TheGraveKnight
Spacefaring
The Motivational Army is watching
Posts: 1,170 
|
Post by TheGraveKnight on Jul 23, 2017 17:17:12 GMT
I'm not sure if there is a thread for this yet so I figured I'd post this. From what I remember toggling LAWK allows only things that we know to work in nature to be allowed. But hat exactly could be described as beign LAWk or non-LAWK?
Furthermore, if toggling LAWK off allows for things that we don't know in nature to exist, what is the limit of this?
|
|
|
|
Post by BiologicalSomething on Jul 23, 2017 20:22:14 GMT
I'm not sure if there is a thread for this yet so I figured I'd post this. From what I remember toggling LAWK allows only things that we know to work in nature to be allowed. But hat exactly could be described as beign LAWk or non-LAWK? Furthermore, if toggling LAWK off allows for things that we don't know in nature to exist, what is the limit of this? Thermosynthesis is the most well known example. There are no known thermosynthesising organisms on earth, so it isn't LAWK. Basically, LAWK covers strictly earth creatures. Anything that isn't featured on an earth creature is Non-LAWK, no matter how realistic it may seem. If we don't know a creature with it, it isn't LAWK. |
|
TheGraveKnight
Spacefaring
The Motivational Army is watching
Posts: 1,170
|
Post by TheGraveKnight on Jul 23, 2017 20:32:40 GMT
I'm not sure if there is a thread for this yet so I figured I'd post this. From what I remember toggling LAWK allows only things that we know to work in nature to be allowed. But hat exactly could be described as beign LAWk or non-LAWK? Furthermore, if toggling LAWK off allows for things that we don't know in nature to exist, what is the limit of this? Thermosynthesis is the most well known example. There are no known thermosynthesising organisms on earth, so it isn't LAWK. Basically, LAWK covers strictly earth creatures. Anything that isn't featured on an earth creature is Non-LAWK, no matter how realistic it may seem. If we don't know a creature with it, it isn't LAWK. But what exactly is the non-LAWK limit? Will we be able to have organisms with open chest cavities breathing fire and be able to absorb radiation? |
|
|
|
Post by BiologicalSomething on Jul 23, 2017 21:09:57 GMT
Well, it still has to be reasonable. No fire breathing. As long as there's a scientific explanation, it can be included.
|
|
|
|
Post by crodnu on Jul 24, 2017 0:51:02 GMT
Absorbing radiation is LAWK, there are some fungus in chernobyl that do just that.
As for fire breathing... that's hard to tell, there's probably a lot of research on the subject already tho.
|
|
