Predator Culture, Biology And Technology

@Estelle- I understand where your coming from with the tradition angle. However I guess from a fiction stand point I'd like it to be more than that. For example, people still hunt in areas where it is completely unnecessary. I'm one of them. So I asked this same question of myself. Hunting is inherently cruel, there is no way of denying it, and I try very hard not to be a cruel individual. Still though, hunting has a place in my life. My rational is that life itself is cruel in degrees. Hunting forces me to accept this at a very fundamental level: for every day that I live, for every moment I am here breathing on this earth, there is something that has to sacrifice itself. Vegan's argue that the killing of animals is cruel so intern eating meat is cruel. But we all have to eat something and whether its plant or animal, something still has to die for us to live. Even plants need things to die to replenish nutrients so they too can feed. In this day and age of simplicity, where you can pretty much walk down to the local grocer and have your cow already killed, butchered, processed and packaged I think its easy for folks to forget that "steak" on the table was a cow. An animal that for all intents and purposes was completely harmless and beautiful in and of itself, and did in fact die so you could live. So I think its important that, from time to time, I get my own claws dirty. I force myself to always remember I am just a part of the cycle. Nothing special or unique. Just one more creature trying to make his way in the world and to that end, other animals and plants are sacrificed. And that will ultimately be my fate as well. Its not meant to be inspiring or happy or sad, it merely is.

What I'm trying to get at is hunting can and is something done as a tradition but taking it to the ends that the preds seem to take it seems to go beyond that. To travel light years from home and invest so much, it just seems like there is more at stake than tradition.
 
What I'm trying to get at is hunting can and is something done as a tradition but taking it to the ends that the preds seem to take it seems to go beyond that. To travel light years from home and invest so much, it just seems like there is more at stake than tradition.

So, why do you, in your opinion think that they hunt? There are many people/cultures who go to great extremes to carry on traditions.
 
Well, I think that evolutionarily speaking, no matter how domesticated a species becomes, once a predator, always a predator. We see it in dogs and cats and people. There is always that mindset to hunt. So I was thinking about taking it one step further. Rather than a psychological need, or more precisely, in concert with a psychological need, perhaps there is an actual biological need. Now, there is the obvious biological need for food but that is easily met by an advanced society. What if there is something in the hunt itself that the pred needs? Something that the species itself, let alone individuals, cannot live without? For example, what if the preds virility is improved physiologically by hunting? That perhaps there is some hormone that increases under the duress of the hunt and its something so ingrained and specific from the preds evolutionary history that there is no way to synthesize it. It actually needs to hunt to procreate. And this I would say is not a gender specific requirement. And this idea ties in, in a kind of perverse way, to the idea of the most apt are the most deserving to continue the species. And because of the harshness of the preds evolutionary journey, the need to hunt is directly biologically wired into their body chemistry.

That's just one possibility. And I agree that many cultures do go to extremes for their traditions but my think that with the millions of years of advancement preds have on us, at some point a lot of tradition would be lost to necessity. Perhaps that will be humanities ultimate downfall, I don't know. But its seems possible if not probable.
 
Hmmm, very interesting. So, you feel that the dominating force behind a Predator's drive to hunt is purely physiological, his body ' craves' the hunt and drives him to do so in order to attain peek performance and a certain hormonal balance? And, this reason trumps hunting out of tradition? I'll be honest and say I'll have to chew that one over a bit..it'll take some getting used to.. I mean, it does makes sense in-part. Without a doubt a predator does indeed benefit on a physiological level from hunting, due to the demand put on the body. And hunting does weed out the week and all. I always seen the pred's hunting as a tradition with physiological benefits, as hunting is what kept the preds honed and shaped over the decades, molding them into the fine race that they are today.
 
I wouldn't necessarily say it trumps tradition but perhaps is the driving force for and main reason to maintain said behavior.
 
I certainly believe that is indeed the case, that the hunt purges their race of the weak and stupid. But again I run into the issue that part of having a society is to deal with that in a more humane way. To avert, at least to some degree, the inherent cruelty of nature.

It is kind of interesting dealing with preds in this context though. I mean a species and civilization as old and successful as the preds. I think there, at some point, must be a kind of melding of what culture and habit are and what is tradition and physio/ psychological need. It seems to me at least for a species to evolve and exist successfully for so long, those things must interconnect.
 
They are all definitely connected. I'd wager and say, that what we may deem cruel in our human society, the predators may not in theirs. Just because predators are super intelligent, doesn't necessarily mean they are humane- in the sense we think of humane at lest.

I've always imagined the Predator's home world as one that can be hostile and rife with danger on many levels. And, unlike human people, who have basically eliminated such dangers from their environment, ie..large predators, disease..etc, The Predator people, haven't. I feel theses guys, truly follow the rule of, survival of the fittest, and use the environment, along with hunting, as a tool to aid in insuring only the fit survive to reproduce.
So, if a foolish pred. gets taken by a "Preda-tiger" or a sickly pred child is fading to a fatal case of "Preddy-pox" I don't think there would be any
" interference". To us, this may sound harsh, but the trade off for such losses would be a society of stronger, healthier individuals.

Despite their advances in technology, I believe, that for the most part, Predators continue to live the same way they lived centuries ago. Following the 'old ways' of the days before they had tech. Such ways, shaped them into what they are, and if they continue to follow these "old ways"..ie. via tradition, it will keep them who they are.
 
I would say that preds are biologically beyond any disease at this point, similar to the way sharks are here. And perhaps the only regulating force on the pred population is A) the idea I had of needing to hunt to procreate and B) the ability of the pred to control its own Achilles Heel as it were, which I would say is hubris.
 
I would say that preds are biologically beyond any disease at this point, similar to the way sharks are here. And perhaps the only regulating force on the pred population is A) the idea I had of needing to hunt to procreate and B) the ability of the pred to control its own Achilles Heel as it were, which I would say is hubris.
wasn't that a myth..sharks being disease resistant? They are quite hardy creatures, but i think them being totally resistant to disease isn't 100% accurate. Are you familiar with the Hish? Sounds like you are leaning towards a description of them in your interpretation of Predators.
 
I honestly couldn't tell a hish from a yautja...lol. Neither ever really appealed to me. I guess I kinda misspoke on the disease thing as well. I'm sure there is something that could get through their immune system but I would think certain forms of illness have been weeded out evolutionarily. I kinda forgot to take into account that bacteria are organisms too and would evolve along side the preds.
 
I honestly couldn't tell a hish from a yautja...lol.
lol, I can understand that. One. main difference between the two is the " yautja" are comprised of males and females, while the hush are asexual. I'm in no way saying that you claim this to be the case with your interpretation. What makes me think of the Hish
when I read your ideas, is where you mention the biological need to hunt, it bring to mind the Hush, and their kill gland. The kill gland is a throw-back tragedy from early on in their evolution.
 
Ok I remember reading a couple things about the kill gland thing. First, what I'm suggesting is not that or really anything along those lines. Only similarity is we might be both dealing with the preds endocrine system.

To me the kill gland idea would make the preds far to volatile to become a space traveling species. Further it would make them rather poor predators in general. A predator is patient and calculating and rarely if ever is it driven to do anything it hasn't already thought of two moves back.

As for the asexual thing, I really doubt that. Developmentally, an asexual being would likely have less drive for its genetic material to be passed on simply because you could mate with every body. No I strongly believe preds have two genders (at least) and both of which are hunters.
 
One other point on the survival of the fittest aspect of preds. Isn't contradictory to assume preds won't mend the sick or injured when a truly fit civilization seems to care for those that are ill or injured? They may not show compassion for the malformed or genetically inferior but I think they must have a fairly extensive knowledge of medicine and field care for wounds. We even have evidence of this in the first two movies and again in AVPR.
 
"Isn't contradictory to assume preds won't mend the sick or injured when a truly fit civilization seems to care for those that are ill or injured? "

Well, no. Not necessarily. I highly doubt Predators and humans hold similar views on what is and isn't considered 'civility' or 'fitness'. But I do see what you are saying though.
I was indeed speaking of the genetically flawed, temperamentally unstable and others along these lines, as being 'ignored'. I don't think a Pred. would flat out kill off these "unfit" individuals, but instead let nature take it's cores with them.

I agree, the Predator people ( the P1 at least) seemed to possess an extensive expertise in anatomy, and the functioning of living organisms. I think there is no reason to doubt that they wouldn't apply this towards the benefit of their own kind.

"City-Hunter" ( or Scar) had he lived, no doubt would have received medical attention.
 
OK, just finished the book. I'll be re-reading it, but here are my first impressions:

The Pred in the book is, physically, very different from the one in the movie, and not just by having only three toes and three fingers (I'm assuming the book was based on the original screenplay as it was written). Nearly all the technology and gadgetry we associate with the Predator is missing--there is no plasma cannon, no armor, no bio mask, no laser-sights, no light-bending cloaking mesh, no wrist blades, no bomb gauntlet. The only weapon is the spear (which, ironically, never appeared in the finished movie, but was later resurrected in P2). Instead of using technology to bend light as camouflage, the original concept here had the Pred's skin itself act as camouflage by its ability to change color and texture like a chameleon or an octopus to blend into its background. The Pred also had the ability to change its body form using cellular control to re-arrange its tissues--there is a scene in the book where the Pred alters its body shape into that of a bird and then flies off in pursuit of Anna as she flees. (The book also mentions that this gave them the ability to construct new bodies if they became sick or injured so they had extraordinarily long lifespans.) The Pred's heat vision is still there, but is entirely biological, there is no bio-mask to let it change frequencies. Instead of wristblades, it has large natural clawlike spurs on its ankles and wrists that it uses as weapons. If the Pred had been depicted in the movie as it was in this screenplay (apparently the CGI technology of 1987 wasn't up to that task), it would have been a very different Pred than the one we know now---more alien, less humanlike, and less technological. This original version of the Pred would have been more interesting, I think, in many ways. But we'd probably not be making Pred costumes right now. ;)

But the book version does do a good job of explaining what the Pred's motivations are. He is, first and foremost, a hunter (and indeed the original screenplay, as written, was titled simply "The Hunter"). In the book's opening scene, as the Pred's spaceship approaches Earth, he is looking through a computer catalogue of Earth species--big cats, bears, elephants, then humans, then specifically at armed soldiers. "Here was a creature modified and trained for a single function", the book explains, "to kill--exactly the creature the predator sought, the challenge worthy of his own vast skill, a kindred spirit at last, a reason to exist." The Pred acted like a British big game hunter in Africa. It picked the most dangerous quarry it could find. It had a trophy room to display its prowess--the book describes a scene where the pred takes a skull and spine back to its ship to place in its trophy room. But the Pred also had a scientific interest too. In many of the bodies, the Pred doesn't bother with trophies and doesn't take the skull/spine---he's interested in understanding their structure and biology. So in some cases he took the bones, in other cases he took just the internal organs--all for study, like a field biologist might. "Only the lower species ever died on the alien's home planet", the book explains. "The higher forms so endlessly transformed themselves that they never inhabited a body long enough to die. They sloughed themselves like snakeskins. Therefore the creature dissected these killer soldiers as dispassionately as a clockmaker might dismantle an unusually subtle timepiece. Obsessively it probed to locate the center of man's identity by analyzing every millimeter of flesh and bone. Though it hadn't succeeded yet, it had already figured that the skull and perhaps the spinal cord were crucial pieces of the puzzle. The rest of the body was patently clumsy and unimportant--discardable, like packaging." So like a human big-game hunter in Africa who sent carcasses back to anatomists in England, the Pred took his trophies but also donated his kills to science. As the book puts it, "It became evident that this was only one of many such trophies displayed around the room. It was some otherworldly equivalent of a big-game hunter's headroom, walls covered with elephant tusks and moose antlers. Yet it bore a kind of purity too, like a scientist's lab or the inner sanctum of a temple."

The book makes it clear that this particular Predator had been to earth before, a thousand years earlier, hunting Aztecs in the very same spot in Central America, and there are references to both the Aztecs and the Sioux treating the aliens as gods from the sky---the basis for the later AvP movie.

So, to sum up: physically, the Predator depicted in the book is very different from that in the movies. Much more alien, much less technological. But in its actions and its motivations, the 1987 movie accurately reflected the intentions of the original screenplay--the Pred is a hunter. It's not interested in war or conflict, it is a big-game hunter seeking the most challenging prey, both in the hunt and in its quest for scientific knowledge. That is, sadly, a picture which all of the later movies began to move away from, until by the time "Predators" was made, the Preds had become mere serial killers, motivated solely by blood lust. It is a huge divergence from the original conception. Me, I find the original conception far more interesting.

Which book are we talking about here? A Predator with three toes and three fingers?
 
Shadowedge- The original concept for the predator didn't resemble Stan Winston's creature. The Monette book, which Lflank is referring to is based on the original screen play and design of the predator.
 
@Estelle - There is evidence in many ancient human cultures of the practice of eugenics to improve the genetic make up of a population so I honestly could see the preds killing off the weak or malformed children. I think they may even use a more sinister means than leaving the youngling on a mountainside unprotected as the Spartans did or tossing the infant into the sea as the Norsemen did. They may in fact use a more violent form of the agoge, weeding out the weak through a kind of brutish hunger games, not done for entertainment mind you, but rather to strengthen the species as a whole. We do, also need to take into account that what is considered a predator child is far different than a human child.

That is kind of how I view the first AVP movie. Like its one of the last trials of the pred agoge.
 
Which book are we talking about here? A Predator with three toes and three fingers?


It's the novelization that was published in 1987 after the movie came out. It was based on the original screenplay as it was written, not on the re-written screenplay that ended up being filmed.
 
Next topic: How do preds age and what is their life cycle?

I mean I know the basic idea is that preds have a long life expectancy but how long? How do they grow up? Are they born and breast feed like a human or are they abandoned left to fend for themselves like a most reptiles. Are they hatched? Or are they like amphibians and have a larval stage in their development?

How does suspended animation affect them? If they had say, a 6,000 life expectancy would time in suspended animation push them over 10,000 years old in some cases? Do they live longer?

How long and what would be considered childhood then?

Anxious to here some ideas...
 
Back
Top