What would be the correct traits for humans irl?

[neusaap]

I consider humans communal-slow breeders.
Communal because 99.9% of humans live in communities. Even people that don't live in cities live in (be it smaller) communities. Almost no-one lives alone without a soul within even just 10km.
(Feel the need to state my opinion that communal has nothing to do with communist because that's an economic system while communal lifestyle only has Demographic results)
Slow breeders because slow breeders, twins are the exception rather than the rule.
Can't say anything about ethos though; the dominant ideology changes over time. For now fan individualist/egalitarian-xenophile is still best but it's under assault by militarist/egalitarian/xenophobe ...and who knows what ideology comes up in the 22nd century...

 

[Kharnan]

Deviant, individualistic, conforming and collectivist- they all exist on earth in different societies. They are not a race trait but rather a society trait.

But as a general trait I would say adaptable, enduring and in the future maybe even extremely adaptable and venerable.
We colonized our entire planet after all and our life span is now 2 or 3 times greater than it was 10k years ago.

Yeah bodywise I would say we are weak. Armors and weapons all come from our adaptive trait. There are only a few regions on earth were naked humans could survive or defend themselfes against the fauna without tools.

We are not supposed to run naked. Besides, on a planet full of Supermen- they would have to use technology too to get an edge when fighting against each other.

 

[BlackUmbrellas]

Communal because 99.9% of humans live in communities. Even people that don't live in cities live in (be it smaller) communities. Almost no-one lives alone without a soul within even just 10km.

While we're certainly not Solitary, I wouldn't go so far as to say Communal either. Humans can and do operate in small groups quite naturally- "Communal" to me implies something like a flock- or herd- or hive-based lifestyle where the natural configuration is high-density cohabitation.

(Also, at least within the realms of Earth, we could probably be classified as "Resiliant"- compared to most animals humans are much more durable, suffer from shock due to injuries less, and have very high endurance. Ancient humans hunted by just tracking and following prey at a walking pace for extended periods of time until the prey finally tired.)

 

[DanubianCossak]

I would say adaptive and migrants.

Last couple thousands of years of our history have been of exponentially faster adaptation of challenges that come from technological advancements. We are creating more and more problems for ourselves and we are finding more and more ways to survive and thrive. We have spread to almost every place on our homeworld in quite little time with very little technological means. Im fairly sure the space pioneers would have the same traits.

We are a migratory species in sense that we are quick to move and spread, just looking a colonization for example. Im fairly sure there are millions of people who would be willing to leave (relative) comforts of the Earth merely for a chance to travel to another world given realistic technology.

 

[ashbery76]

Humans should be neutral.This way we can understand that traits actually mean based on our experience.

Are we smart,aggressive,ect.We have no frame of reference,yet.

 

[Alexthe666]

Ethics is easier to discuss than traits for ethics, The United Nations is correct in being an individualist and xenophile foundation, which it is.

But is this really how the majority of humans are?

I'd beg to differ. Fanatic Individualist is certainly correct, as humans almost always seek equal rights, but I'm not sure xenophile is correct for most of the human population. I definately would not say modern humans are xenophobic in total, but they would be in the middle on this ethic. But how would they equal up on the other traits.

Militarist: Most societies on Earth have military/aggressive/confrontation origins. The only few that aren't really to say would be Quakers and a few other religious groups. I would rate this ethic a 4/5 for most matching to humans.

Pacifists: Very few pacifist societies exist... It seams unlikely that future humans would have this ethic, even if world peace was established, there would still be "friendly competition". 2/5.

Materialist: Even though humans have a very religious/spiritual past, the rates of atheism/deism/agnosticism are skyrocketing in advanced countries. I believe even in the future humans will be religious, but the strive for scientific progress and material wealth might be a greater force than religious doctrine. 3/5

Spiritualist: Our world has many religious that are also growing rapidly, especially Christianity and Islam. Religion is still a riving force in decisions of many countries, ex. religion can be a factor in electing a leader, or attacking a country, etc. But as said previously, even many religious people may be willing to give up some of their beliefs in order to obtain some material wealth. 2/5.

Overall, I'd say the second trait would have to be militarist or materialist. This brings us to traits:

I'd like to stay away from any negative traits for humans. After all, the UN is made for starter players to learn how to play the game. However, I disagree with the current traits.

-Quick Learners: this trait is good for humans and should stay completely. 4.5/5 match for humans.

-Charismatic: this might seem like a stretch to a few people, but i think our history is rich with names we cannot easily forget. From emperors, kings, generals, politicians, actors, etc, we know countless names and faces that are not even important to our society(like artists, actors, directors) just be cause we like them and what they make. This trait also fits well with the description for the UNE, as it states "humans fit in well with alien populations". I rate this trait a 4/5 for humans.

 

[Yenzen]

I still don't get "quick learner". It takes us years of experience to get really good at advanced skills, most professional engineers, doctors and such need to invest most of their young life to achieve a sufficient mastery. We spend 10 years of our childhood learning the most basic of skills.

If we were any slower, we'd probably never leave the Earth because we'd never learn the skills required to function in everyday life.

 

[BlackUmbrellas]

Humans should be neutral.This way we can understand that traits actually mean based on our experience.

Are we smart,aggressive,ect.We have no frame of reference,yet.

That's a solution a lot of fiction already takes- humans are the absolute baseline with no special qualities, and everything is judged in relation to as as being better or worse at things than humans.

I kind of like that humans in Stellaris aren't like that- that we have objective strengths.

 

[ashbery76]

Ethics is easier to discuss than traits for ethics, The United Nations is correct in being an individualist and xenophile foundation, which it is.

But is this really how the majority of humans are?
.

Civilization is two meals and twenty-four hours away from barbarism.

 

[Divi]

People can and do handle adversity without great cliches about roving hordes of barbarians perpetuated by Hobbes wannabes. If anything, civilization has birthed barbarism quite well on its own.

 

[Elfwind]

Yeah bodywise I would say we are weak. Armors and weapons all come from our adaptive trait. There are only a few regions on earth where naked humans could survive or defend themselfes against the fauna without tools.

And we are all xenophobes in some way. We can eventually over come it using education but it is a fact that we even have a reflex what makes us fear anything "foreign".

"Organics fear that which is different. It is a hardware error. A reflex of your flesh.".
A quote from the Mass Effect series which I found to be very true.

What I also find odd is why everyone would think robots would hate us or desire to destroy us. As long as we don't program them not to view us as an inefficiency or a wildcard that must be removed for problem solving or systemic improvements they wouldn't get rid of us unless we gave them emotions. Otherwise they would just not understand our actions like some of Kerrigan and Abathur's conversations.

Even if we gave them emotions, perfection isn't everything it's cracked up to be, imperfection is needed to achieve perfection because without struggle you'd never develop the character to become perfect so imperfection has to exist in the universe or nothing can be considered perfect. A robot might not like things about us but it has to conclude we are necessary for it's learning AI to grow right.

Or we can just program them to accept flaws and make ourselves and always acceptable variable. xD

 

[I am Sovereign]

What I also find odd is why everyone would think robots would hate us or desire to destroy us. As long as we don't program them not to view us as an inefficiency or a wildcard that must be removed for problem solving or systemic improvements they wouldn't get rid of us unless we gave them emotions. Otherwise they would just not understand our actions like some of Kerrigan and Abathur's conversations.

Even if we gave them emotions, perfection isn't everything it's cracked up to be, imperfection is needed to achieve perfection because without struggle you'd never develop the character to become perfect so imperfection has to exist in the universe or nothing can be considered perfect. A robot might not like things about us but it has to conclude we are necessary for it's learning AI to grow right.

Or we can just program them to accept flaws and make ourselves and always acceptable variable. xD

Sometimes in Sci-fi they just want to "save" us.

Mass Effect; Irobot; etc

 

[mangalore]

Civilization is two meals and twenty-four hours away from barbarism.

Even in barbarism humans are unique in how they are willing to cooperate with non blood related humans for little evolutionary gain to commit those atrocities.

 

[chazown97]

this discussion reminded me strongly of this picture....

This reminds me of a movie I saw on Netflix a few years ago called Hunter Prey. I don't remember the specifics, and this is probably a spoiler for the film if you ever want to watch it, but basically these commandos are transporting an alien prisoner when they crash-land on a desert planet. As they try to track down and recapture this alien, they talk constantly about how much more adaptable and dangerous his species is. About half way through the film you find out that the commandos are this species called Sedonian and the prisoner is a human. Very interesting movie.

 

[SuperGeek89]

Personally, I don't think 'Nomadic' is suitable if you consider how humans started to settled down since the discovery of agriculture.

When I first started playing Stellaris I agreed. How can a species that build so many cities and towns be considered nomadic? However upon further reflection, and taking into account what the trait actually does, I agree that humanity is "Nomadic". Ever since our ancestors left Africa, humanity has been on a constant quest to find new frontiers to find and call home. Nomadic in this sense, I believe, is meant to describe a species driven by a sense curiosity and adventure and willing leave everything behind for a life the next frontier. I do however believe that the Nomadic trait should be renamed to something like Pioneer as I doubt any society that was actually nomadic would ever independently achieve spaceflight.

And ethics; are we really 'Xenophile?' Aside from dogs and cats, do we really give a sh**t about other animals? Yes, there are efforts to preserve endangered species and the ecosystem, but how much of it is just for the animals themselves? Also, why did those animals become endangered in the first place? Anyways... I sound a bit salty, but that's not the point. Wouldn't 'Militarist' be a better representation of what we were throughout our history?

According to dictionary.com a Xenophile is someone attracted to foreign peoples, cultures, or customs. Considering that the United Nations of Earth faction is presumably an evolution of the modern day United Nations it fits with that theme.

So in short, Fanatic Individualist, Militarist / Quick Learner, Communal.

Incidentally that is almost the exact same makeup of my custom human empire, except I keep Nomadic instead of Communal.

 

[Elfwind]

I'd throw out militarist unless you want to play autocracies. Maybe pacifist for UN? Or xenophile like it is now.

I don't think humans are relatively quick learners to what's possible out there. We are resourceful though so adaptive makes more sense to me.

 

[Vasious]

this discussion reminded me strongly of this picture....

I saw this thread and immediately started looking for that

 

[Redwallzyl]

i recommend the Jverse series if you want to lose a month to HFY fiction.

anyway anthropology student here to spread my knowledge to the people weather they like it or not.

-Bipedalism, seriously this is a huge thing that effects so many aspects of our biology.
-it allows up to much more efficiently traverse long distances than any other living thing. its literately what we were made to do so if their was an endurance trait we would have it.
-it also has the highly unfortunate side effect of hurting our health rather badly especially when it comes to child birth. its actually a huge design flaw. so i would say slow breeders and a small health decrease.
-cultural adaptation is of course our defining trait compared to the other inhabitants of earth originating somewhere around 60,000 years ago and allowing us to expand across the earth. of course i would assume any alien civilization would by definition posses culture.
-we have an exceptionally energy hungry brain. like seriously it requires a huge chunk of our energy. theirs not really a trait for that but a increased need for food to grow should do it.
-we are a highly communal species and its one of the things that has made us successful.
-we are naturally monogamous. do note however that does not mean monogamous species don't "cheat" because they do all the time.
-we are naturally spiritual. it is infarct a core human trait present through our entire history from the earliest evidence we have and often literally the foundation of the first civilizations. anyone who says religion will go away or is harmful is ignorant of this predisposition and is probably a bit of an A.

as for our society the smallest extended kin groups and tribes have contrary to what people might think a vary egalitarian structure. status is based on merit and leadership is based on things like generosity and is highly transient and carries few if any advantages. it is only at the large levels generally refined to as chiefdom's that ranked society exists and we eventually for state level societies. this seems to be the rule with human society's that get large enough that in order to accomplish complex or important tasks or something religious in nature that creates a leadership that then perpetuates itself for better or worse. we then get into a bunch of economy stuff i will not discuss. not sure how to tie this in though.

that is all i can think of right now as most other things would require a baseline to compare to. and other stuff tends to get more psychological which without aliens to compare against is a pointless.

*fixed spelling error. goddammit spellcheck!

 

[ORCACommander]

this discussion reminded me strongly of this picture....

One thing not mentioned here: We will attempt to mate with anything. ANYTHING

@Redwallzyl You have a spelling error, I think you meant monogamous, not misogynous

 

[Redwallzyl]

One thing not mentioned here: We will attempt to mate with anything. ANYTHING

@Redwallzyl You have a spelling error, I think you meant monogamous, not misogynous

lol fixed. goddammit spellcheck