Ren'Py Desert Stalker [v0.17.1.2 2024-12-30] [Zetan]

[Cynicaladm]

Meanwhile, completely unprompted, my phone puts this article in my feed

You must be registered to see the links

Google knows me too well

 

[fluffcube]

What on earth is happening in this thread lmao, the amount of text walls holy fuck

 

[The Senior Perv]

What on earth is happening in this thread lmao, the amount of text walls holy fuck

You have to admit that those text walls are far more interesting that seeing the classic NTR / Sharing wars.

 

[Mortarion]

You have to admit that those text walls are far more interesting that seeing the classic NTR / Sharing wars.

But you have to admit, that not many things here are more entertaining as a good old meltdown about a random topic, or a riot.

 

[Muffinking61]

Great game so far when can we expect an update? Curious because its sooo good.

 

[The Senior Perv]

But you have to admit, that not many things here are more entertaining as a good old meltdown about a random topic, or a riot.

Well, I can't disagree with you. I still remember seeing some fans triggered over the idea of Zahra been shared, even when that's most likely to be optional. While sharing isn't my kink either, it still makes me laugh how some people have a meltdown over it.

 

[megac8]

I hate the sharing kink, I hate the gore kink, but love this game, and love that people that are into that have a good quality game for them. And so should everybody else, just let other people enjoy their shit

 

[dolfe67]

Some people can't play a game if not 100% of the content cater to them. Fuck them, optional content is the way.

 

[morse86]

Homo sapiens and Homo heidelbergensis both evolved from Homo Erectus, the former in Africa the latter in Europe. There weren't particulary many subspecies available at a specific point in time, and they were partially geographically separated. Finding Homo erectus DNA isn't that surprising, because it's our predecessor, but they didn't interbred at this critical point in time, because Homo erectus was already extinct 70.000 years ago. The youngest fossils we found from H. erectus are around 110.000 years old. Homo sapiens evolved from H. erectus around 300.000 years ago and H. neanderthalensis from H. heidelbergensis around 200.000 years ago. so while it's true that the early H. Sapiens had the opportunity to mate with late H. erectus and H. heidelbergensis, 70.000 years ago they were indeed in a tough spot.
At this time they barely made it out of africa, yet to discover the H. floresiensis on Java or the H. denisova in southern siberia.
So the only available sub-species mating partners for this small population were the neanderthals at that time.

It's not unreasonable to assume, that the neanderthals may have saved our ass as a species. However, their contribution still seems to be minor, the largest percentage of neanderthal genome seems to be around 4% found in some Eurasians and Northafricans.

on a side note: "Africans" are not a human sub-species.

Yes, as far as we know. But could be. Anyway the more important thing is, that for like 90% of all defective genetic expressions you don't need a state of the art genome lab. Untreated hereditary diseases or birth defects often lead to an early death anyway, and/or are easily spotted, like trisomy 21 or spina bifida (split spine). The beauty of a cult whose job it is to birth and raise children is, that they can handle cases which express their deficiency at a later age still accordingly, and no one will know.
Just leave this kid to bleed out after you ritually carved a small symbol of the godess somewhere, if they have hemophilia, etc.

Which is normally and in general true, if you have other mating partners available. Not so much if you're the only family clan in the whole area. Because you surely go extinct if you refuse to breed close family members, in favour to meet someone outside the clan in a distant future, when your life expectancy is around 25-30 years.

I dare to say (if the bottleneck theory is true) that inbreeding definetly didn't increase our genetic healthiness, but may as well as the occasional neanderthal helped our species to survive, which is the opposite of extinction.

Now this is a quality post.

Just one small gripe, why do you say "bottleneck theory is true"? Do you mean in general the observed phenomena of population bottlenecks resulting in reduced genetic diversity?

 

[selberdreher]

Now this is a quality post.

Just one small gripe, why do you say "bottleneck theory is true"? Do you mean in general the observed phenomena of population bottlenecks resulting in reduced genetic diversity?

Thanks.
No, i believe that population bottlenecks indeed do result in reduced genetic diversity.
My post tried to contribute to a larger discussion on how small surviving populaces are able to recover their numbers after they faced a near fatal collapse, like e.g. here in Desert Stalkers post-apocalyptic setting. Members like Yngling, Ragnar and Remembrance voiced some interesting views on that matter and how a controlled breeding regime or inbreeding could be utilized to stabilize said numbers and the potential dangers and drawbacks of such actions.

To provide a quick recap:

The Theory of a

You must be registered to see the links

, which seems to be supported by genetic evidence, suggests that mankind recovered to its current quantity from around just 3000 to 10000 surviving individual humans over the course of roughly 70000 years naturally.

I referred to that specific theory.

Now there seems to be good evidence for it, but this doesn't mean the theory is true.
Wrongly adjusted parameters of the model could misestimate the population number or move the timescale easily for +- 10.000s of years.

There could be also other explanations for the observed reduced genetic diversity, like prolonged genocidal wars between early humans.
In historic times the modus operandi for the victorious side was usually either to enslave the subdued or to kill the males and integrate the females into the winners populace.
Whereas for pre-historic hunter-gatherer nomads slaves were probably much less useful than in an agraric sedentary society, but instead just posed more mouths to feed without pulling their weight in the group. Add to this a religion or ideology which favours the own clan, tribe or family for whatever reason over others and we have a setup to kill all of the loosers group.
Or less grim, but to the same effect: raid the loosers and strip them of all their provisions, tools and weapons, effectively condemning them to die.

 

[Umariel]

You mean

You must be registered to see the links

level stuff?
"The evidence from Nataruk shows that the attacking party was carrying
weapons that would not normally be carried while hunting and fishing."

 

[selberdreher]

You mean

You must be registered to see the links

level stuff?
"The evidence from Nataruk shows that the attacking party was carrying
weapons that would not normally be carried while hunting and fishing."

Thanks for bringing this to my attention, because i wasn't aware of that finding yet.
But yeah, this excavation site seems to back up my thoughts regarding how violent encounters of early humans could have played out (sometimes or often).

The scenarios i outlined in my last post naturally emerged from a set of -as i like to believe- reasonable assumptions i made, like:

Akin to how the number of predators in an area is limited by their huntable amount of prey, the size of a community of humans, who aren't sedentary yet, haven't developed agriculture or tamed wild animals for the use as livestock, is limited by their accessible food and water ressources in a area they can travel by foot in roughly three to seven days.
So the 'good' size of that group oscillates around the 'ideal' number predetermined by their environment and their available technology.

I assume there would also exist a 'preferred' composition of males vs females to meet the needs of inner social stability, hunting success and outwards security. This means having much more males than females would probably enhance their hunting success and their ability for warfare, but obviously is a threat to the inner cohesion of the group. Either there will be infighting between the males over the few females inside the clan, or they will abduct females from rival tribes, with all the risks a war poses for the welfare of said community. And after the influx of alien women it's not unlikely the group grows too big and has to break up in search of new pastures, leaving both parts weaker than before and also growing into a future threat to each other.
Whereas having much less males than females renders the clan vulnerable to attacks and hampers their hunting capability.
So my guess would be like not less than 35% but not more than 45% males would be near the sweet spot to meet those needs.
Pre-pubescent children should probably account for not more than 35% of the groups total.

As i already mentioned a hunter-gatherer community seems to have little use for slaves, because one doesn't want to provide a male slave with weapons for hunting, not to mention the risk he poses for those native women, because you can't really keep him separated from the group without permanent housings. And having too much female slaves may sound good */winkwink, but ultimately leads to those problems i outlined above. The absence of slavery in e.g. aboriginal and pygmy communities may serve as an indication to that claim.

Last but not least -given the human nature and how deep xenophobia seems to be imprinted in our genetic code- there is no reason to believe, that an encounter between two different groups of early humans was always friendly, especially since one of the most pacifying factors for those encounters, namely trade, also isn't developed yet. Remember: no wheel, no livestock, barely any storage-keeping of preserved foods, of course no currency and probably often no common means of communication.

So in my book the 'reasonable' approach towards a group of strangers in those days for a balanced clan in terms of size and composition would be to avoid them, if they are perceived as stronger or equal in strength, or to ruthlessly cull them all, bar perhaps a handful of fertile women, in order to weed out the competition. Of course there is no need to spare their children.

 

[fortuna95]

Spoiler

You don't have permission to view the spoiler content. Log in or register now.

You must be registered to see the links

We're coming closer...! Preparing more animations, writing more script, yada yada...For one scene I'm trying something else by adding a gas mask POV. It's the post apocalypse. So why not?

Also, sneaky Ivy pic as bonus.

Render progress:
Ivy's scene: 100%
Shani's mission pt.2: 95%
Kitty's scene: 90%
Kateryna's scene: 90%
Zahra's sleepover: 90%
Zahra's scene: 80%
Reworks:
d1e (Zahra's introduction): 50%
(More to follow...)

 

[claus001]

Since inbreeding is so hotly debated here we should take a look of less controversial field:

You must be registered to see the links

. Yes, chickens are incestuous to the core. This study makes a nice summary when it comes to chickens.

Spoiler: The only cases in which I recommend in-breeding are these :

You don't have permission to view the spoiler content. Log in or register now.

Spoiler: Do not use inbreeding if:

You don't have permission to view the spoiler content. Log in or register now.

Summary: inbreeding is mandatory for gigachads.

 

[JohnF95zone]

Since inbreeding is so hotly debated here we should take a look of less controversial field:

You must be registered to see the links

. Yes, chickens are incestuous to the core. This study makes a nice summary when it comes to chickens.

Spoiler: The only cases in which I recommend in-breeding are these :

You don't have permission to view the spoiler content. Log in or register now.

Spoiler: Do not use inbreeding if:

You don't have permission to view the spoiler content. Log in or register now.

Summary: inbreeding is mandatory for gigachads.

Okay, so I am making the following fictionary scientific deductions or hypothesis based on this findings (regarding most members of this community):

1. Somehow genetically related to chickens.
2. Share many similiar genetic marker or DNA sequences with chickens.
3. Probably eats a lot of chickens.

 

[Machete]

Since inbreeding is so hotly debated here we should take a look of less controversial field:

You must be registered to see the links

. Yes, chickens are incestuous to the core. This study makes a nice summary when it comes to chickens.

Animals on this planet, mankind included, are all remarkably very alike. No wonder, we all descend from that very same fish who, first, developed a spinal cord in its evolution. Yet we are not all the same. There are species who trives better then other with stagnant DNA. We, the Homo Sapiens, need to mix more out cocktail of genes.

EDIT: Just to be more precises, all vertebrates descend from that "fish", but there are also a lot of animal species who are not vertebrate.

 

[claus001]

Animals on this planet, mankind included, are all remarkably very alike. No wonder, we all descend from that very same fish who, first, developed a spinal cord in its evolution. Yet we are not all the same. There are species who trives better then other with stagnant DNA. We, the Homo Sapiens, need to mix more out cocktail of genes.

EDIT: Just to be more precises, all vertebrates descend from that "fish", but there are also a lot of animal species who are not vertebrate.

People really dance around this subject or become emotional in a weird way. The biology cross the species is extremely similar, for examples fished in Thames cannot become pregnant due to womens' birth control (they pee it down the river). Medicines are frequently tested with animal, and a lot of human behaviour has been learned from animal babies (conducting traumatic tests with babies is considered immoral). In reality most of humans find sexual relations inside the family cross, and people who practice it seldom are mentally stable. Hence the taboo. The last Egyptian Ptolemaic Dynasty is a perfect example how insane incest+power struggle can drive both men and women.

 

[Yngling]

Akin to how the number of predators in an area is limited by their huntable amount of prey, the size of a community of humans, who aren't sedentary yet, haven't developed agriculture or tamed wild animals for the use as livestock, is limited by their accessible food and water ressources in a area they can travel by foot in roughly three to seven days.
So the 'good' size of that group oscillates around the 'ideal' number predetermined by their environment and their available technology.

Interestingly it seems that the total Neanderthal population at any time was way below this theoretical maximum.
I don't think anyone even has a good theory why that is...

I assume there would also exist a 'preferred' composition of males vs females to meet the needs of inner social stability, hunting success and outwards security.

You assume that females didn't hunt, and I think that recent research suggests that that was not always the case.

Also, you don't account for the missing males. I don't think that males would have been driven away or killed on purpose to get to a certain optimum.

As i already mentioned a hunter-gatherer community seems to have little use for slaves

I fully agree on that.

Last but not least -given the human nature and how deep xenophobia seems to be imprinted in our genetic code- there is no reason to believe, that an encounter between two different groups of early humans was always friendly, especially since one of the most pacifying factors for those encounters, namely trade, also isn't developed yet.

Actually there is ample evidence of trade during the mesolithic.

As for the xenophobia, probably, but there is also evidence of Neanderthals and other sub-species breeding with anatomically modern humans.

I would recommend the novel The Last Neanderthal by Claire Cameron. Spoiler: it does contain incest.

 

[muschi26]

Didn't hunter-gatherer tribes in precolonial North America take slaves? Not 100% sure, but I think I heard something about that being the case.

 

[vane000]

Is there female MC content in this game? If there is, is there pregnancy?