Zombies, Klendathu and The Absurdly Violent Intergalactic Space Fungus.

[YorkNecromancer]

Zombies, Klendathu and The Absurdly Violent Intergalactic Space Fungus.

I remember the first time I tried to properly read the Bible. I lay down in bed, cracked open Genesis, and just ploughed in there. The stories seemed fun enough, and a lot of the ideas are certainly interesting. (Genesis 3:22 (http://biblehub.com/genesis/3-22.htm) has always been a favourite little curiosity of mine...)

But the genealogies…

I can never manage the genealogies. Where Abraham was the father of Isaac, Isaac the father of Jacob, Jacob the father of Judah and his brothers, Judah the father of Perez and Zerah, whose mother was Tamar, Perez the father of Hezron, Hezron the father of Ram…

https://media.giphy.com/media/u2QtNmGJ90qOc/giphy.gif
Pictured: even the Flanders can’t handle lists that long.

Pages and pages of them! When I was young, I could never work out why they’d stop the stories and parables in favour of a really long list of names. And not names of interesting characters. Names of people we’re never really interested in, whose stories we never hear, and who aren’t ever really mentioned again. It’s like those double page spreads in special issues of the ‘Avengers’ comics where you’ve got two pages filled with all the heroes, and you know Iron Man, Thor and Black Widow, but you’ve got no idea who the other nine hundred tits in tights are in the background, and you never get to find out, because they never show up again.

‘Who are these people?’ I wondered. ‘What is the point of mentioned them if they don’t do anything else?’

I didn’t realise that there were only three names on the list that mattered: Abraham, David, and, of course, Yeshua.

Years of Nativity plays have taught us that Jesus was the son of a carpenter. We’ve all been there, sat in a hall as scared children in fibre-glass beards stand next to cardboard cows with rubber gloves for udders, praying that the sick-looking girl vomits on the smug-looking boy playing the third King from the left. As a result, we all know that Jesus was born so absurdly humble, his family couldn’t find any room at an inn, and had to stay in a barn with the animals. It’s a charming story; a narrative designed to show us that God doesn’t really like the rich.

The problem, of course, is that people have always hated the poor. And an impoverished son of God… Well, it’s a solid moral lesson, but it doesn’t bring legitimacy.

Hence the geneaologies. See, Jesus has to have credibility. He has to be royalty. The same way Aragorn can’t just be some guy who’s strong and brave and fundamentally decent, Jesus can’t just be himself, oh no. He has to be a king, too, even if he never mentions it. So the Bible interrupts a set of entertaining tales with a series of people’s names in order to prove that Yeshua, son of Joseph, who would later be named Jesus, The Anointed One, was in fact, descended from a line of kings.

Which means, despite the Nativity, he wasn’t just some working class dole-scum, out to steal the jobs from hard-working locals. No, he was a king, descended from kings.

We’ve always hated the poor. (http://www.herinst.org/BusinessManagedDemocracy/culture/wealth/fear.html)

Poverty as Immorality.

There’s an interesting bit of etymology I like.


villain (n.) c. 1300 (late 12c. as a surname), "base or low-born rustic," from Anglo-French and Old French vilain "peasant, farmer, commoner, churl, yokel" (12c.), from Medieval Latin villanus "farmhand," from Latin villa "country house, farm" (see villa).

The most important phases of the sense development of this word may be summed up as follows: 'inhabitant of a farm; peasant; churl, boor; clown; miser; knave, scoundrel.' Today both Fr. vilain and Eng. villain are used only in a pejorative sense. [Klein]

Meaning "character in a novel, play, etc. whose evil motives or actions help drive the plot" is from 1822.

Our generic word for ‘a bad person’ comes from the old word for a farm worker; a peasant.

The word ‘villain’ descends from a word that initially described a generically poor labourer. But how did this happen? Who controls the language? Did everyone just wake up one day, and decide that the word ‘farmer’ suddenly meant ‘evil’?

Of course not.

It’s all in the stories we tell, or, more specifically, the stories the wealthy (http://reverbpress.com/news/billionaire-logically-fears-poor-will-revolt-against-the-rich/) want told.

People are weird about money. Money shapes our perceptions of the world. Consider the humble suntan. In Victorian England, sun tans were considered unattractive; in the 1980s, a suntan was almost obligatory if a person were to be taken seriously as a beauty.

Why the change?

Because in Victorian England, the people who had suntans were common. They were people who were out in the fields, ploughing fields, doing manual labour. In the 1980s, when everyone common worked in offices, a suntan was a sign of wealth; that you could afford a lovely holiday somewhere the weather isn’t a steady stream of cold sky-piss.

It’s been this way for years, and across all cultures. Rich person does thing; poor people copy it. Why? Because if we keep sticking feathers up our jacksies, we’ll turn suddenly into chickens?

Well, a little. It’s not quite that simple. My theory has always been that it’s a bit like sympathetic magic (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sympathetic_magic). If I make a little doll that looks like you, and jab you with a pin, you’ll feel it, because the doll is like you. Likewise, if I see a rich person do something, and copy it, I’ll be like them. We copy success, in the hopes that success will seek us out too.

Not to mention that if you don’t look poor, people won’t treat you like you are.

An extension of all this is that people also tend to avoid things that the poor do. After all, if copying success leads to success, then copying failure…

This avoidance of the signs of poverty eventually becomes stigmatisation. Anything associated with poverty and its dread consequences becomes demonised by association. A recent example of this was seen in the early 2000s in England. Certain sections of the lowest-income bracket of the working class – so called ‘chavs (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chav)’ – begin to wear Burberry-brand clothes as a sort of uniform; the same way metal clubs hand out leather jackets and band T-shirts on the door, the chav culture begins to wear Burberry’s strange beige plaid. Why? Because Burberry is perceived as a sign of wealth. It’s a name that denotes power, prestige, money…

And what happens when the rest of society notices this?

Well, as newspaper articles from the time will tell you, the brand becomes ‘tarnished’. (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/2900572/Burberry-brand-tarnished-by-chavs.html) Literally, just because poor people started to wear them, the clothes became less valuable. Burberry have since come back, but as commentators have stated, ‘Had Burberry's chav association been known abroad, the damage would have been greater, and the brand might have been harder to turn around (http://www.economist.com/node/17963363)’

We’ve always hated the poor. Always.

It’s why Batman beats up street level thugs (who are, at the end of the day, merely a symptom of poverty) rather than entirely legal high-level financial immoralities that keep the very least of us in penury from cradle to grave the cause). And of course, while such fiscal game-playing may well be legal, well… So was the Holocaust.

http://static.comicvine.com/uploads/original/14/144096/3906740-1779401965-roof_.gif
Pictured: the equivalent of fighting weeds by clipping the leaves and leaving the root, but damned if it doesn't build a billionaire's self-esteem.

Zombie Apocalypse At Outpost Nine.

Human beings love killing. We love everything about it. We pretend we don’t, dressing our murderous desires up as sports, games or service to country, but the bottom line is that we’re obsessed with the death of others.

http://i.kinja-img.com/gawker-media/image/upload/s--ExEs76gB--/c_fit,f_auto,fl_progressive,q_80,w_636/rgpzq13u4wumtb8akivs.gif
Pictured: seriously, killing is so cool.

The trouble is, that we’re also acutely aware that killing other people? Is kind, probably, maybe, possibly, perhaps a bad thing. We’re generally agreed that we don’t want to be killed, and seeing as most humans have vaguely functional empathy for people who aren’t them, we generally see that other people might not want to be killed either, no matter how much fun it would be for us to end their lives.

Now, back in the days of yore, this wasn’t so much of a problem. The morality of it became very simple. Murder might be bad, but if they guy has it coming, well, you better give it to him. When the baddies are unambiguously bad, killing them becomes a moral duty.

But as society has progressed, we’ve become aware of moral complexities of these situations that were invisible before. And by ‘invisible before’, I mean ‘we chose not to pay them any attention before’.

So, where once we tell stories about English chaps with hearts of oak bringing culture and enlightenment to savage lands, in later times we get stories, revealing that actually ‘savage’ cultures, were in fact, doing fairly well before the arrival of our cosy little genocide and that actually, though the tea is nice, they’d rather we never came at all. Or we tell stories about war that acknowledge that maybe our enemies aren’t the lunatics we’re told they are (http://www.tcm.com/mediaroom/video/433475/Three-Kings-Movie-Clip-She-s-Traumatized.html).

As a result, we tend to recoil from the idea that anyone who cheerfully takes the life of another in cold blood… Even though we all secretly (or not so secretly) have paid to watch a film where that exact thing happens.

Cue the development of the guilt-free extermination war (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/GuiltFreeExterminationWar) trope. In this trope – for the purposes of this article – humans face off against an enemy they don’t have to feel guilty about killing. The Broadcasting Standards and Practises departments of children’s television bloody love this trope. They love to show kids how it’s fun to play in a non-violent way. After all, showing children footage of people shooting at one another with guns as those bullets tear flesh to pieces, leaving human bodies smoking with gore-spattered ruin is irresponsible… But showing those exact same acts happening to a robot is just fine, because everyone knows, robots can’t feel feelings.

http://stream1.gifsoup.com/view7/2392075/samurai-jack-slash-o.gif
Pictured: f**k you, R2-D2. No-one cares about how brave you are.

Because people want to kill, and people love to tell stories about how awesome killing is, so we invent loathsome enemies, entirely to murder them with a cheerful song in our hearts, safe in the knowledge that we’re Good People for doing so.

The guilt-free extermination war has brought us every kind of blank-souled villain, from robots, terminators, all the way through to bugs and zombies. These threats exist literally so we can vicariously enjoy the thrills of violence, without ever having to question whether the acts of murder we see are wrong.

https://thefanmetareader.files.wordpress.com/2014/10/itf2.gif
Pictured: zombies can’t feel anything any more… Until we give them the cure. Then they can feel exactly how much we hate ourselves for killing everyone we could have saved.

Now, there are unwritten rules to the way these enemies work. A good enemy for a guilt-free extermination war has to have a number of qualities. They must be physically disgusting (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/BeautyEqualsGoodness ) – people don’t like the idea of killing cute things, hence why zombies rot, evil robots never (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uncanny_valley) look like Wall-E, and why the Klendathunian brain bugs look like sentient foreskins. These enemies also need to be abjectly physically dangerous… Hence why a zombie bite is fatal; why killer robots are nigh invincible; why the Klendathunian warrior bugs are capable of walking, even though their simple existence is a giant middle finger held up to the Square/Cube law (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/SquareCubeLaw).

Finally, they need to be unrelatable. Hateful in the extreme. They need to be despicable, vile, incapable of drawing anything from us except fear and disgust.

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v299/oldstudent/chav_family.jpg

And this is where we get to the orcs.

The Standard Fantasy Template

Now, before we begin, yes, orcs have been around since before JRR Tolkein, but let’s be real here: he’s the man who defined them in the modern consciousness. No Tolkein, no orcs. Simple as that.

In The Standard Fantasy Template, orcs generally come from/live in the most horrible parts of the setting. It’s just accepted. You’re an orc? You’re going to live where the monsters live, where fungus and nightmares grows, it’s going to be horrible, and you’re probably going to like it that way, because you are, in the end, an orc.

Tolkein’s orcs came from Mordor, and while I hate to judge a place on its name, anywhere that’s a single phoneme away from ‘murder’? yeah, probably not going to be the best place to live.


It is a barren wasteland, riddled with fire, ash, and dust. The very air you breathe is a poisonous fume.

Famously, writers like to write what they know, and it’s generally accepted that Tolkein, who was from the South of England, based his ideas and descriptions of Mordor on the industrialised areas of the UK (http://www.theguardian.com/books/2014/sep/19/how-the-west-midlands-black-country-inspired-tolkien-lord-of-the-rings), most of which are decidedly not in the South of England.

A brief digression for the sake of our Colonial cousins. The UK comprises four countries: England, Scotland, Northern Ireland and Wales. England has ever been divided, much as your United States is, along a North/South line. This is because traditionally, the North of England was where the heavy manufacturing and mining industries were, while the South was where the business and financial industries were based. As a consequence, national stereotypes sprang up, embedded, and now run deep, forming a significant part of the English character. These stereotypes traditionally suggest that Northerners view the Southerners as weak, soft, effete, and pompous, full of too much thinking and not enough working. For their part, Southerners apparently view the North as a land of knuckle-dragging monkeys; sub-literate humans barely capable of thinking unaided, let alone speaking the Queen’s English correctly. The truth is obviously that neither side really cares overmuch, being too busy as they are, living their lives. That said, these stereotypes do influence English thinking… And perhaps a little more than they really should.

So Mordor represents a kind of ‘worst-case’ version of the England’s industrial heart, seen through the mildly disconcerted lens of a man who’d been there and papped himself at the place’s appearance.

Tolkein weaves other parts of English culture and society into his stories. I, as others have done before, would argue every species in Tolkein represents an English class.

Additional note: obviously this is all about applicability, not allegory. For more details on the difference, feel free to read last month’s blog (https://yorknecromancer.wordpress.com/).

So the aristocratic classes, who in Tolkein’s era were seen less as the inheritors of a wealth they do not deserve and more as a patrician ‘caretaker’ class with a responsibility to lead, become Elves. Powerful, skilled, and in all ways Better Than You.

http://media.bigshinyrobot.com/uploads/2013/09/ratqueens2_1.png
No reason this is here other than the fact I love ‘Rat Queens’. You should read it. It’s f**king great.

The Southern working-class were generally agrarian. They lived and worked out in the fields, poor but happy, enjoying the beauty of the countryside, fine ale and good smokes. Their lives were hard but contented, sheltered as they were in places like Befordshire, Hertfordshire and the like. In Tolkein’s work, they became Hobbits.

Members of the Northern working class, by contrast, were rugged. They worked hard, making their money from relentless physical labour. The descendents of Vikings, these gruff, dour people traditionally made money from mining. In Tolkein’s work, they became Dwarves.

And then we get to the orcs. Who are a violent, vicious ‘race’. A group dedicated only to fomenting chaos, who delight in destroying things, who live in the worst places imaginable, with clothing made of scraps, barely able to scrape an existence out for themselves, but yet all the more dangerous because of the feral needs their lifestyle and environment inflict upon them. Growing up angry, cut off from beauty, filled with hate for the world…

Orcs are chavs and Mordor... (http://abbysgamerbasement.blogspot.co.uk/2012/02/tolkien-and-class-politics.html)

https://static-secure.guim.co.uk/sys-images/Guardian/About/General/2012/7/19/1342716334784/Council-housing-008.jpg


COME AND HAVE A GO IF YOU THINK YOU’RE ‘ARD ENOUGH!!!

Orcs share many characteristics with the worst stereotypes of the working class: violence, drunkeness, an inherently evil nature, etc... They’re villainous to the core.

And there’s that word again.

Villain.

Culture is always in a process of evolution. Everyone takes what they like and keeps the best bits, adding new parts they’ve come up with until the idea, while functionally similar, is essentially completely new.

Tolkein comes up with the idea of ‘weaponising’ the most disliked subculture of England – maybe not deliberately, but the parallels are undeniable – and turns an entire class of people into a monstrous species for his heroes to murder, guilt-free.

Later writers build on this idea. Some only make simple, cosmetic changes. Maybe they make the orks bigger, or a different colour. Maybe they change the name of the species. Some make bigger changes; they tell stories from the orcs’ point of view, pointing out that a dystopic society like the orcs’ would simply fall apart.

Then a small gang of lads from the North of England – a gang of lads who’ve grown up in Mordo… sorry, in Nottingham– they see this species, this idea, and where every other writer is being deadly serious, they can only see the funny side.

“‘This?” they say. “He thinks we’re like this?”

And they piss themselves laughing. Oh, they love his works, but God bless ‘im, old JRR didn’t have a clue, did he, the soft, Southern, shandy-drinking sh!te.

Many, many alcoholic drinks and a few years later, they’ve taken the idea and run with it, taking this distorted parody of the kind of people they’ve spent their lives growing up around, and returning it as the farce they see it as.

Because, sure, orcs are violent and crude, and vulgar and stupid… But they’re also bloody good fun, and that’s something Tolkein’s missed.

Much like fantasy species can be seen through the lens of current cultures, almost every ‘alien’ species in a TV show tends to based on some existing human culture. Klingons are dirty commies in original Trek, Glasnost Russians in TNG. Ferengi are every cliché about thieving Middle Eastern merchants (the Arabic word for foreigner being ‘faranji’). Cardassians are Space Fascists, just like Daleks.

So what are Warhammer 40,000’s orks?


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=At3nYVGWEyQ

They’re football hooligans IN SPACE!

The proof is in the title of the very first Ork book was called ‘WAAAAAAARGH! The Orks!’: a pun, based on the (very familiar if you’re in England) football chant of ‘WE ARE THE <insert name of your particular football firm here>’. The second Ork book was called 'ERE WE GO!’: this time, not even a pun, just an actual football chant (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Here_We_Go_%28football_chant%29).

A WAAARGH? It’s basically a football firm out looking for fun.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5Y26VMm4L7o

The thing is, this really does makes perfect sense, because original designers of 40K all grew up proper Northern working class, and so you can see why they'd refuse to cast orks as being simply Always Chaotic Evil (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/AlwaysChaoticEvil), the way Tolkein did. They really hammer this point home by making the Eldar canonically admit that the Orks are literally above things like morality:


The Orks are the pinnacle of creation. For them, the great struggle is won. They have evolved a society which knows no stress or angst. Who are we to judge them? We Eldar who have failed, or the Humans, on the road to ruin in their turn? And why? Because we sought answers to questions that an Ork wouldn't even bother to ask! We see a culture that is strong and despise it as crude.

Games Workshop go out of their way to make the aristocrats of their setting state outright that the working class scumbags are better than them! The final nail that hammers this home is the now-canonical idea that Orks are, to all intents and purposes, immune to Chaos… Even though it would make perfect sense for them to worship Khorne as much as either of their other gods.

In Warhammer 40,000, the writers have always gone out of their way to state it: Orks are explicitly NOT evil. They're just… Well, Orks, and as such a law unto themselves. For all their horrible atrocities, they sit entirely outside good and evil, because they don't do anything to other species that they wouldn't expect in turn. They don’t start wars for money or greed or any other reason that LET’S ‘AVE A FACKIN’ WAAARGH LADS and they literally can't conceive or a reason why any other species wouldn't think that that’s a great idea. In the same way that Tyranids don’t understand mechanical devices, Orks don’t understand not-fighting. It’s why ‘best enemy’ is the highest praise an Ork can give - Ghazghkull lets Yarrick live for reasons that only make sense to an Ork. I’d argue that it’s what makes them one of the most truly alien of all the species of 40K; their mindset is set up just completely differently to everyone else’s. Survival doesn’t matter to them; just fighting for the sake of fighting, and having a laugh while they do.

Orcs began because Tolkein needed an enemy for his heroes to fight, but that they didn’t need to feel bad about killing, and in the Standard Fantasy Template, they fill that need perfectly. But he probably never anticipated people seeing a little of themselves in that, or worse, seeing the inherent comedy just waiting to be mined.

All this is why, in a world of GRIMDARK, the orks? Are probably the closest thing 40K has to actual, outright, good guys.

For the first six months of the new year, I'm trying to provide extra content on my new blog, so if you've enjoyed reading this, why not click this link to my blog (https://yorknecromancer.wordpress.com/) and read this months bonus material, 'Loginquintas'?

N.B.: Oh, and as a side note, I've been trying to work a reference to the superb 'Looking For Eric' all the way through this. But I haven't been able to. So I'm just going to say it: watch 'Looking For Eric'. it's really, really bloody good. And I say that as someone who hates football.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GgmTRuWMyeI

[Andrew Thomas]

Should've seen that coming.

[Denzark]

A nice try Yorkie.

You have got about 75% of the way through an article yet again staking out your socialist map - and then tacked on some 40k stuff.

Some thoughts - The Eldar quote above - that supposedly shows the Orks are canonically thought of by the Eldar are above morality? You didn't attribute it. I shall:

"Uthan the Perverse, a controversial Eldar philosopher."

Yes, perverse. I don't need to point an English teacher to a dictionary to define perverse, I'm sure. Suffice to say this is not common Eldar thoughts - I expect you left his name off delberately.


Secondly, you are talking about Waaaargh the Orks/Ere we go. Somewhat historical, and I personally still take them as canon, although much will have been superceded. But - what about the Ork's very own underclass, that run the entire Ork society? The Gretchin? The snotlings - deliberately kept in a regressive state by the Orks?

How does the Orks supressing the Gretchin equate to your socialist utopian ideas of Orks as the ultimate blameless poor people?

But hang on a sec - were you not saying in your last post that the Tau are evil because of their caste system?

How the actual fack is Orks>gretchin>snotlings not a caste system? Warboss>Nob>boy ring any bells?

You said caste systems were inherently evil.

So please explain why ethereals are evil and Ork nobs aren't? Tau willingly sign up to the Greater Good, or bugger off and join Farsight. Gretchins don't get a choice.


This is leftist, rich-shaming socialist based clap trap, that contradicts earlier arguments put by the author. It is only done to provoke. B-at best.

[Kirsten]

another excellent blog, great job.

[CoffeeGrunt]

Oh Denzark, it's like the comments section of the Britain First Facebook Page gained sentience and signed up to the forum.

"BLUDDY LEFTEYES!!!1one!"

[Denzark]

Perhaps you can answer why Yorkie's previous post said:

a.) The Tau is a caste system and b.) caste systems are bad so Tau are evil

but Orks are good - despite blatantly being a caste system.

Or, if you are incapable of playing the ball, so all you can do is play the man, you may as well just bore off CoffeGrunt; just because there is a 'grunt' in your internet name your every contribution doesn't need to be one.

[CoffeeGrunt]

Perhaps you can answer why Yorkie's previous post said:

a.) The Tau is a caste system and b.) caste systems are bad so Tau are evil

but Orks are good - despite blatantly being a caste system.

Or, if you are incapable of playing the ball, so all you can do is play the man, you may as well just bore off CoffeGrunt; just because there is a 'grunt' in your internet name your every contribution doesn't need to be one.

Oh boy, call up the Burn Ward because I need a doctor!

Ah well, Yorkie can explain their reasoning better, because it's their reasoning, but IMO the Tau are represented as evil because it's made clear the species is segregated and everyone is forced into a role they are chosen for by dint of their birth. Orks are similar, but they're put into a role they live for, Fightin'.

As far as Gretchin and Snotlings, they're very much represented as an underclass in the setting. The Orks are dependent on them to survive, but they're clearly used as slaves. However, the Orks don't see the possibility of them being anything else, they're simply the warrior unit in a mutually-dependent collection of races. Without the Orks, Grots and Snotlings would be defenceless, but the Orks don't try to rationalise it like that. They don't rationalise at all. They simply exist to fight, enjoy it, and that's it. All the rest of the stuff is just setup and prep for more fighting or better fighting.

The Tau, on the other hand, have the capacity to question and are forced into not questioning. The Ethereals make sure of that. Farsight proves that Tau are able to think for themselves as humans can, and as the Orks can't. Whereas any Boy can get 'ard and become a Warboss if 'e's 'ard enuff, the lowly Shas'la will never become an Ethereal. They can become a venerated Shas'O loved throughout the Empire, but they'll always bow to the Ethereal verdict on what they must do, even killing themselves if it is decreed.

The Tau are a dystopian regime under control from an Overcaste, and that is evil because all involved know that it involves sacrificing self for the overall, and bowing to the will of but one Caste.

The Orks are merely a force of nature. They fight, they destroy, they oppress the Grots and Snots. They never stop to question this path and it seems clear that they simply don't have the ability to. It's like a hungry animal attacking someone. There's no evil intent, they're merely answering the instincts bred/engineered into them to fulfill their purpose in life.

I wouldn't say they're good, but not evil either.

[Denzark]

Firstly, you cannot say that Orks do not rationalise. Their logic may not scan when filtered through 21st Century western democratic ideals, but it is a form of logic nonetheless:

Orkses is never defeated in battle. If we win we win, if we die we die fighting so it don't count. If we runs for it we don't die neither, cos we can come back for annuver go, see!

But neither does the 41st Millenium see the orks as unable to apply decisions based on logic:

I've got to know a great deal more about these creatures over the last century or so, since that first disconcerting encounter, and one thing I've seen time and again is that dismissing them as simple, unreasoning brutes is a fast route to the graveyard (or more likely their stomachs). (Ciaphas Cain, Omnibus edition)

I don't think you can say that Orks are ammoral having a caste system because that is how they are genetically predisposed, whereas Tau are immoral for having one because it is a product of sociology - because orks have the ability to reason to a certain degree.

Actually there has been fluff (not sure of canonicity) that implied the ony way Tau could have technologically developed so quickly was through bio-engineering - which would make their obedience to the greater good, a matter of genetic pre-dispositioning - thus not evil…

Further, Yorkie said (referring to the authors):

Many, many alcoholic drinks and a few years later, they’ve taken the idea and run with it, taking this distorted parody of the kind of people they’ve spent their lives growing up around, and returning it as the farce they see it as.

Because, sure, orcs are violent and crude, and vulgar and stupid… But they’re also bloody good fun, and that’s something Tolkein’s missed.

So is he saying that the early GW writers saw themselves as having an underclass to an underclass - or simply that having a slave caste with absolutely no chance of redemption because that's what you were born into is 'bloody good fun'. If Orks are only born to fight:

We is gonna stomp da universe flat and kill anyfink that fights back. we're da Orks, and was made ta fight and win.

If everything that Orks do is about fighting - which part of that is 'bloody good fun'?

Nobs and ethereals are exactly the same. They have all the money, all the wealth and their societies are in absolute thrall to them.

I guess this shows 2 things really. Firstly how trite it is to apply 21st century socio-political thinking to this fictional setting, and second how it is even less sensible if you are going to argue both sides of the coins inconsistently: Saying caste systems are all evil on one hand but then giving the Orks a pass even though they have one.

[CoffeeGrunt]

Eh. Take it up with York, it's your vendetta not mine.

This is all subjective, and 40K fluff is so variable as to be useless as a guidepost. You quote Ciaphas Cain, which many people consider more a satirical story in the universe than a source for deciding the nature of the races in it. For example, is it likely that Gue'vesa daub their faces blue and yell, "freedom!" when charging an enemy, or is that just Sandy Mitchell popping in a fun Braveheart reference?

Or a Commissar calling Khornate marines pansies?

In the Codexes for Orks, they never once mention a pacifist Ork. It's never mentioned that they have any capacity to be anything other than brutes who fight for the heck of it.

The Tau are shown to be able to reason their way out of following the Greater Good if they're left alone without Ethereals, as the Farsight Enclaves shows. The point about them being bio-engineered is speculation. Though fair speculation, it isn't in any of the Codexes I've read, as GW kept that part of their history deliberately silent.

Not to mention that 6000 years of highly-controlled inbreeding can cause very massive changes. We've created distinct breeds of dogs in that time, for example, and the Tau have very short generations compared to humans.

They were also a fragmented set of species to begin with anyway, as even during the Mont'au, they were a series of subspecies warring with each other. They're more like the difference branches of humanoid apes than different kinds of human, (think Homo Sapiens living at the same time as Neanderthals.)

It just so happened that, unlike us humans, they didn't manage to wipe each other out and emerge with a single dominant species.

[Haighus]

The bioengineering of the Tau also isn't a species-wide genetic process- the Ethereals possess an additional organ (the diamond on their forehead) which allows them to pheromonally control other Tau. The Ethereals are essentially capable of insuring chemical obedience of their populace, so they prevent their populace from reasoning, but are still capable of reasoning themselves. Although with this in mind, how aware the Ethereals themselves are of this ability and how it functions I don't know- they may just believe that the Tau are following them purely out of the Greater Good, without realising there is any other driving force behind the obedience other than the strength of their ideology.

As for Orks and ability to reason, I wonder how much can be extrapolated from their ability to reason with regards to battlefield 'taktiks' and with reasoning that essentially gives them no reason not to fight (because they cannot loose if they do). All of that reasoning is focussed on fighting, and fighting well, so it is a stretch to apply it to tasks other than fighting. It points further to their sole aim being to fight and win.

[grimmas]

I think Yorkie did get it wrong with Tau and failed to acknowledge that their caste system was the way they prevented the Tau race from imploding and destroying itself. I do however think he's got Orks pretty much pegged. (Although I do believe that wise exception of Chaos none of the races of 40K are "evil"). He did miss the most pertinent Ork quote though (I think apologies if I missed it)

"All Orks are equal, but some Orks are more equal than others"

On a side note I was under the impression that Tolkien, in part at least, based Mordor or South Africa. Of course given his description of Orcs in LoTR this does give it a somewhat sinister overtone. And his Orcs are Evil as f**k.

I enjoyed the read though thanks 👍🏻

[Kirsten]

followers of chaos are evil, chaos itself is not.

ethereals stopping the tau destroying themselves are one thing, but maintaining that hold is somewhat more sinister.

[grimmas]

I'd agree with your assessment of chaos.

I'd always read it that the Tau would fragment and descend into chaos (as state of being rather than worshipping Chaos) without the Etherals and that it was more a case of necessity and survival rather than they were doing it purely for the sake of maintaining power (and they seem to gain very little beyond just being charge)

[Kirsten]

I don't know, that is what the ethereals want them to believe, doesn't make it true.

[grimmas]

I don't know, that is what the ethereals want them to believe, doesn't make it true.

Well if you can't believe an Alien ruling caste, who can you believe 😉

[Haighus]

If Farsight is anything to go by though, the Tau would likely lose their overall unity, but wouldn't descend into a feral society- Farsight maintains order within the enclaves without much trouble it seems.

[Andrew Thomas]

People should learn the meanings of words they use to criticize with.

Might Makes Right is hardly a Caste system (it's really a Meritocracy). Slave isn't a class/caste (case in point: Ammo Runtz, Oilers, and orderlies hold more power than their less specialized brethren, despite still being slaves). Also, the Tau are too mercantile, conservative, and nationalistic to be properly Communist.

[CoffeeGrunt]

People should learn the meanings of words they use to criticize with.

Might Makes Right is hardly a Caste system (it's really a Meritocracy). Slave isn't a class/caste (case in point: Ammo Runtz, Oilers, and orderlies hold more power than their less specialized brethren, despite still being slaves). Also, the Tau are too mercantile, conservative, and nationalistic to be properly Communist.

That's just leftist bias. :P

[YorkNecromancer]

Might Makes Right is hardly a Caste system (it's really a Meritocracy).

Ork Kultur is, arguably, a pure meritocracy, because they respect strength and kunnin'... So even if you're a small ork, you can kill the warboss by blowing him up while he's asleep, and the others will go 'Sure, he's warboss now', right up until the next biggest ork staves your head in with an I-girder.

A small Warboss who's managed to take on everyone who might challenge him and survive? That'd be the scariest Boss of all, because that motherf**ker's going to be like Odysseus; all about clever taktiks and outside-da-box finkin'.

And yeah, Orks aren't remotely a caste system, because caste systems are rigidly defined by the social structures that surround your birth; you can't leave the caste, ever. Ork career potentiality is defined by personal capability. A big ork can become a nob, a boss, whatever it wants. A clever ork can become a painboy, a mekboy, a boss, again, limited only by his ability to be better than the orks around him.

The biggest, cleverest Earth caste member can never become an Ethereal.

[Mr Mystery]

And it's about the focus of Kultur for Orks.

Grots get kicked about because, objectively, they're not as 'ard as even the weediest Yoof - so Grots have no chance to become Warboss. But.....other than that, they can be left alone. They're the workers. They build stuff. They sell stuff. They organise gambling when the Orks have an impromptu competition of any kind. If they can afford a Blasta, they can take to the field of battle if they want. If a Grot is serving an Ork, it's because he's after prestige and renown, not to mention some form of protection. It's a willing servitude, rather than 'you is my slave and dat's dat'

Just as Orks are objectively 'arder than Grots, Grots are objectively more kunnin' than Orks. When you culture is all about meritocracy, are you actually being oppressed if you can't compete in an area where you just can't compete? Nobody is saying a Grot can't attempt to topple and replace the Warboss, it's just any such action is inherently doomed to failure on account the Warboss is 'arder than any Grot will ever be. Grots are smart enough to know this, and so set about using their kunnin' to rip off as many Orks as they think they can get away with (or indeed, get away from)

Snots? Dude. They have the brain of a puppy. They're pets and nuisances, and have no potential beyond that. Well, except occasionally a snack.

[grimmas]

Any old Ork can't become a painboy or Mekanik they're traits that appear in some Orks it's a innate ability not a learnt one. Doesn't stop them becoming the Boss though that's all down to how 'ard they are.

[CoffeeGrunt]

There's actually a Warboss in the Farsight Enclaves who attacks a Tau colony beginning with A...Arkunasha, that's it. Anyway, this Warboss was actually a Painboy for the previous big boss, and over the course of several months cuts bits away from the Warboss and stitched them onto himself. He eventually killed the Warboss and was also the biggest boy there, and thus become the Painboss.

It's also pretty common to see particularly kunnin' Meks become leaders as well. Thus, the Orks actually have a pretty fair system, considering the others. If you're strong or kunnin' enough, you can be in charge, provided you can get rid of the one who already is in charge. It's a pretty Darwinistic meritocracy, actually.

- - - Updated - - -


Any old Ork can't become a painboy or Mekanik they're traits that appear in some Orks it's a innate ability not a learnt one. Doesn't stop them becoming the Boss though that's all down to how 'ard they are.

Funnily enough, a Grot can become anything, as far as we've seen. Grot Orderly to Ammo Runt, to Mek Helper.

[grimmas]

Yep and there's Wazdakka. They're a brutally charming lot the Orks.

[Mr Mystery]

Oomans are pink and soft, not tough and green like da Boyz. They'z all the same size too, so they'z always arguing about who's in charge, 'cos no way of telling 'cept fer badges an' ooniforms and fings. When one of them wants to lord it over the uvvers, 'e says "I'm very speshul so'z you gotta worship me", or "I know summink wot you lot don't know so yer better lissen good". Da funny fing is, arf of 'em believe it and da over arf don't, so 'e 'as to hit 'em all anyway or run fer it. Wot a lot of mukkin' about if yer asks me. An' while they'z all arguing wiv each other over who's da boss, da Orks can clobber da lot

I think that about sums it up. Orks just want a strong leader. It doesn't matter who it is, or what they've done to get there. By the simple virtue of being Boss, they're accepted as the 'ardest Ork around, and thus the right one to lead.

[completeHook]

Chav, or correctly Chavie is a Gypsie word for kid and had been used in the Medway towns for ever, the older use literally means child but the more common use meant a bit of a lad. Think small time drug dealer/car thief/always up for a scrap at closing time. It wasn't until the Tristrams and Isabelles of the meed-ya got hold of it that it became a shorthand for the "underclass".

[Mr Mystery]

I was always told it stood for 'Council House And Violent'.

Ah, urban legends :)

Oh, and further thoughts on Orks, Grots and Snots....it's not clearly defined where once starts and the other begins.

A Snot is either a Snot, or a small Grot. A Grot can be a Grot, or a particularly weedy Ork.

[grimmas]

I was always told it stood for 'Council House And Violent'.

Ah, urban legends :)

Oh, and further thoughts on Orks, Grots and Snots....it's not clearly defined where once starts and the other begins.

A Snot is either a Snot, or a small Grot. A Grot can be a Grot, or a particularly weedy Ork.


Not sure where you've got that from. Yes the Ork word Grot can mean Gretchin or weedy but they're all distinct subspecies. Squigs, snotlings, Gretchin and Orks are all distinct and separate from the others and remain so after they popped out of the ground. There's no swapping a successful Gretchin doesn't get promoted to be an Ork he'll always be a Gretchin just he'll be the most powerful Gretchin.

[YorkNecromancer]

Grots get kicked about because, objectively, they're not as 'ard as even the weediest Yoof - so Grots have no chance to become Warboss. But.....other than that, they can be left alone. They're the workers. They build stuff. They sell stuff. They organise gambling when the Orks have an impromptu competition of any kind. If they can afford a Blasta, they can take to the field of battle if they want. If a Grot is serving an Ork, it's because he's after prestige and renown, not to mention some form of protection. It's a willing servitude, rather than 'you is my slave and dat's dat'

Just as Orks are objectively 'arder than Grots, Grots are objectively more kunnin' than Orks. When you culture is all about meritocracy, are you actually being oppressed if you can't compete in an area where you just can't compete? Nobody is saying a Grot can't attempt to topple and replace the Warboss, it's just any such action is inherently doomed to failure on account the Warboss is 'arder than any Grot will ever be. Grots are smart enough to know this, and so set about using their kunnin' to rip off as many Orks as they think they can get away with (or indeed, get away from).

Unless they get stuck in a Killa Kan, in which case, well, you could potentially have a Grot Warboss...

Actually, now I think of it, that could be an excellent army theme. Plus you'd have a 'natural' enemy, in the form of the Ork would-be warboss who finds the whole idea of a Grot warboss utterly distasteful.

The ork vs. ork campaign writes itself. It'd be a really fun one to do with Gorkamorka, what with that setting's preponderance of Meks and advanced teknology.

[Mr Mystery]

It's part of the background. Orks don't necessarily see Grots as a separate species. They only care that they're bigger, and thus can kick the Grot around with impunity, hence there is no clear delineation where a Big Grot ends, and a Weedy Ork begins.

- - - Updated - - -


Unless they get stuck in a Killa Kan, in which case, well, you could potentially have a Grot Warboss...

Actually, now I think of it, that could be an excellent army theme. Plus you'd have a 'natural' enemy, in the form of the Ork would-be warboss who finds the whole idea of a Grot warboss utterly distasteful.

The ork vs. ork campaign writes itself. It'd be a really fun one to do with Gorkamorka, what with that setting's preponderance of Meks and advanced teknology.

One could also argue it's possible (however unlikely) that a particularly influential Grot Orderly could arrange to have his head stitched on in place of Warboss should the Boss get krumped.

He would of course have to a) do away with the Painboy/Painboss first b) persuade the other Grots to do the stitching/stapling/gluing c) trust that his fellow Grots won't just do it, but d) actually do it properly, as in head on neck and the right way up...

[grimmas]

Well the difference is usually 3ft and about 200lbs. Gretchin and Orks have always been different subspecies yeah a bigger Ork will push round a smaller one but it a long way from being a Gretchin. Your weakest Ork is still giving the biggest Gretchin a slap anytime he likes.

Sure Orks don't think about it but that doesn't mean it isn't the case and let's face it there's plenty Orks don't think about.

[Denzark]

Given that Yorkie referenced the original writers in the first place, it is fair that we discuss the original fluff- as the aforementioned writers intended it to be. Here is a screen grab from 'Ere We Go':

http://i797.photobucket.com/albums/yy257/denzark/orks_zpstcbo5wrj.png


Where you can clearly see the word caste being used. Orks have been a caste based society in the minds of the authors right from the start.

In fact the system of tribe/clan/caste is directly analogous to the Tau system of septs and caste.

[Mr Mystery]

That refers only to Oddboyz.

[Denzark]

I don't buy that - where they say: 'The caste of orks collectively known as oddboyz' that to me clearly implies there are castes of orks known as other things. Or you would have written: 'They form a separate caste of orks...'

I have yet to find a free link to a pdf of Waaargh Orks which I reckon discusses it in more depth, but I seem to recall (flogged my copy years back) it discusses orks as a caste based society.

[grimmas]

If one subscribes to the Brainboys theory there maybe more in common between Tau and Orks than first glance. A master race manipulating the genetics and envolution of the rest of the species to create warriors/workers etc. It's just that the Brainboys disappeared where as the Etherals are still around. Seeing as how Farsighted is turning out who knows may be.

[CoffeeGrunt]

What if I told you, that it's possible GW used the wrong word to describe something?

[grimmas]

What if I told you, that it's possible GW used the wrong word to describe something?

In the context of oddboys I think it's perfectly acceptable.

[Morgrim]

We have all, after all, tried to make sense of some of the rules they've written. :P

[YorkNecromancer]

What if I told you, that it's possible GW used the wrong word to describe something?

This is the thing, isn't it?

In sociology, a caste is a socially constructed boundary; you're born into it, and you can't leave it because of societal pressures: people attack you, censure you, exclude you, etc...

In the old GW materials, they use caste in a less precise way, as an inaccurate synonym meaning 'social grouping', and you can see that, because a Painboy isn't forced into being one by its peers, or by social pressure, which is what would happen in a true caste system: orks would track the boyz their spore produced, and ensure that if they were a Mek, their spore would all become Meks. But that's not what happens. On ork becomes a Painboy because that's what his brain tells him to be. It's not really a choice, more a vocation, and not socially-enforced permanent one. If said Painboy gets a lust for power, it can always start whacking other orks around the head and calling itself a Warboss until either they do as they're told, or until a bigger or more kunnin' ork comes along and whacks him over the head.

Which is the definition of a meritocracy.

As I said in my last blog, the type of caste system I was referring to has three key factors: endogamy, non-commensality and hereditary occupations. Orks don't marry, and they all eat together, so those two are null and void. And occupations are a result of genetics, but they aren't hereditary: any Ork becomes what they want to, based upon the information encoded within them by the Brainboyz (if you go by the earliest fluff) or by 'chance' (if you go by the revised modern fluff). Any ork can give off spores which might potentially become a Painboy, a Mek, a Whatever-boy, so therefore the last of the three criteria remains unfulfilled. Painboys don't teach only their 'sons' to be new Painboys; they just teach whoever shows up wanting to learn how to put a squigbrain in the an injured boyz head, which is the very definition of a meritocracy.

As none of the three criteria of a caste system can be applied to Ork kultur, orks cannot be said to be a caste system in the same sense as the Tau or as a human caste system. The GW writers simply used caste as a simple sci-fi shorthand, rather than in its more specific sense.

[Denzark]

Is the Tau system a 'socially constructed boundary' or is it based on Ethereal pheromones - ie biological?

Either way I can still find no indication of non-commensality within the Tau cast system. Random quote: 'Their tolerance also extends to themselves, as the Tau recognize even lowly Fio'la workers as being as important to the operation and well-being of the Empire as Shas'vre Battlesuit leaders or even the highest Aun'o'.

Within a given sept, the tau all work together - there is nothing to indicate never the twain shall meet between castes, nor that one caste feels itself superior to another,

The Sept is almost more important and whilst I full acknowledge the endogamy of the Tau - I am not convinced by hereditary occupations. A Water caste can be traders, merchants, public servants, bureaucrats, administrators, diplomats, and ambassadors - but I have not seen anywhere that says that is hereditary as opposed to personal choice.

Lexicanum alludes that 'Each caste could almost be considered a subspecies of their own, such are the variations between the caste members'. I think this is far more pertinent as this shows the role is biological imperative rather than sociological conditioning.

Because there is plenty of fluff showing all Tau working together towards the greater good, and respect for other castes, I don't think you get more than 1.5 out of 3 ticks of Yorkie's definition of a caste system.

I think if one can accept that GW used 'caste' erroneously, as 'sci-fi short hand' whilst describing ork kultur, one should equally be able to accept that GW, only going about halfway if giving the Tau fluff that meets the definition of a caste system, did not intend for the Tau to be evil by association.

Further, if describing orks using might to get to the top is the very definition of meritocracy, then orks using might to stay at the top must be meritocracy. That also tells me Yorkie must surely define The Imperium as a meritocracy because they use strength/force to maintain their own status quo. Actually, in real life, the rich using their financial might to maintain their stauts quo and not let the poor get to the top must also be a meritocracy - with rich man substituting for Warboss and poor man substituting for 'smaller ork with eye on the top'.

Edited to add - I only own Mont'ka hard copy. From that and Lexicanum - hardly a mass body of research - I can find no ideas of non-commensality amongst the Tau. Anyone out there with actual codexes or novels may be able to reference evidence of this which I would fully concede to - I just don't have any to hand.

[CoffeeGrunt]

The Air Caste live entirely in zero-g and their bodies can't handle gravity wells due to their lightweight frame, so they're definitely not eating with the Earth Caste factory workers. As much as you say there's no sign of non-commensality, there's also no sign that there is, either.

Also the needs are biological due to enforced inbreeding.

[phoenix01]

Zombies, Klendathu and The Absurdly Violent Intergalactic Space Fungus.

I remember the first time I tried to properly read the Bible. I lay down in bed, cracked open Genesis, and just ploughed in there. The stories seemed fun enough, and a lot of the ideas are certainly interesting. (Genesis 3:22 (http://biblehub.com/genesis/3-22.htm) has always been a favourite little curiosity of mine...)

But the genealogies…

I can never manage the genealogies. Where Abraham was the father of Isaac, Isaac the father of Jacob, Jacob the father of Judah and his brothers, Judah the father of Perez and Zerah, whose mother was Tamar, Perez the father of Hezron, Hezron the father of Ram…

Pages and pages of them! When I was young, I could never work out why they’d stop the stories and parables in favour of a really long list of names. And not names of interesting characters. Names of people we’re never really interested in, whose stories we never hear, and who aren’t ever really mentioned again. It’s like those double page spreads in special issues of the ‘Avengers’ comics where you’ve got two pages filled with all the heroes, and you know Iron Man, Thor and Black Widow, but you’ve got no idea who the other nine hundred tits in tights are in the background, and you never get to find out, because they never show up again.

‘Who are these people?’ I wondered. ‘What is the point of mentioned them if they don’t do anything else?’

I didn’t realise that there were only three names on the list that mattered: Abraham, David, and, of course, Yeshua.

Years of Nativity plays have taught us that Jesus was the son of a carpenter. We’ve all been there, sat in a hall as scared children in fibre-glass beards stand next to cardboard cows with rubber gloves for udders, praying that the sick-looking girl vomits on the smug-looking boy playing the third King from the left. As a result, we all know that Jesus was born so absurdly humble, his family couldn’t find any room at an inn, and had to stay in a barn with the animals. It’s a charming story; a narrative designed to show us that God doesn’t really like the rich.

The problem, of course, is that people have always hated the poor. And an impoverished son of God… Well, it’s a solid moral lesson, but it doesn’t bring legitimacy.

Hence the geneaologies. See, Jesus has to have credibility. He has to be royalty. The same way Aragorn can’t just be some guy who’s strong and brave and fundamentally decent, Jesus can’t just be himself, oh no. He has to be a king, too, even if he never mentions it. So the Bible interrupts a set of entertaining tales with a series of people’s names in order to prove that Yeshua, son of Joseph, who would later be named Jesus, The Anointed One, was in fact, descended from a line of kings.

Which means, despite the Nativity, he wasn’t just some working class dole-scum, out to steal the jobs from hard-working locals. No, he was a king, descended from kings.

We’ve always hated the poor. (http://www.herinst.org/BusinessManagedDemocracy/culture/wealth/fear.html)

There is two other reasons for those genealogies. First, there is the fact that God cares about the insignificant people to list a bunch of them people in a book so that we know about them. Yes, we don't know what they did in their lives, but God does and he finds importance in even that which we do not find important. Secondly, those names mean something in Hebrew. Unlike in the 21st Century western world, where we have names that sound nice or names that our parents had (junior, the III, etc), a name in Hebrew had a specific meaning. For example, Yeshua is a form of Yahoshua, which means "Yahovah saves". Let's take the first one in Genesis as an example. In Genesis 5, we are introduced to Adam's lineage to Noah. Adam is the father of Seth etc. Well, if you look at the names' meanings, something is revealed.

Adam = Man
Seth = Appointed
Enos = Mortal
Cainan = Sorrow
Mahalaleel = The Blessed God
Jared = Descends
Enoch = Teacher
Methuselah = Death brings
Lamech = Despairing
Noah = Comfort

So when read in order as presented: Adam Seth Enos Cainan Mahalaleel Jared Enoch Methuselah Lamech Noah or Man is Appointed Mortal Sorrow. The Blessed God Descends as a Teacher. His Death Brings the Despairing Comfort. In short, the Gospel message in Genesis 5.

As far the lineage of Jesus in Matthew, Jesus also has a separate lineage in Luke that diverges after David. Joseph, Jesus' foster father, was descended from David through his son Solomon and eventually Jeconiah (aka Jehoiachin or Coniah). Jeconiah was placed under a blood curse by God that affected his descendents as well. Mary was also descended from David, but through his son Nathan. Since Jesus was not Joseph's biological son, that blood curse did not affect him. The Jews would have wanted to see Jesus' tie to David patriarchally, so that is seen in Matthew 1, but what matters is the matriarchal line found in Luke 3. As to why it says "Joseph" in the matriarchal line: in Jewish law, if a man had no male children, but only daughter(s), his inheritance would pass to his daughter(s). The daughter(s) would have to marry within the tribe of their father (Judah or Benjamin or Simeon, etc) and the husband(s) would become their father's son(s) as far as legal inheritance went. Legal genealogies would then show the son-in-law as a son. If Heli only had a daughter, Mary, with her marriage to Joseph, Joseph would have been adopted into Heli's family as his son.

[Denzark]

The Air Caste live entirely in zero-g and their bodies can't handle gravity wells due to their lightweight frame, so they're definitely not eating with the Earth Caste factory workers. As much as you say there's no sign of non-commensality, there's also no sign that there is, either.

Also the needs are biological due to enforced inbreeding.

A poor example - I don't eat with people from Ulan Bator.

But not because of Non-commensality imposed upon me by mine or their society - it purely reflects where we respectively live.

Similarly, Air caste live mostly on space stations or on board ship. Nothing indicates that Tau society actively prevents them working/eating together with Earth caste.

In fact given that Earth caste are the vehicle designers, and that efficient design requires maximum input from users, I expect it to be the total 180 degree opposite.

[YorkNecromancer]

Unlike in the 21st Century western world, where we have names that sound nice or names that our parents had (junior, the III, etc), a name in Hebrew had a specific meaning.

While I like your explication on the Hebrew poetry of the Bible a great deal - I always enjoy the charming details like that - I would say that I feel it's kind of insulting to declare no modern parent chooses the names of their children in order that they should have a deeper meaning regarding those parent's hopes for their child's future. While, sure, some parents definitely choose names because they like how it sounds, other choose names because they what the name refers to, I can name quite a few friends who studied the etymology of their child's names in order to make the best choice possible.

I think more people than you give credit for are well aware that naming is the root of a great deal power, and so therefore treat it with the importance it deserves.

[Kirsten]

the genealogies in the bible are only there in an attempt to link Jesus to the prophecy of David, there is no deeper meaning to them. they contradict themselves as well.

[phoenix01]

While I like your explication on the Hebrew poetry of the Bible a great deal - I always enjoy the charming details like that - I would say that I feel it's kind of insulting to declare no modern parent chooses the names of their children in order that they should have a deeper meaning regarding those parent's hopes for their child's future. While, sure, some parents definitely choose names because they like how it sounds, other choose names because they what the name refers to, I can name quite a few friends who studied the etymology of their child's names in order to make the best choice possible.

I think more people than you give credit for are well aware that naming is the root of a great deal power, and so therefore treat it with the importance it deserves.

I never said no modern parent chooses the names of their children without regard to meaning. I know I did, and if I did, then there are others that do so. In fact, there are many websites out there with baby names and their meanings to help parents decide just that. However, today most people would scoff at the idea of a name having power of any kind over an individual, and I believe that more people choose a name due to how it sounds or to honor a beloved family member than due to any meaning to the name (a secondary concern) and how it would apply to the child. Otherwise, we would have more Adelhard's ("brave"), Adda's ("wealthy"), Agatha's ("kind"), and Albert's ("noble, bright") than Logan's ("small cove", sixth most popular name in 2015, and, incidentally, Wolverine's secret identity).

[Drew da Destroya]

One could also argue it's possible (however unlikely) that a particularly influential Grot Orderly could arrange to have his head stitched on in place of Warboss should the Boss get krumped.

Heh, this is actually mostly the story of one of my Nob bikerz. The old Warboss got krumped and beheaded, and the new Warboss had his favorite Grot's head stitched onto the body. Now he rides as the boss's enforcer, but since he's got a grot brain, he thinks he's weedier than he actually is, and thus has a Warboss body and a Nob statline.

To get into the rest of this argument... I agree that the Orks are a meritocracy as opposed to a Caste system, but there are some biologically determinate aspects to their Kulture. The oddboyz, grotz, and snots are all basically subspecies, much like the Fire, Air, Earth, Water, and Ethereal castes of the Tau. They are literally born into those roles, are physically adapted to the roles: grotz are smaller but generally "craftier" than their bigger Ork brethren, the Oddboyz are hardwired for certain roles, Fire Warriors are naturally more aggressive, and the Air Caste are adapted for zero-G environments. The overall enforcement by the Ethereal Caste may be tyrannical and possibly the result of meddling from the Eldar, as is suggested in Xenology... but wouldn't that make it possible that the Ethereals themselves aren't being intentionally tyrannical, but instead falling into the role that has been designed for them?

Tau Society may not actually be evil, but tragic. The real villains aren't necessarily the Ethereals, but the Eldar who turned an entire species into a weapon against Chaos. And even Farsight isn't an example of a Tau breaking away from the oppression of the Ethereals, but of falling under the sway of another Alien influence... Finding the Dawn Blade clearly changes something for him, and whether the blade is Necron or Chaotic in nature, it seems to be influencing the Commander, who in turn influences the troops below him. They aren't unchained, just shackled to another.

The Tau are apparently made to follow just as much as the Orks are made to fight. They aren't so different after all.

Except, of course, that Green is Best.

[YorkNecromancer]

However, today most people would scoff at the idea of a name having power of any kind over an individual, and I believe that more people choose a name due to how it sounds or to honor a beloved family member than due to any meaning to the name (a secondary concern) and how it would apply to the child. Otherwise, we would have more Adelhard's ("brave"), Adda's ("wealthy"), Agatha's ("kind"), and Albert's ("noble, bright") than Logan's ("small cove", sixth most popular name in 2015, and, incidentally, Wolverine's secret identity).

Respectfully, I'm going to disagree with you there, because I feel you are arguing about an issue of taste.

You have a personal taste for Bible names, and seem to hold those in a higher regard than non-Biblical names. This is both your right and your perogative. However, the Bible is not the only source of venerable naming choices: consider those people descended from African roots, who may wish to use African names as a way of honoring their heritage.

Or consider those who chose names that honour roots and cultures which predate the Bible. The Greeks, the Parsees, the Yazidi, and so on...

And who is to say that modern names are less valid? You yourself raise the name 'Logan'. Why should a parent not wish to name their child after the character of Wolverine, an essentially mythical figure who embodies characteristics of courage, boldness, tenacity and conscience in the face of destructive urges? Yes, the myth might be a modern one, but to dismiss that choice as less worthy, simply because the origin of the name is newer?

As I say, I feel it's insulting, because there's an assumption that the parents didn't think. The truth is, you don't know that.

You can't apply your own personal tastes and values to people and issue a blanket condemnation based on a personal supposition. It's simply unfair, and does people a disservice.

[phoenix01]

Respectfully, I'm going to disagree with you there, because I feel you are arguing about an issue of taste.

You have a personal taste for Bible names, and seem to hold those in a higher regard than non-Biblical names. This is both your right and your perogative. However, the Bible is not the only source of venerable naming choices: consider those people descended from African roots, who may wish to use African names as a way of honoring their heritage.

Or consider those who chose names that honour roots and cultures which predate the Bible. The Greeks, the Parsees, the Yazidi, and so on...

And who is to say that modern names are less valid? You yourself raise the name 'Logan'. Why should a parent not wish to name their child after the character of Wolverine, an essentially mythical figure who embodies characteristics of courage, boldness, tenacity and conscience in the face of destructive urges? Yes, the myth might be a modern one, but to dismiss that choice as less worthy, simply because the origin of the name is newer?

As I say, I feel it's insulting, because there's an assumption that the parents didn't think. The truth is, you don't know that.

You can't apply your own personal tastes and values to people and issue a blanket condemnation based on a personal supposition. It's simply unfair, and does people a disservice.

You accuse me of assuming things, yet you are making assumptions too. You claim I hold "biblical" names in higher regard than others. None of my children have "biblical" names. My children are named Meghan ("pearl"), Brianna ("strong"), and William ("protector"). I didn't even consider a "biblical" name for any of my children. And I am not condemning anyone for what they choose to name their kids or why. If they want to name their kid Moon-Unit or Kal El or Seven of Nine good for them. I could care less what people name their kids or why. My point was that unlike in earlier cultures (Hebrew, Greek, Sumerian, Egyptian, Toltec) where names were given based on their meaning or as a title, these days that's not the primary reason people name their kids what they name their kids. I never said naming your kid Logan after a fictional comic book character was stupid or that people don't think about what they name their kids, I simply said that many people don't say "I want my child to be a strong kid, so I named her 'Brianna' because it means 'strong'". If you want to be insulted by what I wrote, that's fine by me, but don't claim I wrote something I didn't and claim that I insulted you.

[grimmas]

It might be a little early to claim a Marvel character is "mythical". We know the provenance of the story for a start. Wolverine is very much a comic book character at the moment.

[Haighus]

Is the Tau system a 'socially constructed boundary' or is it based on Ethereal pheromones - ie biological?

Either way I can still find no indication of non-commensality within the Tau cast system. Random quote: 'Their tolerance also extends to themselves, as the Tau recognize even lowly Fio'la workers as being as important to the operation and well-being of the Empire as Shas'vre Battlesuit leaders or even the highest Aun'o'.

Within a given sept, the tau all work together - there is nothing to indicate never the twain shall meet between castes, nor that one caste feels itself superior to another,

The Sept is almost more important and whilst I full acknowledge the endogamy of the Tau - I am not convinced by hereditary occupations. A Water caste can be traders, merchants, public servants, bureaucrats, administrators, diplomats, and ambassadors - but I have not seen anywhere that says that is hereditary as opposed to personal choice.

Lexicanum alludes that 'Each caste could almost be considered a subspecies of their own, such are the variations between the caste members'. I think this is far more pertinent as this shows the role is biological imperative rather than sociological conditioning.

Because there is plenty of fluff showing all Tau working together towards the greater good, and respect for other castes, I don't think you get more than 1.5 out of 3 ticks of Yorkie's definition of a caste system.

I think if one can accept that GW used 'caste' erroneously, as 'sci-fi short hand' whilst describing ork kultur, one should equally be able to accept that GW, only going about halfway if giving the Tau fluff that meets the definition of a caste system, did not intend for the Tau to be evil by association.

Further, if describing orks using might to get to the top is the very definition of meritocracy, then orks using might to stay at the top must be meritocracy. That also tells me Yorkie must surely define The Imperium as a meritocracy because they use strength/force to maintain their own status quo. Actually, in real life, the rich using their financial might to maintain their stauts quo and not let the poor get to the top must also be a meritocracy - with rich man substituting for Warboss and poor man substituting for 'smaller ork with eye on the top'.

Edited to add - I only own Mont'ka hard copy. From that and Lexicanum - hardly a mass body of research - I can find no ideas of non-commensality amongst the Tau. Anyone out there with actual codexes or novels may be able to reference evidence of this which I would fully concede to - I just don't have any to hand.

I think the established fluff on the Ethereal pheromone control (Xenology) doesn't have it extending so far as pre-determining the Tau caste. Rather, it is shown as being a way for the Ethereals to be able to enforce total obedience of their will over the other Tau. So basically, the ability for the Ethereals to be unquestioned is biological, but the decision to then create a caste system is the choice of the Ethereals.

As for you points about meritocracies, I think what you say is true until you consider inheritance- the rich in this case can not only maintain their own position, but then maintain the positions of their descendants, regardless of the aptitude of the descendants. This is the bit that is not meritocratic.

[Denzark]

but wouldn't that make it possible that the Ethereals themselves aren't being intentionally tyrannical, but instead falling into the role that has been designed for them?


The Tau are apparently made to follow just as much as the Orks are made to fight. They aren't so different after all.


Drew gets the crux of my argument from a slightly different flank. If the Ethereals are hardwired to lead - doing it on a biological basis - that is exactly the same motivation that makes orks fight - biological compulsion based upon DNA. On that basis, the relative 'evilness' of either species must be judged on the exact same basis.

- - - Updated - - -


As for you points about meritocracies, I think what you say is true until you consider inheritance- the rich in this case can not only maintain their own position, but then maintain the positions of their descendants, regardless of the aptitude of the descendants. This is the bit that is not meritocratic.


But that is the status quo. Some people spend it all regardless. Some people - I think the cruellest of the cruel - withhold financial support and say 'stand on your own 2 feet.' I say that is cruel because that to me is exactly the same as saying 'I'm not going to have you inoculated because if you are healthy enough you will survive.'

The direct comparison is that an Ork might as a fluke of genetics, be stronger than his predecessor and thus compete for warboss as a matter of strength. He did not necessarily do anything of his own merit other than be fortunate that his fungus spores gifted him intelligence and strength enough to prosper. Exactly comparable to receiving an inheritance that allows you to forge on in society.

Yes an ork that goes to school and spends his free time weightlifting and learning martial arts so he can challenge for warboss is more meriting than a RL rich person inheriting their way to the top. But for the vast majority it is innate cunning and strength takes them there - as flukey as inheritance in the cosmic scheme.

[grimmas]

The more we discuss this the more I'm thinking that the Tau caste system has very little to do with control. The Ethereals exert control over the rest of the Tau through other means with out the Castes this would still exist. Far from being a system of control the Tau Castes are a means of maximising the Tau race. Take Farsight he rebelled not because of the absence of the Caste system which remained uncharged he did so because the Ethereals on his force all got killed and he found out he was a megalomaniac. It isn't social pressure that keeps the The Ethereals in charge it's an actual trait. An Etheral isn't in charge just because mum and dad were rich he's in charge because Ethereals actually have control over other Tau. Also the different strains of Tau existed before the influence of the Etherals they just refined It. Unlike the Indian caste system the Tau system isn't a pyramid with the number of people involved reducing as their power increase, with the exception of the Ethereals each Caste of the Tau is on an equal footing. The whole thing has more in common with eugenics and an equal opportunities apartheid than a Caste system. Each Caste also functions as a meritocracy within itself and there's no data to suggest that one caste would be better at taking another's role. In fact the history of the Tau seems to suggest that the non Ethereal castes are unsuitable to lead. Unless of course it's all just an Ethereal fabrication l

The Orks on the other hand do possess a pyramidal society with Orks at the top followed by Gretchin, snotlings and squigs who increase in numbers he further down the pyramid. They literally have slave subspecies. Only Orks are going to lead because they the only ones big enough and strong enough. That's a form of social control right there it isn't the cleverest or most cunning it's because it's the biggest. Of course that's fine if your an Ork the more fighting you do the more powerful you become but you're sh*t out of luck if you're a Gretchin. Of course the real difference is that Orks don't have any control on who gets "born" an Ork that's all down to existing population levels. Meritocracy in Orkoid society only really applies to Orks a Gretchin is only going to keep what the Orks let him keep.

I still don't think either are evil in the Grimdark of the far future it all about survival of your species irrelevant of wether or not some random Firewarrior just wants to sing rather than fight. I think some might be making the same mistake that Eldrad the Perverse brings by labelling the Tau as evil when in fact the unity their caste system provides is the only thing allowing their survival.

[Psychosplodge]

Another interesting read as usual Yorkie.
:D

[Mr Mystery]

Drew gets the crux of my argument from a slightly different flank. If the Ethereals are hardwired to lead - doing it on a biological basis - that is exactly the same motivation that makes orks fight - biological compulsion based upon DNA. On that basis, the relative 'evilness' of either species must be judged on the exact same basis.

- - - Updated - - -




But that is the status quo. Some people spend it all regardless. Some people - I think the cruellest of the cruel - withhold financial support and say 'stand on your own 2 feet.' I say that is cruel because that to me is exactly the same as saying 'I'm not going to have you inoculated because if you are healthy enough you will survive.'

The direct comparison is that an Ork might as a fluke of genetics, be stronger than his predecessor and thus compete for warboss as a matter of strength. He did not necessarily do anything of his own merit other than be fortunate that his fungus spores gifted him intelligence and strength enough to prosper. Exactly comparable to receiving an inheritance that allows you to forge on in society.

Yes an ork that goes to school and spends his free time weightlifting and learning martial arts so he can challenge for warboss is more meriting than a RL rich person inheriting their way to the top. But for the vast majority it is innate cunning and strength takes them there - as flukey as inheritance in the cosmic scheme.

I think you have to look at the history of the Tau, and their social structure compared to Orks.

Orks are, allegedly, a genetically engineered warrior race. Other than Biggest Leads, they don't have set conventions. Grots and Snots get kicked about because under Biggest Leads, that's a-ok and no Orkoid has ever questioned it. It's Just The Way It Is.

They may have had a defined caste system for Da Boyz back in the past - the existence of Clans (which you're not born into or limited to. You join up because you like Speed, or Lootin', or Sneakin' About etc) suggests there was a long forgotten system. Take for instance Bad Moons. Their teef grow faster than any other Orks with the inference being they were once a sort of mercantile class. In the modern era of course, it just means they're richer than most Ork Boyz.

This advantage however is explicitly not seen as unfair by other Boyz - after all, if you're 'ard enough you can just knock a Bad Moons teef out his gob and run off with them.

The Tau however....No breeding outside your caste. Builders only Build. Negotiators only Negotiate, so on and so forth. Now fair enough it's an ordered society where a smaller evil of a caste system is used to fend off the chaos of anarchy and internal conflict. But....the Ethereals.....just where did they come from? Who are they? There's definitely something nefarious going on there, because this is 40k, and nice things happen to no-one.

[CoffeeGrunt]

Another interesting factor is that in the Shadowsun novel, it's revealed that the Tau actually put stock in hereditary bloodlines, as Shadowsun hails from a reknowned Fire Caste lineage.

Conversely, the Orks have no way of establishing hereditary power. In fact, their economy is entirely reliant on teef, which biodegrade meaning that wealth can't be accumulated easily. You must always be actively earning money, and the only way to do that is by punching other Orks in the face. This again links into the Might = Right philosophy.


The direct comparison is that an Ork might as a fluke of genetics, be stronger than his predecessor and thus compete for warboss as a matter of strength.

That's a note on the Darwinism in their kultur. That one becoming Warboss ensures that the strongest always lead, and they get stronger.

Orks also actively get stronger by fighting, mostly through the WAAAGH! psychic field. This is why Ghazghull has been establishing endless wars of attrition throughout the galaxy and summoning Orks to them, because the Orks that survive at the end will be the toughest Orks the galaxy has seen yet.

[Mr Mystery]

It also helps that Orks have a unanimous agreement in Might makes Right, especially as beyond that bold statement, there's no other rules. If you can beat them up, you take their position, regardless of just how you achieved it.

So with economic and political considerations removed, Ork society is a happy society!

[grimmas]

Yes definitely Coffeegrunt.

It's also mentioned in the Firewarrior novel as well. Although it seems to be more a case that they expected them to do well/more rather than nepotism. Regardless of bloodline they are still expected to complete the same trials as everyone else. The whole of Tau culture is about selective breeding.

Of course Orks have no way of defermining hereditary lineage either seeing as though start as spores and no breeding goes on. Developing this further as an engineered race that reproduces asexually will they ever evolve? Probably not but they don't really to need to considering they are able to optimise their habitat to their needs just by existing. Not that they care anyway. I'm so digging the Orks out when I get home, my wife is going to be soooo happy when I get my scratch built stomps out of storage 😊

[Morgrim]

Asexually reproducing organisms can still evolve, just slower than sexually reproducing ones. In the case of orks, they shed spores throughout their lives. An ork that is more skilled will live longer, survive more fights (I can't remember where but it is explicitly stated that orks shed spores much more intensely while fighting) and therefore shed more spores. If there are any biological inheritance their offspring will get some, and by having many more offspring they're out-competing their weedier rivals.

That said, orks are the one species where I suspect a significant chunk of their inheritance may actually be psychically, not genetically. Waaargh fields are known and powerful objects that are strongly influenced by the orkkin that make them up, so I suspect situations like "not enough squigs, we're hungry" or "we're stuck on a hulk and need some weirdboyz to take us to where tha fightin is" would result in more of the required critters developing from the local spores.

[YorkNecromancer]

Another interesting read as usual Yorkie.
:D

Well, you asked for an article on Orks, so this was literally done for you. :)

No idea what the next one's going to be...

These things take bloody ages to plan!

[Psychosplodge]

Well, you asked for an article on Orks, so this was literally done for you. :)

No idea what the next one's going to be...

These things take bloody ages to plan!

I did, and you didn't disappoint. Thanks :D
While I don't necessarily agree with all of it, it's an interesting viewpoint.
though I thought the Tolkien orcs were supposed to represent WW1 germans?

[YorkNecromancer]

though I thought the Tolkien orcs were supposed to represent WW1 germans?

And that's the joy of applicability. It's both and neither at the same time.

Which people who like things to be either/or find utterly infuriating.

There's a cultural theory called The Death of The Author (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_death_of_the_author), which I personally subscribe to. It argues that, essentially, the viewpoint of the artist isn't really all that important when it comes to their work. Summarised quickly, it works like this:

Creator ---->intentions>-----> Art <------<perceptions<------Audience

The creator designs a piece of art with certain intentions: Tolkein wants LoTR to simply be a mythic story about war between good and evil.
The art, however, exists separately from the creator's desires, because once created, that's it - it's out there and cannot be modified further.
The audience then interact with the art, and bring their own cultural perceptions to the piece, thereby experiencing it differently based on their own experiences, worldview, religion, politics, etc...

So, a heroin junkie reads LoTR and in Gollum, sees an equivalent of their own experiences. Is this an allegory, designed intentionally by Tolkein? No. There is simply the applicable idea originated by the audience member.

These multiplicities of experience, where there isn't one YES/NO answer are part of the joy of art. To quote Neil Gaiman, consider a gem. If you tilt it just right, you see only one facet, one side of the gem, and it's beautiful - so beautiful you could imagine it being the entirety of the gem. But then you look at it from another viewpoint, and there's even more beauty that you missed because you were only looking at one facet of the thing.

Applicability means that whatever you see is valid, so long as you can justify why you're right, and a lot of people hate that, because it means that they have to hold conflicting, sometimes contradictory ideas in their head, which produces cognitive dissonance - they want there to be only one facet to the gem, one 'right' answer. Basically, the gem's many facets sparkle too brightly for their eyes to cope with.

But the gem remains a gem, no matter how much they might close their eyes, squint at the one facet they like, and argue otherwise. The creator brings their experiences, the audience brings theirs, and when the two meet: art.

[Charon]

Asexually reproducing organisms can still evolve, just slower than sexually reproducing ones. In the case of orks, they shed spores throughout their lives. An ork that is more skilled will live longer, survive more fights (I can't remember where but it is explicitly stated that orks shed spores much more intensely while fighting) and therefore shed more spores. If there are any biological inheritance their offspring will get some, and by having many more offspring they're out-competing their weedier rivals.

Why is nobody taking the fluff about the creation of the "Kork" into account?
The Korks" were created by the Old ones (aka Brain Boys) to fight the Necrons. It was a bioweapon unleashed yb them in the same way they created and unleashed the Eldar race against the C'Tan. They do not evolve. They just fight because that is the only reason they exist. They can not even stop anymore as their creaters (the ones holding their on/off button) have been destroyed.
Orks are the same age as the Eldar race (perhaps even older) and have not changed a bit since then. They can't be more than they are but at the same time they can not be less. Even the backwater Snakebite Orks have the knowledge to create Cyboars.

[Mr Mystery]

There's nothing to say Orks don't evolve though.

That they can Orkiform a planet reduces the need (much in the same way we've mucked up our own evolution by learning to adapt our environment, rather than adapt to it), as does the existence of Oddboyz (who always seem to know what to make and when).

From my reading of the Necron Codex, the Old Ones didn't just Tommy Cooper Orks, Eldar and Humans into existence. Instead, they found (or indeed founded, it's not massively clear) primitive races, and then engineered up from there.

[grimmas]

Well given that Homo sapiens are estimated to have evolved 200000 years ago and we are pretty much unchanged since. It's entirely possible given their biology that any evolution Orks do under go will be on a geological time frame.

Morgrim makes a good point about the Waaagh fields though. It's something they don't mention to much in the modern fluff but it was always a bit of a favourite of mine. PMA being an actual thing with Orks really tied in with their persona. I blame Sandy Mitchell letting Cain steal Ork guns and they still work for him.

[Psychosplodge]

they worked cause the Orks they were shooting at believed they worked :rolleyes:

[Mr Mystery]

I'll allow it!

And anyways, it's not all Orky guns that don't actually work. Just some of them.

#notallorkguns

[grimmas]

Sounds legit.

[Morgrim]

Well given that Homo sapiens are estimated to have evolved 200000 years ago and we are pretty much unchanged since. It's entirely possible given their biology that any evolution Orks do under go will be on a geological time frame.


Humans are still evolving, but our rate of evolution has dropped dramatically since approximately the time of the industrial revolution, and was probably a little faster still pre-agriculture. That said, a lot of the more recent changes are less visible, with height being the only really notable modification.

If you want a big example of 'modern' evolution though take a look at blood types by proportion in different parts of the planet. You'll see that people of european descent have a significantly higher proportion of Type O blood compared to others, which is especially odd since O is actually a recessive trait. And the percentage of people with Type AB is tiny. (Although it's also the smallest globally, so that isn't as odd.) The reason for this skewed distribution? It's because the more receptors on your blood cells, the antibodies that make blood A or B or AB with both, the more vulnerable that person is to the Black Plague. If you were A or B, you'd have only a slim chance of survival. If you were AB you were definitely dead. If you were O you had a chance of surviving!

Within the space of 2 generations Europe went from having majority Type A to majority Type O blood, as an adaption to loosing a third of their population. There are also a couple of gene sequences for disease resistance that exploded across the population at the same time for the same reasons.

[grimmas]

Granted but I was more commenting on the time these things take for any noticeable effect. I thought the height change was more to do with improvement in nutrition of the last century rather than natural selection?

I'm AB positive I'll do my best to avoid the Black Death 😳 . Still I can use anyone's blood for a transfusion so it's swings and roundabouts

[Psychosplodge]

Avoid Eym...

[Morgrim]

Granted but I was more commenting on the time these things take for any noticeable effect. I thought the height change was more to do with improvement in nutrition of the last century rather than natural selection?
It's both. From memory I think it's about 3/4 nutrition and 1/4 genetics, but it's definitely partly evolutionary. Although scientists haven't nailed down WHY: it could be as simple as sex selection, or it could be that tall genes occur alongside some other beneficial mutation.

Under the right pressure adaptions can show noticeably within a few hundred years (ignoring really sudden stuff like the Black Plague) so there would definitely be some over ten thousand. But without being able to compare the two they may be harder to spot.

[Psychosplodge]

It'll be cause it helps you reach the pedals in the car better, and if you're too short you can't jam the brakes on as hard. Natural selection in all it's glory.

[grimmas]

It's both. From memory I think it's about 3/4 nutrition and 1/4 genetics, but it's definitely partly evolutionary. Although scientists haven't nailed down WHY: it could be as simple as sex selection, or it could be that tall genes occur alongside some other beneficial mutation.

Under the right pressure adaptions can show noticeably within a few hundred years (ignoring really sudden stuff like the Black Plague) so there would definitely be some over ten thousand. But without being able to compare the two they may be harder to spot.

Cheers Morgrim I was making the mistake of thinking the adaptations needed to be permanent and forgetting It is very gradual process and that every adaptation doesn't result in a new spieces. You'll have to excuse me the biological texts went away after Uni(worryingly quite a while ago now). Always nice to brush up though.

[CoffeeGrunt]

Another point about evolution is that it can only improve, rather than create.

I.e., the human eye is descended from the same design lineage as fish eyes, the same as most other animals. However, it's actually not that great for seeing on land, there are better systems that could be used. Evolution can't make these systems just appear, though, it needs the creatures with the weaker systems to die without breeding so that the ones with the better system prosper and propagate. Since most creatures on land use the eye in mostly the same design pattern, there's no real imbalance in evolutionary advantage that has ousted it.

It's like the evolutionary equivalent of the Sherman tank. Not the best by practically any means, but good enough for the job.

[Psychosplodge]

?
Whats the issue with the eye and how could it theoretically be better?

[CoffeeGrunt]

The eye is filled with liquid, which was an evolution that allowed it to see in water without refraction, giving it greater clarity. However, it now suffers refraction because this fluid still exists and is necessary to basically keep the eye's shape, but we're looking through liquid into air.

Apparently this contributes to the limited range of vision, and depth of field problems eyes typically have.

Neil Degrasse Tyson explains it better than I do in his Cosmos series. Episode two if I remember correctly.

[Psychosplodge]

That makes sense, enough of an explanation for me anyway.

[Mr Mystery]

It's both. From memory I think it's about 3/4 nutrition and 1/4 genetics, but it's definitely partly evolutionary. Although scientists haven't nailed down WHY: it could be as simple as sex selection, or it could be that tall genes occur alongside some other beneficial mutation.

Under the right pressure adaptions can show noticeably within a few hundred years (ignoring really sudden stuff like the Black Plague) so there would definitely be some over ten thousand. But without being able to compare the two they may be harder to spot.

I'm sure I read that the whole 'we're getting taller' thing was a myth?

Though I could be confusing it with average heights only ever going up. I dunno. I can't cite any sources, because I can't remember where I read it?

[Psychosplodge]

I'd say based on doorways being built to allow you to pass through them, we're getting taller.

[Mr Mystery]

Maybe I am confusing it with average heights only ever going up.

I know the Roman Empire considered my (possible) Pictish ancestors to be massively tall, and the graves from northern Europe around that time don't suggest they were short?

[Psychosplodge]

Don't they say meat in your diet contributes to height? How much arable farmland is there north of the border? Maybe compared to romans there was more meat in their diet so they were generally taller?

[grimmas]

Your Genetics limit your maximum height (not withstanding medical issues) but you'll need the correct diet to get there so the discussion will be have humans always possessed the potential to be taller on average but lacked the nutrition to get there or if through evolution we're getting taller.

Part of it would be isolating if some conditions have existed that make being taller an preferential adaptation. We have seen a very large increase in average height over the last couple of generations that should have been fairly dramatic and witnessed. We are aware of the events that caused the most deaths and they don't seem to relate to height.

Of course being tall isn't all good either as being over 6-6 seems to come with a raft of health difficulties in later life over being of more average height. Of course most of these occur after average breeding age so wouldn't necessarily effect evolutionary change.

[Psychosplodge]

Being 6'3" comes with an added risk of head impact :(

[grimmas]

And uncomfortable journeys on public transport I suspect. 😉

[Psychosplodge]

I physically don't fit in the space allocated to a single passenger on the average bus/train/plane. The length of knee to butt is longer than the seat to seat space and the amount of leg spread required to fit either encroaches on the aisle or the person next to me.
One of many reasons I prefer to drive.

[Mr Mystery]

It depends.

Coach to work? Very spacious, to the point someone in front can put their seat back, and still not have my knees jammed in their spine.

London Underground? I might as well be a sardine. Especially as the centre of the train, where the ceiling is highest, is inevitably occupied by the shortest people on the train.


Your Genetics limit your maximum height (not withstanding medical issues) but you'll need the correct diet to get there so the discussion will be have humans always possessed the potential to be taller on average but lacked the nutrition to get there or if through evolution we're getting taller.

Part of it would be isolating if some conditions have existed that make being taller an preferential adaptation. We have seen a very large increase in average height over the last couple of generations that should have been fairly dramatic and witnessed. We are aware of the events that caused the most deaths and they don't seem to relate to height.

Of course being tall isn't all good either as being over 6-6 seems to come with a raft of health difficulties in later life over being of more average height. Of course most of these occur after average breeding age so wouldn't necessarily effect evolutionary change.

That all sounds about right. And diet definitely plays a substantial part, including the diet of your mumsie whilst you gestating.

The 6'6" is often caused less by a good, healthy diet, and more glandular issues (I want to say pituitary gland?), so you effectively overgrow your 'natural limit'.

I too am 6'3", and pretty well built. It's not common to see someone taller than me that isn't incredibly skinny, despite they eat like horses. Compare The World's Tallest Man to say, The Mountain from Game of Thrones. The former, glandular issue. The latter? Just plain old sodding enormous.

[Psychosplodge]

I've never thought about that before but you're right for the most part anybody more than an inch or two taller is generally willowy.

[Mr Mystery]

Though of course, that's all speculation on my behalf. I'm no geneticist.

It could well be that the Willowy Gene is closely linked to the Big Sod Gene. I just don't know!

[CoffeeGrunt]

I thought it was typically from heart defects, much like larger dogs. They don't tend to live as long because they basically more have more body to pump blood through, so the heart is working a bit harder, so it typically starts giving out a little bit earlier.

[Mr Mystery]

Did someone say larger dogs?

http://tse1.mm.bing.net/th?id=OIP.Mb3d5c364dfc6c239f9f729d9aa5c5c19o0&pid=15.1

Half Newfoundland, half St Bernard. All special. And enormous.