Impact of Interstellar travel on Ecology

[BackworldTraveller]

When looking at a given region of space, it seems to me that there are 4 key stages of ecological development
1) Pre-Ancients: The ecology of planets is isolated. What you see is all local
2) Post-Ancient: The Ancients may (or may not) have adjusted the ecology of a world. (1) They introduced it from scratch; (2) They introduced it over a much less sophisticated base effectively displacing it (3) They enhanced (disrupted) the existing sophisticated example deliberately or accidentally or (4) they effected a change that was killed off since. In each of these cases, they could transplant species as-is or genetically change them. Additionally, in the next 300,000 years, the ecology can evolve the transplants. Hominids doubled in size in that time; new variants can fill new niches; etc. Just note that the modern agricultural staples were not agricultural staples 300,000 years ago!
3) Modern: Starting with the Geonee/Vilani, (and possibly with some Droyne communities in the meantime) and thereafter, the arrival of regular and persistent interstellar communication thoroughly mixes ecologies. There are settlers taking basics for their colony; traders taking pretty, useful or both items between worlds as trade items; but also pumping out waste and water and fuel which may contain things. Given the examples in Human trade, almost anything living can get transported and then loose wherever a touchdown occurs. Mice in the station where the local (outside) environment is vacuum is not impossible. Civilisations breed stuff to better fill civilisation's needs. Ears of Corn get bigger; Potatoes get less poisonous; Cattle get beefier; etc. Dogs become domesticated. The 10,000 years of selective breeding just on earth has changed much.

Given these three stages of ecological evolution, how is the current Traveller universe reflecting these? I'd argue that this is not a topic that has been part of the input of the design flow other than the fact that terran flora and fauna seem to be everywhere! What did the humans that were transported by the Ancients eat? (Most human agricultural plants weren't agriculturally useful in -300,000) Why were Humans the only non-Droyne group that got widely transplanted (especially given the explosion of NILs in the last decade's re-writes)?

Has anyone pondered these questions recently, and - if so - what were your conclusions?

 

[mike wightman]

There were starfarers that predated the Ancients.

They may even have had a hand in the rise of so many intelligent species in such a small part of the galaxy.

 

[Spinward Flow]

it seems to me that there are 4 key stages of ecological development

Given these three stages of ecological evolution

???

Something seems to be missing.
I'm hoping it's just a typo.

 

[Nathan Brazil]

Compared to some other sci-fi, Traveller is light on or ignores ecological changes over the long term. This, I think, was in part that ecology not a thing to consider in sci-fi gamingfor a long time. Not like later settings like 2300 which does far more than just a nod or "current" willful biological engineering in Eclipse Phase. In that I am not referring to sleeving or uplifts, I refer to the non-sentient herd animals grown for nourishment found in the outer planets and moons like Titan in that setting.

Depending on the canon source, some impacts (inconsistencies) to ecology do stick out. It does not matter if it makes sense IRL, these are canon in context of the OTU:

• The relative viral/bacterial immunity the Terrans had during the Interstellar Wars period and the lack of on the part of the Vilani. An long term impact of Ancients intentionally seeding planets according to their whims/intentions. Possible earlier incidents are not mentioned with the Vilani and the Geonee, Suerrat, Answerin or other transplanted humans.
• The Darrian's "fire pits" written of extensively in the MgT1e Alien Module, which forced Darrians into cannibalism every few thousand years in their early development.
• Just how do idyllic grassland planets in the Two Thousand Worlds remain idyllic grassland planets? The sentient philosophy driven by instinctual fear does not permit a carnivore to live. According to the latest Alien Book on them, they do not terraform, other than killing carnivores, all carnivores.

 

[whartung]

Interstellar impacts likely come from two sources.

First, simply the base impact of human activity, whether its building a house or damming the Grand Canyon for a reservoir for recreational boating.

The second is invasive species. This can be even more egregious in terms of impact than what we've seen here with a particularly aggressive alien species arriving and taking root, either animal or plant (we'll not consider the silicon based invasive species like the Virus for this discussion).

Industrial impact can be quite high, even in the far future, simply because the people doing the extraction (mining, etc.) are even less invested in the biome. The idea of coming in, aggressively (say) mining some area and then just leaving -- no colony, no people, just a big scar in the planet. The "we don't live here" syndrome could be quite powerful.

 

[Spinward Flow]

Just how do idyllic grassland planets in the Two Thousand Worlds remain idyllic grassland planets? The sentient philosophy driven by instinctual fear does not permit a carnivore to live. According to the latest Alien Book on them, they do not terraform, other than killing carnivores, all carnivores.

Remove all the carnivores.
Watch the ecosystem COLLAPSE.

We've seen this happen repeatedly here on Terra, pre-interstellar travel.

 

[Condottiere]

Or add cats and porkers.

 

[Nathan Brazil]

Remove all the carnivores.
Watch the ecosystem COLLAPSE.

We've seen this happen repeatedly here on Terra, pre-interstellar travel.

Agreed, insofar as IRL. But not the OTU.

 

[BackworldTraveller]

???

Something seems to be missing.
I'm hoping it's just a typo.

Just remember that "Nobody expects the Spanish Inquisition"!

 

[Spinward Flow]

Agreed, insofar as IRL. But not the OTU.

So it works in reality ... but not in theory ... therefore reality is conclusively disproven to be relevant?

 

[Krikkitone]

Well there is two models with 2 unique factors to consider.

1. The impact of globalization on islands.
After exposure to global trade, islands got more total species, but less unique species. (Total # of species on all islands went down, but the # of species on individual islands went up)

You would expect the same thing on worlds after interstellar trade begins..when it ceases worlds start to uniquely lose some common species, and gain a few unique new ones.

2. Significant impact of technological activity on worlds without experience of that we see that on Earth…massive amounts of rapid habitat change.

not likely too significant until pops get to 7+, but it would be happening on many worlds.

As for the two special considerations

1. different biochemistries: this could make many worlds more resistant to invasive species. (it could also make some worlds much more vulnerable, if an invader could exploit them they may not be able to come up with a defense in time)

2. long term stable technological impact. in the past 5000 years Terra went from pop8 TL 0 to pop9 TL 8, wheras many worlds in Vland Sector have been PopA TL A for that whole time.

We don’t have a good model for the environmental impact of thousands of years of consistent, stable significant technological impact on the environment, Given the slow pace of technological change in most of interstellar space, many worlds will give species a good chance to evolve and adapt to the impacts of humans. (these may be the best invasive species, even if they only invade other planets cities/arcologies)

 

[warwizard]

OBAFGKM Stellar spectral classifications. Each different spectral class has a different color of light at it's peak power output spectra. Our green plants may not compete very well in a system with a M class star and local veggies that have adapted to the long wavelength red light. In short photo energy driven lifeforms tend to be specific to a given spectral class of star. We DO have a few species on earth that have evolved chlorphyl or analogs thereof that do use longer wavelengths, but to generalize, take a green plant to any other spectral class system that has an evolved plant ecosystem and the green plants will fare poorly, even the kidzu may get out competed.

 

[Nathan Brazil]

Then by extension similar viability issues may occur on planets with tainted, exotic, corrosive, and insidious atmospheres.

• In corrosive and insidious atmos, humans and other sophonts can protect themselves by technological means, and our vermin will come along for the ride in our enclosed biomes, but in the "wilds" outside, they are likely to die outside quickly enough to have minimal impact to the ecology of those planets
• Exotic typically means no oxygen or at least not enough free oxygen, so none of our animals could make a go of it. My question is could our plants thrive in carbon dioxide rich exotic atmosheres? If no CO2, then our plants are screwed also.
• For the rest, there is the issue of taint and air pressure. We cannot practically put tech assistance on our species in the wilds. Domesticated animals, mybe, but then what do they eat and where if they have something covering mouths or nostrils? So there wild animals will have to deal with constant wheezing/suffocation or feeling crushed from the atmosphere. Then there is the specific taint in a tainted atmosphere world and how it is detrimental to our animal species.

 

[Krikkitone]

I think the island model works well here
different star spectrum/atmosphere of world =~ different biome of island (kudzu won’t invade the sahara, but it will invade any place with the right temp/water profile.)

So 3 atm worlds around an M star wouldn’t be invaded by most Terran organisms, but they would get invasive species from other 3atm M star worlds (as well as some 4,5,2 atm or K star worlds)

 

[warwizard]

Please note: The previously posted comment is for when there is a fairly complex ecology where the organisms have gotten thier right to be there by out competing thier competetion. If all that exists is a algie in the water and that ecosystem, there would be some room for "G" native plants to establish themselves on land, and allow natural selection to begin the process of adapting them to the new to them conditions.

 

[Nathan Brazil]

Some factoids on the extreme altitudes/atmospheric at which we and our animals might survive in - without aid !.
Omnicalculator - Air pressure
First, I found a calculator to compute air pressure. Plug atm at sea level (or other term), height above sea level and temperature at such an altitude and you get the air pressure in atm (or other value) soooo..
Mount Everest 8848.86 m, avg yearly temp -27C, = 0.293 atm

Discover Magazine - These 6 Animals Live at the Highest Altitudes on the Planet
lists Yellow-Rumped Leaf-Eared Mouse the winner at 22,110 feet above sea level at the dormant volcano Llullaillaco in South America. This little one is unusual because the same species (not an offshoot or variant species) lives at sea level as well.
Llullaillaco 6736.08 m, avg yearly temp -14C, = 0.41atm

The highest elevation year-round human settlement is La Rinconada, Peru. At 5,100 m, It exists because of a gold mine. The average yearly temperature is a gloriously warm 1.3 C .
La Rinconada, Peru 5,100 m, avg yearly temp 1.3C, = 0.530 atm.
Due to the lack of tech support, It is estimated that more than 25% of the people suffer from hypoxia. Your body simply does have enough oxygen in the body's tissues to begin with, causing all manner of problems. The only cure is to use air compressors, sealed environments or get to 3,000 m elevation so the problem goes away. The higher you go the more likely onset ccurs.
Wikipedia - La Rinconada, Peru

 

[Krikkitone]

It seems (for most multicellular life) 1 pressure level lower (D->8->6->5->3) is ok but not ideal, 1 pressure level higher is fine. 2 pressure levels higher or lower doesn’t work without tech support. (Although extra high pressure means you could still invade the mountains)

 

[BackworldTraveller]

Even on earth there are organisms that are good with pressures that are very high - see deep-sea creatures. Not many of those though. And at single-cell level, almost any pressure and temp combination seems to be popular to something. Even if the something is just holding on until the temp rises to 0.

I appreciate the point about star colour. Same colour excellent. +/- one colour is doable. +/- two colours less so unless there are unfilled niches.

So: 4.5 billion years and during which life never got beyond 1 cell per organism for 4 of those.

Then 500 million life of that stays in water or doesn't get bigger than 1cm tall for a bit, then 10cm tall then 1m tall then 10m tall until by 400million years ago we had tall trees.
Or: 40 lots of single cells then 1 lot of short plants then 4 lots of tall plants. The 40 may reduce proportionately as everyone is passing time and evolving in parallel - but even that suggests that over 1/2 of all worlds with native life shouldn't have tall/big native life.

Intelligent life is just 0.03 lots in this scale! About 1 per sector seems generous.

 

[Krikkitone]

Even on earth there are organisms that are good with pressures that are very high - see deep-sea creatures. Not many of those though. And at single-cell level, almost any pressure and temp combination seems to be popular to something. Even if the something is just holding on until the temp rises to 0.

I appreciate the point about star colour. Same colour excellent. +/- one colour is doable. +/- two colours less so unless there are unfilled niches.

So: 4.5 billion years and during which life never got beyond 1 cell per organism for 4 of those.

Then 500 million life of that stays in water or doesn't get bigger than 1cm tall for a bit, then 10cm tall then 1m tall then 10m tall until by 400million years ago we had tall trees.
Or: 40 lots of single cells then 1 lot of short plants then 4 lots of tall plants. The 40 may reduce proportionately as everyone is passing time and evolving in parallel - but even that suggests that over 1/2 of all worlds with native life shouldn't have tall/big native life.

Intelligent life is just 0.03 lots in this scale! About 1 per sector seems generous.

I made up a system for my own purposes.
Roll for complex life on world based on Atm and Hyd (pass both rolls for “complex life” present gives ~1/6 of all standard mainworlds with complex life…including the rare exotics on non atm 2-9 worlds), then if there’s “Complex life” there’s sophonts on 12 on 2D

 

[kilemall]

I made up a system for my own purposes.
Roll for complex life on world based on Atm and Hyd (pass both rolls for “complex life” present gives ~1/6 of all standard mainworlds with complex life…including the rare exotics on non atm 2-9 worlds), then if there’s “Complex life” there’s sophonts on 12 on 2D

This MgT Worldgen system has an ecological roll that goes from barren through microbes and simple plants to full sentience. Real nice to get a biome reading so threats can be devised. Maybe no animals but Andromeda Strains don’t need complexity- in fact may be WHY there is no full biome.