Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!rutgers!ucla-cs!srt
From: srt@ucla-cs.UUCP
Newsgroups: rec.arts.sf-lovers,talk.origins,sci.bio
Subject: Re: Nonagression in James P. Hogan's Giants trilogy
Message-ID: <4454@curly.ucla-cs.UCLA.EDU>
Date: Sun, 15-Feb-87 20:44:58 EST
Article-I.D.: curly.4454
Posted: Sun Feb 15 20:44:58 1987
Date-Received: Mon, 16-Feb-87 04:01:23 EST
References: <1151@husc2.UUCP> <305@netxcom.UUCP> <1170@husc2.UUCP> <1371@loral.UUCP>
Sender: root@ucla-cs.UCLA.EDU
Reply-To: srt@CS.UCLA.EDU (Scott "Dr. Pain" Turner)
Organization: UCLA Computer Science Department
Lines: 19
Keywords: predation (absence of), aggression (selection for)
Xref: watmath rec.arts.sf-lovers:1544 talk.origins:603 sci.bio:124

In article <1371@loral.UUCP> dml@loral.UUCP (Dave Lewis) writes:
>I can't see any way for these
>critters to resolve the problem of there's-resources-for-N-animals-and-N+5-
>animals-want-to-use-them, but that may be more a matter of limited vision
>than fundamental impossibility. Anybody have ideas? Remember, physical
>violence is Right Out.

Not necessarily.  I haven't read the Hogan books, but suppose you have two
tribes of creatures competing.  Tribe A sends a kamikaze into Tribe B.  He
runs around, kicking, fighting, biting, etc., trying to do as many
death-dealing injuries as possible before he dies.  If he can trade even 2
for 1 it works out.  Keep in mind that the physical changes Hogan
postulates would no doubt result in a different psychology that might well
make this reasonable.

    Scott R. Turner
    ARPA:  srt@ucla
    UUCP:  ...!{cepu,ihnp4,trwspp,ucbvax}!ucla-cs!srt
    DRAGNET:  ...!{channing,streisand,joe-friday}!srt@dragnet-relay.arpa