Cannibalism, genetics, and Flatland

[ffutures]

I'm writing the genetics and sociology bit of the "serious science" section, and I want to develop the following line of thought:

1. A Square claims that the normal course of events is that regular triangles give birth to squares, the children of squares are pentagons, their children are hexagons, etc., while right-thinking Isosceles tend to evolve towards becoming regular. If this is literally true why isn't Flatland exclusively populated by higher figures now? Why are even squares rare enough that they are automatically members of the professional classes? Why is there still a huge isosceles underclass?
   [this was pointed out by Ian Stewart but I don't think he's taken it far enough]
   
2. The "circles", with hundreds of sides, take the progression of sides much further. Their children often add fifty or more sides more than the father. But we're explicitly told here that there are very few children.
   
3. A Square's family looks typically Victorian, but the typical Victorian family had a relatively high level of infant mortality, which was very rarely discussed.
   
4. Flatland has institutionalized cannibalism; criminals are sentenced to be consumed, executed and eaten. It isn't made clear who does this, my guess is that officials and their families get the best share. Most high officials have tens or hundreds of sides, but there's an implication that A Square (a lawyer) has officiated as a magistrate.
   
5. There appears to be widespread support for cannibalism, certainly nobody is complaining about it.
   

My idea here is that A Square isn't mentioning the more distasteful side of things; that this cannibalism is necessary if children are to gain more sides, and that without it most children will be Irregular, Isosceles, still born, etc.; some of the survivors are simply abandoned, others get institutionalized - this is considered so shameful that few Flatlanders are consciously aware that it is the norm rather than the exception.

With cannibalism things are different; children are more likely to be regular and add more sides. Officials get first pick of the victims, and the extra sides they add reflect this, but even an occasional taste (as from A Square's work as a magistrate) may tip the scales a little. Taking it too far is risky, with an increased chance of Irregular children and still births.

I'm pretty sure that there's a biological name for this type of "preying on some children to benefit the rest" sort of cannibalism, but I can't remember it. Anyone got any suggestions, or any ideas on the biological processes involved? I'm thinking that there might be something like a hormone that promtess regularity and the growth of extra sides, but maybe this is too simplistic.

Also, can anyone remind me of the title of a Poul Anderson story about a hunter-gatherer civilization where the males have to fight and eat each other to get enough of a particular protein (forget the details) to allow them to reproduce? I know I've read it, but I can't remember what collection it was in and I want to reference it.

Comments

[raygungothic.livejournal.com]

Um... those are an odd set of conclusions. I was under the impression that the reason there's a huge Isosceles underclass is because most people don't live improving lives. Classic Victorian ideal - if only people were virtuous they'd rise out of poverty, but they're not, so they produce a mass of degenerate (sharper isosceles) children and then die young. Presumably dissolute and degenerate middle-class hexagons' mistresses have pentagons or squares rather than heptagons. At least.

Is it not best -not to think too much- about Flatlander reproduction given that their women are one dimensional? Giving birth to offspring with more dimensions than oneself must be very difficult. Perhaps that, too, limits the numbers of higher ranks - if it's easier to bear a ten degree isosceles than a hexagon. An obvious 19th century social fear, and in Flatland it might even happen.

Sorry, not what you wanted I know, just thoughts.

[armb.livejournal.com]

> Giving birth to offspring with more dimensions than oneself must be very difficult.

Maybe all flatlanders are born female and males "inflate" later? (Though you probably need another "and this is never mentioned in polite society outside professional medical conversation" assumption to explain A Square not having given any hint.)

[robertprior.livejournal.com]

Didn't Victorians dress all children in skirts for a while, switching the boys to shorts when they got old enough? Playing off this, all children are born one-dimensional. The males expand as they grow (and you can tell they are males even when 1D).

This had the advantage of reinforcing the "women are childlike" idea, because they are literally like babies/toddlers, only bigger.

[ffutures.livejournal.com]

The "lives of virtue" thing is certainly another possibility, but I'd love to find some sort of biological explanation for the cannibalism - it seems such an odd thing to have as a "given" of Flatland society.

I've tended to think of Flatlander reproduction as a form of budding, with the young forming at the end of the female body, as a section which swells up then breaks off to become the newborn child.

[raygungothic.livejournal.com]

What a monstrously irregular structure that would be! If that were the case, pregnant women would probably be kept hidden away.

I can foresee a minor problem with your cannibalism approach - what if a lawless commoner attacked and ate people? Wouldn't his offspring rise in social position as a result of his hideous crime?

[ffutures.livejournal.com]

Possibly, if he got away with it.

[gonzo21.livejournal.com]

The Cannibalism Police would surely have to keep a close eye out for such aberrant miscreants. Eating somebody else without the proper applications? Just not on.

[ffutures.livejournal.com]

Hmmm... I feel the need to introduce a serial killer called Hannibal Vector. I think he may be mentioned as an example of the horrific possibilities ;-)

[robertprior.livejournal.com]

The story you're after is a short novel or novella called "The Night Face", originally published as "Let the Spacemen Beware".

IIRC the plot hinges on children needing a particular hormone at the right time to enter puberty.

[ffutures.livejournal.com]

That's the one! Many thanks!

[jackwalker.livejournal.com]

Not correct, I'm afraid. "The Night Face" is similar in premise - a planetary population suffers genetic drift and acquires some odd biochemical quirks after centuries of isolation - but the specifics were different.

The story Marcus is thinking of is the novella "The Sharing of Flesh," which won the Hugo in 1969.

[ffutures.livejournal.com]

Actually that does ring more of a bell. Thanks!

[elfbiter.livejournal.com]

Could it be possible that there are sort of two layers on monikers; One refers to physical shape but another is a social honorific. Victorian times was also the time of the Industrial Revolution and some industrialists ended up buying noble titles even if they did not have pedigrees. The use on honorifics may be based on ancient times when shape was more important. But referring to someone's original shape if they have now elevated status may have one of those things people do not mention in the respectable company.

(Something you have probably covered already; In what way Flatlanders figure each other apart? They don't see each other in the birds'eye perspective.)

[ffutures.livejournal.com]

The answer to that one is that they don't, really - any pentacle looks like any other pentacle until you get to know him. The book says quite a lot about this - you can download it as a pdf from my site,

http://homepage.ntlworld.com/forgottenfutures/album/flatland_novel.pdf

[jugglergeek.livejournal.com]

I've been lurking a while, found you via an rpg search, but have yet to post. A couple things I've found, as I've been reading it (for the first time, still not finished) regarding the growth/deterioration of angles are on the bottom half of the right column, p 3, the paragraph starting withm "Had the acute-angled rabble...", and on p 7, in the last paragraph of the left column, and on the right, the paragraph beginning with, "Consequently, Nature herself..." The short answer is that raygungothic has it right in the first comment here.

I was also going to mention that in the right column of p 7, there's a note in the middle paragraph that "With [the lower classes of triangles] the eye is situated so far from their vertex that they can scarcely take cognizance of what goes on at that extremity of their frame."

I'm afraid that buggers most of your drawings, but it makes sense in that having an eye/mouth at the sharp vertex would make them less dangerous, less pointed, and less effective as soldiers. It reads to me like the eye/mouth would be embedded in one face, well back from the vertex.

[jugglergeek.livejournal.com]

No, sorry, the eye/mouth bit was in the left column. Don't mind me, that's normal.

[ffutures.livejournal.com]

I'm assuming that in isosceles the actual sensing section of the eye is deeply recessed from the point, so that they have a very narrow field of view. There's so many contradictory facets to this that it's difficult to keep it completely consistent.