Richard's Animorphs Forum
Animorphs Section => Animorphs Forum Classic => Topic started by: senter.pat on April 10, 2009, 03:55:40 AM
-
Why didn't visser three clone the andalite body? It wouldnt have had morphing powers, but still would be a powerful host.
-
clone it, how?
-
simple -
would you rather a powerful host body
or
a powerful host body with the ability to morph
if i had the option id most likely want to morph wouldnt you?
-
I mean how would you clone it? are you saying the yeerks have a cloning device I've never heard about...
-
It's possible they might have had the technology to clone the Andalite body, but why on Earth would Visser Three want to do that? He already has an Andalite host (with the morphing power) and he has no reason to clone it.
-
Maybe to give other Yeerks Andalite hosts. Actually, if they had that tech why wouldn't they do it on Horks? We Humans can already clone things, though we also made laws against it.
-
Actually, if they had that tech why wouldn't they do it on Horks?
Beat me to it :P
The above point does imply that the Yeerks don't appear to have the kind of technology to clone in large numbers at least, or why breed the Hork-Bajir, let alone fret about how long it takes to do so, as they do in Visser? I do think that they could clone however, I mean if we can do it then they can do it just because they'd be able to infest someone who knows how, I don't think there's many public knowledge human technologies the Yeerks wouldn't have been able to get at.
I think another reason might have been that it'd be a blank Andalite body, perhaps with instincts but not with memories, the Yeerks often rely on the memories of their hosts to go about . . . things. A cloned host might have been too inexperienced (so to speak) for infestation. That's a weak reason because the Animorphs operate with just animal instincts, but then again they have their own human and Andalite ingenuity to rely on and according to Andalite propaganda Yeerks aren't super imaginative.
-
Also, we're incapable of cloning things that don't have serious health problems and, usually, dramatically shortened life spans. ^^ So the Yeerks wouldn't be much better off takin' our technology. Moreover, no matter how much effort it is to breed a Hork-Bajir baby, you're pretty much definitively better off than you would be cloning it- it took 277 attempts at transfering the specific sheep's DNA into ovum to create Dolly the sheep. 29 of them managed to make embryos. Three of those embryos survived to birth. Only one of them survived to adulthood. She lived about half of a sheep's lifespan.
Our latest attempt at cloning, according to Wiki, was a water buffalo that died when it was five days old.
One would think the Yeerks would have better technology than our's, but perhaps they just steered away from biology. ^^()
-
Not to mention, even if the clone managed to be healthy, it would age at a normal rate. You wouldn't suddenly have another Andalite or Hork-Bajir the same age as the original, it would start off as a baby. Thus, at least in the Hork-Bajir's case, it wouldn't go any faster than breeding them.
-
Man my original point was that visser could clone himself, in order to create new hosts for other yeerks. The thing about them having any experience, and thus not a useful host. They would most likely be held for yeerks in a position of power. It couldve been an interesting fan-fic book. The animorphs face off against an army of andalites.
-
Not to mention, even if the clone managed to be healthy, it would age at a normal rate. You wouldn't suddenly have another Andalite or Hork-Bajir the same age as the original, it would start off as a baby. Thus, at least in the Hork-Bajir's case, it wouldn't go any faster than breeding them.
From what I understand, that's the problem with cloning--DNA ages as well as the body. It mutates and dies as long as it's used, so if you're making a brand new baby from a middle-aged specimen's DNA, there are going to be problems.
I always kind of figured they bred Hork-Bajir, and especially Taxxons, since those seemed rather susceptible to being suddenly, you know, eaten and all.
Man my original point was that visser could clone himself, in order to create new hosts for other yeerks. The thing about them having any experience, and thus not a useful host. They would most likely be held for yeerks in a position of power. It couldve been an interesting fan-fic book. The animorphs face off against an army of andalites.
I think the reason Visser Three never did this is the same as the reason he didn't automatically infest any of the Animorphs whenever he caught them (which really would have put a damper on the whole "hiding out as guerrilla Andalites" thing.) He liked being the only Andalite-Controller. He wasn't a Napoleonic genius, but he certainly realized that more Andalite-Controllers took away a lot of the allure and power of being the only one. And since he believed the Animorphs were Andalites, he always waited far too long to infest them, or seemed rather more content just torturing them/putting them in metal boxes/monologuing to them. So if he'd rather LET THE ANIMORPHS ESCAPE than infest them, why would he willingly clone his own host's body to make more Andalite-Controllers?
-
If they could perfect it then it would be a good idea as if the host has no memories or real personality, they won't have to worry about the host fighting for control.
On the other hand, I think Visser Three likes being the only Andalite Controller. He usually tried to kill the "Andalite Bandits" rather than infest them, and any time he mentioned infesting them was probably just to scare them.
-
I always kinda thought that the taxxons just stayed on their homeworld and bred on thier own. I dont think the yeerks have to worry about it. They are allies, not involuntary.
Your probably right about the whole visser wanting to be the only andalite controller, he tried to infest them a couple of times. I think in book 2 he was going to take rachel to get infested. Or was it tortured? hmmm...
-
I didn't know clones had major health problems and short lifespans. That really puts a damper on things.
Visser Three doesn't know jack about biology anyway. Evidenced in the book where he tried to make amphibious Hork-Bajir.
-
I didn't know clones had major health problems and short lifespans. That really puts a damper on things.
Visser Three doesn't know jack about biology anyway. Evidenced in the book where he tried to make amphibious Hork-Bajir.
how about #28? would that count as a biology or a philosophy ignorance?
-
Does sentience have to do with biology? I don't actually know exactly what sentience is. Why we have it, and nothing else. Or if some animals do have it, to what level do they have it?
-
Does sentience have to do with biology? I don't actually know exactly what sentience is. Why we have it, and nothing else. Or if some animals do have it, to what level do they have it?
I hate to sound like a know-it-all here but I think this can start an interesting discussion.
Sentience, in the truest sense of the word, is the ability to experience the world. To feel, taste, see, smell, hear, whatever. So, technically, Applegate was using it wrong. Most animals, or at least anything the Animorphs could acquire, are "sentient." The word she was looking for was "sapient"--that is, wise, or aware, or intelligent, or whatever arbitrary line you want to draw that makes something "worthy" of...whatever.
This arbitrary line is what a lot of speculative fiction, including Animorphs, focuses on. At what point is killing something murder? At what point do "human" rights come into play? How can we judge creatures who may be intelligent, but we can't communicate with? The questions you asked are exactly what everyone asks. And the question at hand, whether "sentience" or "sapience" is biological or something else, is along the same lines. I always thought the premise of Animorphs had a lot of room for this kind of stuff, and she covered a lot of it. Cassie throwing a moralistic hissy fit every time they were faced with the task of acquiring something even slightly intelligent. Battling for control of the animal mind/instincts being similar between Yeerks and morphing.
So anyway, the answer to your question is no one knows. That's why it makes such damn good sci-fi.
-
Currently, as far as I know, the arbitrary line we draw at where something is 'sentient' (or 'sapient') is self-awareness- that is, awareness that you are you, that you exist, and the ability to motivate yourself through concious decisions as opposed to blindly obeying instinct. ^_^
The current biological "test" to determine an animal's self-awareness is by putting an animal in front of a mirror. If their actions are coming from concious decisions to move a part of their body as opposed to instinctive reactions to their environment, then when they move their front leg, the animal in the mirror will move its front leg simultaneously. They will recognize the animal in the mirror as a reflection of themselves. Whether or not they have recognized their reflection is determined by marking the animal with paint in an area they cannot see independently- if they see the paint on the reflection and realize that the mark is actually on them, they have passed the test.
Currently, the animals I know of that have passed this test are humans, dolphins, elephants, chimpanzees, and magpies. I believe there are others, though.
Personally, I find the fact that magpies are self-aware to be awesome.
That is all. =3
-
I believe that that mirror test may not be entirely accurate.
It just denotes that the species is able to denote connections, and make realizations. It just indicates a higher level of intelligence, not necessarily self-awareness.
I read about a dog that was able to use process of elimination to determine the meaning of a new command. There would be several toys, such as a ball, a stuffed bear, etc. If the dog was told to get the ball, it would. If you laid out various objects, it would pick it out. If you presented various objects to the dog that it recognized, and one it did not, then told it to retrieve it, it would realize that it had not heard that word before, and would match it up to the object it has not seen before.
It was thought that process of elimination was reserved for sapient beings. Dogs are not even the same league as other questionable animals, such as dolphins or greater apes.
So, is there any true way to determine is something is truly self aware? I think something may be the ability to foresee and fear death. Not death in the sense of not living; dying to a predator, but rather in the sense we do. Wanting to live because of nothing beyond simple desire, as well as the capacity to wonder what happens after death.
-
I like the way this post is going.
I think Aristotle's "line" was judgment--that is, humans stand out above all other animals because we can assign a moral valence or charge to all of our actions. We know murder is wrong, we know charity and love are good, and we have the power and ability to judge and condemn those who do "bad," and praise and adulate those who do "good."
But does an organism need social structure in order to be "sapient?" What if there was a human who was born in a white room with no reference to anything? As it grew, would that human no longer be sapient because it has no point of reference?
idk philosophy is fun until it's depressing
-
If a human is raised in complete isolation and ignorance, it will not be 'human' in that sense of the word.
The human mind can only develop certain skills and abilities at certain points, and then it will never be able to learn. If language is not learned by a certain point in life, the human in question will never be able to have the capacity to understand language.
However, due to the rarity of finding such children, as well as them lacking the capacity to communicate, it is impossible to determine if they have the capacity to develop and understand morals, or if they know what death is, and what they think of it.
However, the mind retains its impressionability. There was on instance in eastern Europe (I cannot recall where specifically) where are mother threw an unwanted child into a dog kennel. The child survived, but was luckily found before she was unable to learn communication. She can speak, but very poorly. Either way, she acted as dogs did, she 'barked' at threats, sniffed other dogs, slept with them, like them, howled, and otherwise acted like a dog would. It took an incredibly long time to break her of this, and even then she occasionally relapses.
If you took a cat, and raised it with and as dogs, would the same thing happen? What about a monkey?
There are so many levels to determining sapience it is impossible to determine.
-
If a human is raised in complete isolation and ignorance, it will not be 'human' in that sense of the word.
I think we just invalidated all of Cassie's angst about morphing into a sentient (or sapient, whatever word we're using) organism. The morph would have no point of reference, no social conditioning, no "life," right? So morph whatever the hell you want, basically.
Let's say a Yeerk, on the other hand, had the ability to breed or create life with a similar lack of social structure. Like what if a Yeerk infested a newborn baby? At this point in its development, it's not "sapient," so is it technically wrong? And could an organism capable of sapience and free will develop those things if it is never under its own control? I guess the Yeerk has to feed every three days, so it would have some degree of it, but...wait, I think I read about this on wikipedia one day, but I can't remember what the article is. It basically outlined four structures, I think dependent both on concepts of "free will" and "destiny." Like, is the entirety of existence preplanned, a series of forces set in motion since the Big Bang, or does free will actually play a part? I can't remember. I'm rambling now so I'll stop.
DETERMINISM IT'S CALLED DETERMINISM there now I feel better :)
-
If a human is raised in complete isolation and ignorance, it will not be 'human' in that sense of the word.
I think we just invalidated all of Cassie's angst about morphing into a sentient (or sapient, whatever word we're using) organism. The morph would have no point of reference, no social conditioning, no "life," right? So morph whatever the hell you want, basically.
Yes. The only problem I would have about morphing a person, like a Human, is if you do something that would give that person a bad name, or whatever. Like use his/her body to steal stuff. Which the Animorphs would never purposefully do.
But KA was trying to get her message across about identity, and how important it is. Not that I agree with things, like labeling all voluntaries as weak scum, or that Ax becoming a kind of controller in the end was darkly appropriate. Shoot, all he ever did was act like a soldier, and a soldier is supposed to follow the squad leader. Or do you think a lot of voting actually does go on in the military?
-
:offtopic:
All of you.
Anyways clonning an Andalite would take too long for one thing plus aging defects since Alloran was pretty old. Also the Yeerk Vissers are alot like warlords in competition with eachother for land, hosts, prestige the Visser wanted to keep Alloran for himself. I think the yeerks could have worked out some of the problems after a lot of reasearch and protype tests. However Visser three was mainly interested in the power to morph and an andalite without that power would be usless.
In short it would take too long, it would take too much work and the out come would not be as great. As for Hork-Bajir they have shorter lifespans and reproduced quickly enough for the Yeerks.
-
O thats not true though, the visser didnt care about morphing, he wanted the andalite host because of its eyes.
-
Actually, he wanted a host in general because of it's eyes. He wanted an Andalite host because of what it would represent. He wanted to be the ultimate enemy to Andalites, and what better way to do that than to take over one?