurt people. It is probably the worst thing that can be done to a person.

Besides, it's not as if the Reavers can't exist with each other peacefully. They are able to operate large ships after all. While Reavers surely don't know love, it's not far-fetched to believe the Reaver females willingly give themselves to the males. They're probably like animals, procreating out of instinct, rather than any desire for pleasure or companionship.

Also, does anyone else find all this casual talk of raping rather creepifying? I know it's fictional, but still.


NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, April 28, 2005 10:53 AM

DESANGRO


Quote:

Originally posted by howdyrockerbaby1:
Perhaps they don't even procreate at all? We saw in Bushwacked that the guy was turning himself into a reaver, perhaps they don't kill everybody, taking a few from each town they destroy for the precise reason of turning them?



Eh, I just can't see that as being the norm for Reaver 'reproduction'.

I can't see it as being the norm because human beings are different and respond to traumatic events differently. Not every person would respond to Reaver brutality by becoming a Reaver themselves. I personally believe that the victim in Bushwhacked was a special case; perhaps the captain of that particular Reaver ship wanted not just to kill, but to 'break' a victim. Perhaps it was an experiment on the part of the Reavers.

Considering the conditions they live under, Reaver life is probably short, harsh, and exceedingly brutal. I don't see how they could 'turn' enough people to replace numbers lost through fighting, disease, and radiation poisoning-- and since we know that they're pushing into the civilized territories, I think that their population(s) are expanding, and they're outstripping whatever resources are available on their own planets.

With these factors in mind I believe that they reproduce both through mating within their own kind and through rape of 'outsiders'-- the victims they prey upon.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, April 28, 2005 11:02 AM

THEREAVER


The Reavers have similarities with the Borg. They don't procreate, they assimilate into their species.

I'll rape you to death.
I'll eat your flesh.
I'll sew your skin into my clothes.
If you're very very lucky, I'll do it in that order - TheReaver

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, April 28, 2005 11:27 AM

CHRISTHECYNIC


Quote:

Originally posted by CALLMEATH:
Did it occur to anyone that Zoe never said the Reavers were just gonna rape the women?


I think it's pretty clear from what she said that they were going to rape the men as well.

Quote:

I imagine they don't do it for any need to multiply, but rather to hurt people. It is probably the worst thing that can be done to a person.

But that wouldn't effect female Reavers gettign pregnate as a result of the rape.

Quote:

Besides, it's not as if the Reavers can't exist with each other peacefully. They are able to operate large ships after all. While Reavers surely don't know love, it's not far-fetched to believe the Reaver females willingly give themselves to the males. They're probably like animals, procreating out of instinct, rather than any desire for pleasure or companionship.

I agree, I just don't see them raising their young, and that means high infant mortality, which means those that lived to breed themselves would have to be the strongest, right?

Quote:

Also, does anyone else find all this casual talk of raping rather creepifying? I know it's fictional, but still.

Yeah it is, especially since I started it to talk about the effects of non-human rearing techniques on physical strength and durability. I’m wondering if people think that Reavers would be stronger from birth because of the reintroduction of the selection that is lacking in other humans of the day.

If they don’t protect the weak after a few generations only the strong will be left, right?

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, April 28, 2005 1:04 PM

HOWDYROCKERBABY1


Quote:

Originally posted by DeSangro:
Quote:

Originally posted by howdyrockerbaby1:
Perhaps they don't even procreate at all? We saw in Bushwacked that the guy was turning himself into a reaver, perhaps they don't kill everybody, taking a few from each town they destroy for the precise reason of turning them?



Eh, I just can't see that as being the norm for Reaver 'reproduction'.

I can't see it as being the norm because human beings are different and respond to traumatic events differently. Not every person would respond to Reaver brutality by becoming a Reaver themselves. I personally believe that the victim in Bushwhacked was a special case; perhaps the captain of that particular Reaver ship wanted not just to kill, but to 'break' a victim. Perhaps it was an experiment on the part of the Reavers.

Considering the conditions they live under, Reaver life is probably short, harsh, and exceedingly brutal. I don't see how they could 'turn' enough people to replace numbers lost through fighting, disease, and radiation poisoning-- and since we know that they're pushing into the civilized territories, I think that their population(s) are expanding, and they're outstripping whatever resources are available on their own planets.

With these factors in mind I believe that they reproduce both through mating within their own kind and through rape of 'outsiders'-- the victims they prey upon.



Perhaps I was thinking about how quick and efficient it is to turn somebody into a vampire rather than a reaver. I must do some spring cleaning and arrange my fandoms a little bit better.

~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~
MAL: This is my scrap of nowhere. You go on and find your own.
SAFFRON: You can't just leave me here, on this
lifeless piece of crap moon...
MAL: Sure I can.
SAFFRON: I'll die.
MAL: Well, as a courtesy, you might start
getting busy on that, cause all this chatter ain't doin' me any kindness.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, April 28, 2005 1:52 PM

DEANNAMAY


A small part of me thinks Reavers are created by the same people who worked on River's brains. I think when they first started working on their "killer agents" they screwed up on a lot of people, they becoming ravening killers, rather than something controllable. These had to be discarded, and probably considering how cold-blooded the Alliance seems, they decided why waste these critters. Send them out in the far reaches, and keep the downtrodden trodden on. It becomes so effective they begin "manufacturing" said beings, along with continuing on their research to build the perfect, controllable assassin.

Going on that line, finding out that big secret would cause incredible destruction in the Alliance power structure. Just because you can't fight the enemy in a military way, doesn't mean you can't still bring them down. We know in three movies they can't probably develop a whole military force to bring down the Alliance, but this way Mal could finally get his revenge by setting up a cascading destruction of their powerbase.

JMHO

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, April 28, 2005 2:12 PM

SKANTMAN


Don't forget, the Reavers don't use radiation shielding on their ships. That kind of exposure to radiation is bound to start causing genetic mutations. Realistically it would be deformities and terminal sickness and the inability to reproduce, but when you apply the power of creative writing that could explain a lot. It is over 500 years in the future, who knows what they could be capable of doing.

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, April 28, 2005 3:42 PM

CHRISTHECYNIC


Quote:

Originally posted by skantman:
Don't forget, the Reavers don't use radiation shielding on their ships. That kind of exposure to radiation is bound to start causing genetic mutations. Realistically it would be deformities and terminal sickness and the inability to reproduce, but when you apply the power of creative writing that could explain a lot. It is over 500 years in the future, who knows what they could be capable of doing.


It's my understanding that if the radiation is low enough to cause only minor problems, and the population of infants per generation is large enough, and the selection is harsh enough that would actually cause accelerated evolution in real life.

Of course:
1 that’s a lot of ands
2 Accelerated evolution probably would still be very slow.

Still, selection is the oldest and most tested form of genetic engineering, and that was all it took to change a wolf into a lapdog, the same principles should work on people.

If the Reavers are as uncaring with their children as I figure they are, and reproduce as often as would seem implied, that would be one hell of a selection process.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, April 29, 2005 5:10 AM

CYBERSNARK


Y'know, it's possible the Reavers have some sort of specialized breeding caste. Some person or persons whose job it is to ensure that any offspring survive long enough to add viably to the genepool.

-----
We applied the cortical electrodes but were unable to get a neural reaction from either patient.

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, April 29, 2005 5:38 AM

REAVERMADNESS


Lots of interesting thoughts here. But lets look at it from what we got.

1) It was said (no I don't have the qoutes) that Reavers were once (or are) men. Perhaps too long from civilization, but men. No special breed here. Those types of comments along with the fact that Joss has elected to show no "aliens" (non human) should stomp on that line of thought.

2) Some have said: "Don't forget, the Reavers don't use radiation shielding on their ships." That ship was a reaver ship the way a pirate ship is a pirate ship. Not 'cause they made it. 'cause they took it. Remember: they are running without containment... that's suicide. (again not an exact quote) THat doesn't leave room to think that it is low dose radiation... but deadly ammount. So no good (controlled) sort of mutations going on here.
That sort of behavior alsao limits the thoughts about a breeding class or any real type of family type units. They just wouldn't live long enough.

I tend to think that the reavers are sort of like pirates with a liberal ammount of headhunter thrown in. From the episode where we learn how that one person "became" a reaver may idicate this as well. That could be the very way they propagate. Through induction. some may be just your mad dog killer types but there are also someone with brains enough to plan. (the trap that attaches itself to a ship that docks with the boobie trapped ship). So at some level somebody is thinking. That is the real scary part about the reavers. Hords of mad dogs would tear themslves apart, but someone there to "keep order"? It could be argued that it is tough-guy order. The toughest rules. But then you still have the folks who lay traps and plan such traps. So maybe, just maybe there is a mad-dog-hord class and a psycho/maniacal class.

Just a thought.

When I die I want to go peacefully in my sleep like my grandpa. Not screaming and yelling like everyone else in the car he was driving.

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, April 29, 2005 2:28 PM

CHRISTHECYNIC


You know Eskimos (not politically correct but I have forgotten the correct term) have biology that is different from all other humans on earth.

They are men, perhaps men who’ve eaten raw meat for longer than others, but men.

Why then would you say that the fact Reavers are human means that they can not be a different breed. Judging from their interactions with the outside they probably take selection to a level not even seen on the harshest border worlds.

I know that they can be a different breed from the rest, so don’t say they can’t be, just say whether or not you think they are, and why. Them being human is not a reason to say no.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, April 29, 2005 2:38 PM

HOWDYROCKERBABY1


Quote:

Originally posted by ReaverMadness:

I tend to think that the reavers are sort of like pirates with a liberal ammount of headhunter thrown in. From the episode where we learn how that one person "became" a reaver may idicate this as well. That could be the very way they propagate. Through induction. some may be just your mad dog killer types but there are also someone with brains enough to plan. (the trap that attaches itself to a ship that docks with the boobie trapped ship). So at some level somebody is thinking. That is the real scary part about the reavers. Hords of mad dogs would tear themslves apart, but someone there to "keep order"? It could be argued that it is tough-guy order. The toughest rules. But then you still have the folks who lay traps and plan such traps. So maybe, just maybe there is a mad-dog-hord class and a psycho/maniacal class.

Just a thought.

When I die I want to go peacefully in my sleep like my grandpa. Not screaming and yelling like everyone else in the car he was driving.



my thoughts exactly.

~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~
MAL: This is my scrap of nowhere. You go on and find your own.
SAFFRON: You can't just leave me here, on this
lifeless piece of crap moon...
MAL: Sure I can.
SAFFRON: I'll die.
MAL: Well, as a courtesy, you might start
getting busy on that, cause all this chatter ain't doin' me any kindness.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, April 29, 2005 2:39 PM

HOWDYROCKERBABY1


Quote:

Originally posted by christhecynic:
You know Eskimos (not politically correct but I have forgotten the correct term) have biology that is different from all other humans on earth.



I believe Innuit was the term you were looking for. =]



~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~
MAL: This is my scrap of nowhere. You go on and find your own.
SAFFRON: You can't just leave me here, on this
lifeless piece of crap moon...
MAL: Sure I can.
SAFFRON: I'll die.
MAL: Well, as a courtesy, you might start
getting busy on that, cause all this chatter ain't doin' me any kindness.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, April 29, 2005 3:58 PM

GUNRUNNER


Quote:

Originally posted by ReaverMadness:
Through induction. some may be just your mad dog killer types but there are also someone with brains enough to plan. (the trap that attaches itself to a ship that docks with the boobie trapped ship). So at some level somebody is thinking. That is the real scary part about the reavers. Hords of mad dogs would tear themslves apart, but someone there to "keep order"? It could be argued that it is tough-guy order. The toughest rules. But then you still have the folks who lay traps and plan such traps. So maybe, just maybe there is a mad-dog-hord class and a psycho/maniacal class.



Spoilers from the Trailer:

Select to view spoiler:


The Reavers attack settlements by repelling out of their ships much like modern Airborne troops (think 'Black Hawk Down') so even the "front line" kill, rape and eat (in any order ) Reavers are intelligent enough to utilize complex tactics and skills.



EV Nova Firefly mod Message Board:
http://s4.invisionfree.com/GunRunner/index.php?act=idx
My Other Site:
http://www.utnhq.com/TLAM_Strike/index.htm

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Saturday, April 30, 2005 6:32 AM

CHRISTHECYNIC


Well I figured they were the reverse of a normal human.

A normal human is intelligence augmented with instinct, a Reaver would be instinct augmented with intelligence.

The instinct is to consume, take, attack, suppress, do that which the body rewards with a sense of pleasure, and generally do things that others might find antisocial. If being able to plan a trap, repair a space ship, or organize and assault helps that of course they would.

But the driving force would be instinct, as a result they would not reason out the potential problems with rapine.

There are advantages to not thinking too much actually, the more you think the more words you tend to create, the more words you create the more complex and confusing a language becomes, the more confusing a language is the harder it is to come up with efficient things.

I have been told that the German language has one of the smallest vocabularies of modern languages. If this is true I find it hard to believe that it is a coincidence that Germans, who show no evidence of being inherently smarter than other human beings, have been on whole the best engineers of the recent century.

While I’m not saying Reavers would be the greatest engineers of their time but a smaller language might partially compensate for their lack of emphasis on intelligence. That’s if they have a lack of emphasis on intelligence at all, the instinct for survival tends to make things do what helps that survival, if supporting intelligent members does that they would.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Saturday, April 30, 2005 8:47 AM

GUNRUNNER


Quote:

Originally posted by christhecynic:
I have been told that the German language has one of the smallest vocabularies of modern languages. If this is true I find it hard to believe that it is a coincidence that Germans, who show no evidence of being inherently smarter than other human beings, have been on whole the best engineers of the recent century.

Well the Germans certainly know how to put ideas together but the Americans know how to make huge, complex and reliable pieces of equipment.

Recently the US has been lagging behind in things like education and it shows in what we produce but for most of the last century American equipment was some of the best around and most copied.

EV Nova Firefly mod Message Board:
http://s4.invisionfree.com/GunRunner/index.php?act=idx
My Other Site:
http://www.utnhq.com/TLAM_Strike/index.htm

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Saturday, April 30, 2005 11:02 AM

DORAN


There is approximately one mutation in about every 100000 births for humans. Most of these mutations either have no impact on the gene pool or are deleterious in nature. The "new breed" theory runs in to trouble when we look at the relatively few number of years they have been out there in space, maybe 500 years. Some changes could be accounted for by selection in the culture.. but not enough in 500 years to make them a new breed.

One possible caveat would be that something they eat or someplace they go could account for causing abnormal mutation counts to occur; this coupled with selection might cause this change... maybe. The only thing is that to achieve this, they would have to have extremely high birth rates.. Populations would have to grow faster than earth rodents.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Sunday, May 1, 2005 1:07 PM

CHRISTHECYNIC


Remember what I said in the first post about Reavers not having enough time to evolve? Guess not. I was not talking about mutation, nor evolution, I was talking about breeding.

If hemophiliacs bleed to death before they can breed hemophiliacs how long do you think it would take for them to die out?

If certain people have genetics that make them physically weaker do you think they will last long enough to breed? Only if they find a way to compensate, and that could be genetic.

Breeding has nothing to do with mutations, it has to do with preexisting genetics and the selection of one trait over another.

-

So, since this has nothing to do with evolution, can we get off the damn evolution thing?

I admit that I got just as side-tracked, but can we all stop that now and get back to the topic?

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Sunday, May 1, 2005 2:31 PM

GREENFAERIE


Very intriguing ideas here. Just playing Devil's advocate...

Quote:

Originally posted by ReaverMadness:
1) It was said (no I don't have the qoutes) that Reavers were once (or are) men. Perhaps too long from civilization, but men. No special breed here. Those types of comments along with the fact that Joss has elected to show no "aliens" (non human) should stomp on that line of thought.



NO ALIENS only encourages the idea that there are more breeds of human. Space is big, and life adapts to new environments. A few hundred years of breeding/inbreeding can produce a new breed. This has been shown with dog breeding, and can be applied to humans as well. Currently there are several "breeds" of man: we call them races.

Quote:

2) Some have said: "Don't forget, the Reavers don't use radiation shielding on their ships." That ship was a reaver ship the way a pirate ship is a pirate ship. Not 'cause they made it. 'cause they took it. Remember: they are running without containment... that's suicide... THat doesn't leave room to think that it is low dose radiation... but deadly ammount. So no good (controlled) sort of mutations going on here.
That sort of behavior alsao limits the thoughts about a breeding class or any real type of family type units. They just wouldn't live long enough.



Agreed about the radiation and mutations. But it has not been determined that ALL Reaver ships are full of radiation. It has only been determined that the Reavers are suicidal enough to fly at least one ship without radiation protection. This has no bearing on the possibility of a breeding or caste system.

Quote:

I tend to think that the reavers are sort of like pirates with a liberal ammount of headhunter thrown in. From the episode where we learn how that one person "became" a reaver may idicate this as well. That could be the very way they propagate. Through induction...


So far we have only seen one such induction. If the average of one per ship attacked is the norm, this might be possible if the ship capture rate is high. But that invites losses as well. It may also be very rare for this to happen, since Reavers are not known for their pity.

Quote:

...some may be just your mad dog killer types but there are also someone with brains enough to plan... So maybe, just maybe there is a mad-dog-hord class and a psycho/maniacal class.


By supporting a Class system, a society can just as easily support a breeding system. This ties in with the possibility of a breeding class. Who knows, maybe the female Reavers are a class of their own, staying at the home world/ship and raising baby Reavers.

In regard to another poster's idea that raping the crew of an attacked ship or settlement can produce Reaver offspring: doubtful. They don't just rape their victims. Their victims also end up dead, and worse.

It seems to me that Reavers expand their number in one of three ways. By assimilation, manufacture, or by a caste/class reproduction system. But I think that assimilation is not very common. Reavers are clearly ravenous creatures, and yet they form a society. Would the one example we are given of assimilation be common? What would happen if the human-turned-Reaver we know from "Bushwhacked" ran into a Reaver ship? Would he be accepted as a fellow Reaver crew member? I wonder. As an outsider, he would probably be challenged, or killed outright. In the natural world, such rogue males are often considered outcasts.

I doubt that turning a victim into a Reaver is common. People deal with such trauma in different ways. Some would no doubt turn suicidal, other become catatonic.

It is as likely that the Reavers might be "manufactured". Perhaps Blue Sun or some other evil organization is brainwashing people into becoming Reavers. This is another unlikely theory. This require tremendous resources, and the end result is an upredictable and uncontrollable product. No realistic organization would go so far as to produce its own potential downfall in the form of raiding lunatic barbarians.

I think the most likely method for Reaver reproduction is the same method used by all species, breeds, and even races. Unfettered and fully natural reproduction. The Reavers must have some sort of pecking order, and therefore a class or caste system. It may be that the "Alpha" Reaver is the only one permitted to reproduce within a tribe. Among wild animals, there are many predator species that form a "pack" where only the alpha male is allowed to breed with the females. I suspect the Reaver society is like this. The males go out to hunt, the alpha breeds with the females, and a society is perpetuated.


NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Sunday, May 1, 2005 3:15 PM

CHRISTHECYNIC


Quote:

Originally posted by GreenFaerie:
In regard to another poster's idea that raping the crew of an attacked ship or settlement can produce Reaver offspring: doubtful. They don't just rape their victims. Their victims also end up dead, and worse.


It is a common misconception that only males are capable of rape, I have no idea where that idea came from. Someone does not need to penetrate another to rape that person, they need only forcibly engage in intercourse. Women can, and do, do this. And yes, sometimes they have kids as a result.
Mal said that the Reavers might pass them by because they might have just hit someone. If that is the only way they end up leaving others alone, and they always do what Zoey says, I figure the females get pregnant as a result of raping men quite often.
Of course if they sometimes kill people first (in other words not do it in that order) the entire equation changes.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Sunday, May 1, 2005 5:04 PM

VETERAN

Don't squat with your spurs on.


How can you tell? They seem to have a "recruiting" or conscription routine (ala Bushwacked). There's no indications on how they handle their own young uns.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Sunday, May 1, 2005 5:06 PM

GUNRUNNER


Quote:

Originally posted by GreenFaerie:
Would the one example we are given of assimilation be common? What would happen if the human-turned-Reaver we know from "Bushwhacked" ran into a Reaver ship? Would he be accepted as a fellow Reaver crew member? I wonder. As an outsider, he would probably be challenged, or killed outright. In the natural world, such rogue males are often considered outcasts.

I think that if the Reavers took the time to indoctrinate someone like the guy in Bushwhacked they would plan to come back. But he might not have been meant to become a Reaver but was left just be another trap (in addition to the one left on the airlock to disable the rescue ship). They leave one or two very traumatized "survivors" to distract the crew so they don't notice the trap attached to their hull or spot the Reaver ship early and run or call for help.

EV Nova Firefly mod Message Board:
http://s4.invisionfree.com/GunRunner/index.php?act=idx
My Other Site:
http://www.utnhq.com/TLAM_Strike/index.htm

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Sunday, May 1, 2005 5:40 PM

DORAN


"Breeding has nothing to do with mutations, it has to do with preexisting genetics and the selection of one trait over another."

No, this is not true. Your premise is off. You can't discuss genetics or selection without also discussing mutation. Ask any animal breeder. I never said anything about "evolution".

Through breeding - mutations are selected, fixed, and become mainstream genome. "Traits" are nothing more than phenotyped mutations, fixed or not.

If you are trying to say that humans already have the latent mutations to become reavers you would have to cite a historical example of a culture of selection that valued the mutations that make reavers what they are... outside of the reavers themselves of course. Otherwise were back to the 500 year period of time being too short to develop these genes without assistance.

"If hemophiliacs bleed to death before they can breed hemophiliacs how long do you think it would take for them to die out?"

Hemophilia is a deleterious mutation that was fixed by a culture that so valued the genes of their leaders that through inbreeding they inadvertently fixed these mutant genes within a number of family groups. Since we no longer value hereditary leadership or inbreeding of this sort and haven't for a few hundred years, yet still have many hemophiliac sufferers, one has to answer your question with: quite a long time. There are many among us now who carry the recessive combination of these mutant genes... and are not considered "weak".

Selection is not usually a quick change for good or ill (even during extremely controlled breeding exercises). In the short term however, cannibalism has brought such things as mad cow disease and other palsy type diseases which have nothing to do with genetics. This would tend work against selection for cannibals for at least a few hundred years.

Sorry to be a thorn in your side, but breeding and genetics is what I do. I've been doing DNA research for nearly 20 years. I'm not completely discounting what you've said.. I'm only adding that without a catalyst for mutation working with selection, 500 years is too short.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Monday, May 2, 2005 6:31 PM

CHRISTHECYNIC


Quote:

Originally posted by Doran:
No, this is not true. Your premise is off.


Really?
Quote:

Through breeding - mutations are selected, fixed, and become mainstream genome. "Traits" are nothing more than phenotyped mutations, fixed or not.

Exactly what I said, read again and get a dictionary. I'm not being insulting here, just make sure it is an American dictionary. I know too well the confusions that can result from people using different definitions of the same word.

You say mutations, and if you choose to call them that that is fine, from your background I assume it is the correct term. I chose not to use it because of the words roots and original meaning. Mutation implies a change, not a deviation or a difference, but a change. That is not involved in breeding.

The fact is that these traits are not created by the breeding, they are pre-existing. Stop thinking about modern DNA research and start thinking about dogs and geraniums.

To create a new breed of dog you need not wait for new mutations to come about, you need only breed large groups and select the ones that exhibit the traits you want to create the next generation. Of course it has to do with genetics, but not changes. (Not what I would call a mutation.) We are talking about traits that exist before the time of the selection process.

Same goes for a new type of flower, a rewarding process by the way, you don’t need to wait a thousand years for mutations to emerge, you need only work with what you have.

I know of a breed of cat that can usually be effectively created in two generations* and yet it is completely different from the parent breeds in terms of abilities. The combination of traits in that breed make it completely separate from the ones used to make it even though it has no traits not found in one of those breeds.

*(It was first discovered when pets interbred with the locals, though two generations is now that people know what to look for the original process, by natural selection of an unnatural mix, took five at most.)

-

-

-

As for the hemophilia bit, I just figure that bleeders won’t last long in Reaver culture, just like I figure that people with red-green colorblindness won’t last on the type of fictional bomb squad you see in movies. I have nothing against such people and was merely using an old cliché.

However, since you decided to take it seriously here’s where the cliche comes from, if hemophiliacs bled to death before they could breed more only latents would survive to pass on the affliction. In ideal simplified statistics:

For ease of calculation:
First generation ¼ male non-hemophiliacs, ¼ male hemophiliacs, 1/6 female non-hemophiliacs, 1/6 female dormant hemophiliacs and 1/6 female active hemophiliacs (7/12 hemophiliac in total)

Second generation ¼ non-hemo males, ¼ hemo males, ¼ latent hemo females, 1/8 hemo female and 1/8 non-hemo female

Third generation1/3 non-hemo male 1/6 hemo male, 1/3 non hemo female, 1/6 latent hemo female

Fourth generation 5/12 non hemo male, 1/12 hemo male, 5/12 non hemo female, 1/12 latent hemo female.

Fifth generation 11/24 non hemo male, 1/24 hemo male, 11/24 non hemo female, 1/24 latent hemo female

If we accept the traditional view that a generation is 20 years one century has just passed.
The percent of the population of hemophiliacs total has gone down from 58.3 to 8.3
The percent of non-latent hemophiliacs has dropped from 41.6 to 4.16, an order of magnitude.

Sixth generation 23/48 non hemo male, 1/48 hemo male, 23/48 non hemo female, 1/48 latent hemo female

Seventh generation 47/96 non hemo male, 1/96 hemo male, 47/96 non hemo female, 1/96 latent hemo female

Eighth generation 95/192 non hemo male, 1/192 hemo male, 95/192 non hemo female, 1/192 latent hemo female

Ninth generation 191/384 non hemo male, 1/384 hemo male, 191/384 non hemo female, 1/384 latent hemo female

Tenth generation 383/768 non hemo male, 1/768 hemo male, 383/768 non hemo female, 1/768 latent hemo female

Eleventh generation 767/1536 non hemo male, 1/1536 hemo male, 767/1536 non hemo female, 1/1536 latent hemo female

If they’re breeding as fast as they can less than a century has passed.*

In this case the percent of the total population of hemophiliacs has dropped from 58.3 to 0.13
The percent of non-latents has dropped from 41.6 to 0.065

Obviously you are correct, statistically speaking they would never die out (the idyllic simplified statistics assume and infinite population), but the exponential decline would continue. However you have to remember that the thing is just a figure of speech, the question was meant to be rhetorical.

*( If males could breed as young as females and they both bred at the known human limit there would be 20 generations in a century. Thankfully males generally don’t gain the ability to reproduce until 9, and usually closer to 12 or 13.)

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Monday, May 2, 2005 7:59 PM

PLIN


I really don't think that the emergence of a new "breed" of human would be possible in the time frame given, even with a possible accelerated mutation rate. If you think about all the peoples on the planet and consider the fact that there are still several communities who have live in isolation, either because of their geography or because of cultural practices, and yet they are not ever considered different "breeds" of human, they are more genetically diverse amongst themselves, then amongst other populations of humans.

I think what is most likely to be occuring is not biological evolution but a cultural one. If one is to liken the Reavers to Pirates (which i believe was done earlier) one can see some similarlities, exaggerated though they may be. The pirate spends his time pillaging, plundering, swashbuckling, murdering, and raping, and yet no one questions where the source of all these pirates is or why they are the way they are. It is just accepted that for whatever reason, they have grown up to accept this new violent culture. It could easily be the same with the reavers, isolated on the outskirts of the universe, they might have had time to develop a culture that rotated around hatred of all other humans in the 'verse, and accepted violence without question. Perhaps instead of a "breeding class" they have somewhat normal pairings within their own population. And their violence is only directed towards other peoples.

If one was to look at the history of the human race, i'm sure many such examples could easily be found. The crusades in which savage torture was administered to foes because of differing religious beliefs, and it was accepted within the culture that administered it, because for whatever reason they felt themselves justified. And yet within these two factions normal life continued, men and women had children as they normally would, and violence was only administered to seeming "enemies".

So is it not possible that the reavers have some similar but exaggerated way of thinking. Perhaps they do have a hombase or planet, perhaps within their own "culture" they act relatively normal, and it is only towards others that they express this wanton violence. I think of all the options that have been vocalized this is the most logical. Because, realistically if we assume they had 500 years of isolation, and during this entire time they had selective breeding of some sort, the results would not create a new breed. 500 years is still only a handful of generations, i don't think it would be possible. However, a change in an isolated groups cultural identity, well now, that can happen very quickly, especially if for some reason there was pressure towards this end.

Sorry this was so long, it's my first post ever, and i guess i got carried away.

-Plin

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, May 3, 2005 8:30 AM

CHRISTHECYNIC


Quote:

Originally posted by Plin:
I really don't think that the emergence of a new "breed" of human would be possible in the time frame given, even with a possible accelerated mutation rate.


I hope I don’t sound like I’m being an ass but I am really confused here.

Why is everyone talking about mutation rate? In a hypothetical land were DNA had stopped mutating for good you could still create new breeds. You don’t need change to do it, you need diversity.

A breed is a group of organisms having common ancestors and certain distinguishable characteristics. I looked it up to make sure I wasn’t using the wrong word.

Inuits (thank you HOWDYROCKERBABY1) are a breed because of their different internal configuration. Native Africans who have never interbred with whiter people are a breed because of their unique skin color, one seldom seen in places like the United States.

If you wanted to create a new breed you need merely combine the two and kill those that don’t exhibit traits of both any that seem to have one or both of the traits severely compromised. If you have a large enough population of children you can get the ones close enough to what you want (or most likely to produce what you want), kill the rest, and repeat.

It’s not pretty, but it can create a new breed.

The genetics resulting in physical strength are not fully understood. They probably never will be because someone with genetics allowing for great strength might never exercise and someone with genetics allowing for far less could reach her full potential. None the less in early youth the genetic predisposition would have a closer relation to the actual relative strengths of people.

Certain people’s muscles don’t work the same way, some work more efficiently, some are crap. Those who have a genetic advantage would outlive those who did not. As such it would seem that they would not survive to breeding age.

While different traits wouldn’t be added a breed can just as easily be a groups whose distinguishable characteristics that are spread unevenly in a larger group. If this were not the case German shepherds would not be considered a breed, but instead a type of mutt.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, May 4, 2005 9:15 AM

DORAN


"The fact is that these traits are not created by the breeding, they are pre-existing. Stop thinking about modern DNA research and start thinking about dogs and geraniums."


This is the where I have the most trouble with your comment. Most traits were not preexisting allele or multi allele genes for dogs or any other bred in captivity animal. No matter how you mix the original breed the genes are not all there for all breeds. DNA recombination provides a mechanism for mutation and that's were a lot of change comes from.. then through selection mutations can be discovered either shortly after they happened or within a few generations of their appearance.

With campbells dwarf hamsters for instance, a relatively short time ago there were no coat or color mutation in the genome.. They just hadn't happened or hadn't survived in the wild. Within 10 years we were able to cultivate the first color mutation, albino. We have the original genome from the wild... there is no variety of genetic markers indicating latent color traits were present. (albino doesn't show in the typical color alleles but that's doesn't matter; it wasn't there before it is now) Now there are 5 other colors that have mutated in the past 20 years.. They are there in the genome now and weren't before and I can prove it.

"I know of a breed of cat that can usually be effectively created in two generations* and yet it is completely different from the parent breeds in terms of abilities."

Great, but that doesn't change the fact that you have two breeds who carry the different genes needed to spawn the third... these genes are likely a mutation that occurred some time in the past and was overlooked. New recombination can cause mutations to become apparent in a phenotype even though they have been in the genotype but hidden through selection for some time.. but that doesn't change the fact that your not getting a cat that can take down a human and hunts in packs in space while disfiguring itself. That would take longer than 500 years and a lot of mutation. :O)

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, May 4, 2005 7:05 PM

CHRISTHECYNIC


Quote:

Originally posted by Doran:
but that doesn't change the fact that your not getting a cat that can take down a human and hunts in packs in space while disfiguring itself.


Don't need a new breed for that, need a space ship, a computer, an auto-pilot, a nice airlock, and a machine capable of cutting a hole in other ships.

If I've got that there are plenty of preexisting breeds that will do just fine. People are easy to kill.

--

I’m tired of this conversation because I agree with you, I don’t think they are a new breed, but I totally fail to comprehend your reasons for saying they are not.

There are superficial traits out there that can be used to distinguish breed and can be pulled off in two or three generations, in a society that doesn’t care about such things as mental maturity that could be under 30 years.

I figure they aren’t because of too much out-breeding. Inbreeding is usually bad (it isn’t always, as any breeder can tell you) but it’s the only thing that can keep a breed distinct, of course if the breed is large enough it’s not like inbreeding at all.

The Reavers go around raping people, and until I’m shown otherwise I think they’re equal opportunity abusers. I also don’t think they use birth control. That means a lot of outbreeding a lot of the time, too much to keep a distinct breed.

-

I still figure that they are stronger though, there are genetic things that make some people stronger from birth so that if they try equally hard as an average person they will always be stronger. I think those would stand a better chance surviving to be adult Reaver, and any child born would have to be at least half Reaver by genetics, so that might be passed on.

Still a single trait isn’t enough to distinguish a breed.

Also such people are only stronger if they work equally hard to become that way, and generally speaking people who don’t need to work as hard don’t work as hard. So perhaps those with a genetic predisposition for superior strength wouldn’t be selected over those that just had a strong will to survive.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, May 5, 2005 4:01 AM

BARNEYT


Quote:

Originally posted by GreenFaerie:

I think the most likely method for Reaver reproduction is the same method used by all species, breeds, and even races. Unfettered and fully natural reproduction. The Reavers must have some sort of pecking order, and therefore a class or caste system. It may be that the "Alpha" Reaver is the only one permitted to reproduce within a tribe. Among wild animals, there are many predator species that form a "pack" where only the alpha male is allowed to breed with the females. I suspect the Reaver society is like this. The males go out to hunt, the alpha breeds with the females, and a society is perpetuated.




Anyway, back to what I think was the original topic... I agree with this view of the Reaver mating practices. The rape of crews (and yes, it's way creepy to be discussing it) is violence not procreation.

And for all that they are savage to other people that they meet, and they certainly wouldn't have child-rearing practices that we have today, I don't think it should be assumed that the Reavers have no ability to care for their children. I think, like in Chris's first post, that they would value strength above all else and would be highly pragmatic about their child care. So the weak wouldn't survive, because there'd be no benefit in looking after them. You have to be strong to be a Reaver.

Ignoring all the details of breeding, in-breeding, mutations and what-not... I don't think it's beyond the realms of possibility that the Reavers are already much stronger than humans, simply because if they weren't, they'd be dead.


---
"I think the right place to start is to say, fair is fair. This is who we are. These are our numbers." Mr Willis of Ohio - The West Wing

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

YOUR OPTIONS

NEW POSTS TODAY

USERPOST DATE

OTHER TOPICS

DISCUSSIONS
Is Joss Whedon finished as a film maker, is his future destiny to be some muttering version of Brigitte Bardot, Jane Fonda, Sean Penn, Charlie Sheen, Danny Glover?
Sun, November 24, 2024 06:15 - 13 posts
Bad writers go on strike, late night talk is doomed
Fri, November 22, 2024 13:49 - 22 posts
Here's how it was.....Do you remember & even mourn the humble beginnings?
Mon, November 18, 2024 09:38 - 13 posts
Where are the Extraterrestrial Civilizations
Sat, November 16, 2024 20:08 - 54 posts
Serenity Rescued by Disney!
Fri, November 15, 2024 00:31 - 5 posts
What is your favourite historical or war film/television show???
Fri, November 8, 2024 07:18 - 37 posts
When did you join poll?
Tue, November 5, 2024 04:28 - 69 posts
Joss was right... Mandarin is the language of the future...
Mon, November 4, 2024 09:19 - 34 posts
Best movie that only a few people know about
Mon, November 4, 2024 07:14 - 118 posts
Halloween
Sun, November 3, 2024 15:21 - 43 posts
Teri Garr, the offbeat comic actor of 'Young Frankenstein' has died
Thu, October 31, 2024 20:20 - 5 posts
Poetry in song
Sat, October 26, 2024 20:16 - 19 posts

FFF.NET SOCIAL