Random Worldbuilding Questions (Biology, Geography, Society, etc.)

[hymer]

Thanks. I only dabble in Icelandic sagas, but how bloodfeuds came close to wiping mankind from the island is an important inspiration for my whole lots-of-men-die-in-fights thing.

[fusilier]

In Viking-era Scandinavia, the amount of men and women were perhaps roughly equal. Men were more prone to die from violence, accidents and childhood disease, while women risked death from childbirth.
Add a smattering of magic as in most fantasy RPGs, and assuming childbirth becomes far less dangerous as a consequence, what happens to this society? The amount of men will still be substiantially lower compared to the amount given birth to, while the number one cause of death among women has been all but removed.
In this particular case, I've established that men will not marry several women. It is considered in this culture that strife will always develop when two women without a clear hierarchical first must share a household, and only a man who is cruel or has a very strong personality could possibly make this work. This allows people like kings to have multiple wives, but makes it unlikely for most others.
So what becomes of the surplus women? What does this change do to the individual, community and culture? Any and all thoughts, comments, etc. are welcome.
For those in doubt, women in this culture (like in the historical basis) were allowed to have property of their own, but the society as a whole is still quite patriarcal.

You might want to do some research on the War of the Triple Alliance:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_of_the_Triple_Alliance

Specifically Paraguay after the war, which had a ratio of women to men of 4:1, and perhaps as bad as 20:1 in some areas! I honestly don't know much about this war, and can't find out what the ramifications were of this ratio. But you might have more luck. Paraguay was a very agrarian society, so there may not have really been any unusual positions for women to step into.

[hymer]

Good one, fusilier. Thanks! I wonder if they'll still let me into my old university library. Well, only way to find out, I guess.

[Bryn]

I'm trying to work out a plausible way for a society with limited technology to make gliders. This is for a largely-freeform deity game which I'm joining mid-game. My character is to be the goddess of wind, and I'd like her people to be able to fly, through mostly physical means rather than by magic (they will be able to rely on favourable wind conditions). I've got a few questions with regard to how this could be done.

The setting is a very large island or archipelago, about the size of Madgascar, where there's an awful lot of birds - I declared in my original write-up that the only vertebrates are birds¹, though if that would be ecologically unworkable, please say!

Geologically, this island needs to be similar to² a volcanic arc, as it's important to the story that there are lots of stratovolcanoes. One thing I'm not very clear on is what metals might be available as a consequence of that. Looking at the Phillipines and Indonesia, they might be able to get copper and tin to make bronze, which would be consistent with the metallurgy in the other cultures in the game. How would a volcanic setting affect the availability of metals? I know the lack of good iron was quite important in Japan, though very few civilisations in the game are working iron at this point.

They probably wouldn't be able to make something large out of metal, like the frame of a glider, so the gliders will need to be made of light wood, covered in fabric. Cotton plants or silk moths could potentially be found on the island. Apparently, Otto Lilienthal used cotton and willow, while 'the finest Chinese kites' are made out of split bamboo and silk. Aerodynamically and economically, which would be best for making a glider?

In terms of tools, they could have bronze as mentioned above, as well as obsidian and whatever they could make out of bits of bird or from marine life. Would such tools be adequate for constructing a glider?

I'm also not sure how to protect the pilots from the wind while they're flying. Glassmaking seems to go back a very long way, but the examples shown on Wikipedia don't seem like they'd be clear and big enough to construct an plane canopy, so they're probably going to fly in glasses or goggles of some sort. However, I'm not sure how goggles could be made without good-quality glass - I vaguely recall hearing something about making goggles by polishing shells until they're transparent, but I can't find it again.

The gliders are going to be foot-launched, like hang gliders, from steep hills, which will limit their size. I can't see a way to launch larger gliders with the technology available. They will stay in the air using ridge lift and convergence zones at the edge of the sea.

Making control systems for full-sized gliders could be quite tricky without metal. I guess it wouldn't be too much of a problem if they only flew hang-glider-sized aircraft.

I'm imagining the gliders will develop out of kites used for signalling, and will start with Otto Lielenthal-style hang gliders. However, I'm not entirely sure why people would want to risk flying in them - perhaps there would be a very dangerous area which people would want to cross, like in Nausicaa. Any ideas for justifying the rapid adoption of gliders would be appreciated! Also, ways of making them safer...

In terms of aircraft design, it needs to be sufficiently birdlike that they could be taught aerodynamics by actual birds. (Some of the birds will be sapient)

All this cultivating of cotton/silkworms and manufacturing gliders implies a fairly large agricultural society.³ Is it plausible that such a society could live when the only livestock available are birds? For protein, they can grow legumes and hunt wild birds, but would it also be plausible to have them farm flocks of flightless birds? I intend to include large, extinct birds such as moa if it helps. I could also possibly include evolutionary ancestors of birds and have them farm feathered dinosaurs.

Are there any other issues that could come up with trying to create a low-tech society which flies gliders?

¹This island is supposed to be the place where all birds were created (by sapient volcanoes, of course) before they were dispersed around the rest of the world, so I'm not going to need to worry about real-life distribution and evolution of birds.
²The game's set on a giant flat disk, so there's no plate tectonics and no subduction zones to explain a volcanic arc. Still, that's the sort geological setting I'm going for.
³Given that there's a god of agriculture who won't have visited to begin with, I don't want to go too far with the agriculture.

[TuggyNE]

They probably wouldn't be able to make something large out of metal, like the frame of a glider, so the gliders will need to be made of light wood, covered in fabric. Cotton plants or silk moths could potentially be found on the island. Apparently, Otto Lilienthal used cotton and willow, while 'the finest Chinese kites' are made out of split bamboo and silk. Aerodynamically and economically, which would be best for making a glider?

Early airplanes almost universally used wood frames and cloth covering, with the notable addition of dope, which is an unpleasantly noxious and highly flammable chemical compound that shrinks the cloth tightly for higher strength and lower drag. Not sure how easy it is to synthesize at a low tech level, but it's probably not strictly required.

In terms of aircraft design, it needs to be sufficiently birdlike that they could be taught aerodynamics by actual birds. (Some of the birds will be sapient)

Well, ornithopters are tempting, but highly impractical without stupidly advanced materials and a lot of in-depth knowledge. So if the birds understand aerodynamics well enough, they would probably just skip to the simplified gliders that just use the basic idea of lift.

[Bryn]

Early airplanes almost universally used wood frames and cloth covering, with the notable addition of dope, which is an unpleasantly noxious and highly flammable chemical compound that shrinks the cloth tightly for higher strength and lower drag. Not sure how easy it is to synthesize at a low tech level, but it's probably not strictly required.

Thanks, I didn't know about dope! Synthesising nitrocellulose or cellulose acetate seems to involve quite a lot of steps, so that's out. Wikipedia says that before nitrocellulose etc. were used, people tried sago starch and rubberised fabric, and this wasn't very good. Since I can't find anything on how easy it is to make rubberized fabric, I guess I'll go with sago, and maybe mention that the aircraft need to be re-starched frequently.

Well, ornithopters are tempting, but highly impractical without stupidly advanced materials and a lot of in-depth knowledge. So if the birds understand aerodynamics well enough, they would probably just skip to the simplified gliders that just use the basic idea of lift.

Right, I wasn't thinking of ornithopters! Just that knowledge of aerodynamics sufficient to build functional aircraft could be obtained on a timescale less than several hundred years, by discussion with the birds and the wind.

[Ormur]

I was wondering about missile defence systems like the Star Wars project and what would happen in a large scale nuclear war between two nations. Not so much if it would be effective in stopping a full MAD type exchange which I understand is nigh impossible but what would happen to the nukes they'd actually hit. Would they go off, if so could that cause an EMP burst and if not what would be the effects of a lot of radioactive debries on a balistic trajectory in space? Assuming a lot of nukes would get through would any of that matter globaly in comparison? I'm assuming modern or even slightly futuristic technology and that the targets are just two large countries, not the whole world.

[Ksheep]

I was wondering about missile defence systems like the Star Wars project and what would happen in a large scale nuclear war between two nations. Not so much if it would be effective in stopping a full MAD type exchange which I understand is nigh impossible but what would happen to the nukes they'd actually hit. Would they go off, if so could that cause an EMP burst and if not what would be the effects of a lot of radioactive debries on a balistic trajectory in space? Assuming a lot of nukes would get through would any of that matter globaly in comparison? I'm assuming modern or even slightly futuristic technology and that the targets are just two large countries, not the whole world.

That is a tricky question, and depends a lot on how the system is set up. The trouble would be hitting the target. If you were able to detect the launch and take it out while it was still in the ascent stage (i.e. it's still a full missile, not a half-dozen warheads falling to their targets), you would have a fair chance of taking it out without too much trouble. Using a chemical laser, similar to the one used in the Airborne Laser Testbed, you could burn through the skin of the missile and ignite the fuel, either causing the missile to explode mid-air, or causing it to spiral out of control. Whether or not this causes a nuclear explosion is debatable: Most fusion weapons rely on an implosion assembly method fission device, which means that a plutonium core is surrounded by high explosives. If these explosives were to go off, it would trigger a fission, and then fusion, reaction.

If the device were to go off at a high altitude, you would see some EMP effects which could be felt for some distance. The Starfish Prime test, for instance, damaged electronics from Hawaii to New Zealand, and the radiation from the explosion created an artificial radiation belt which damaged multiple satellites and persisted for four months. However, this may be better than the potential damage done if it were to detonate in the atmosphere, especially if near a civilian population. The magnetosphere typically manages to capture and contain any radiation from such an explosion, so there isn't wide swaths of fallout which could potentially cause much damage if the missile were to be intercepted in atmosphere.

If, for some reason, the missile is intercepted but the nuclear device were to remain intact and fall back to Earth… well, it depends on how the detonation mechanism is set up. If it's set to go off on impact, you'd probably have a nuclear explosion somewhere (barring some sort of failsafe). If it were controlled by an altimeter or barometer (for an air burst, which is typically more effective than ground burst), it may or may not go off, depending on whether the mechanism is damaged or if there are any failsafes present. More advanced detonation systems may rely on some form of verification, such as GPS, and if the device were to find itself off target it may disarm itself, but I am not sure how prevalent such systems are (if they even exist).

Note: I am not a physicist, nor a ballistic missile engineer, so I cannot vouch for the veracity of all the above statements. Most of the above is based on what I can remember plus some cursory research for verification.

For more info, see the following:
Missile Defense Agency
Starfish Prime Nuclear Test
High-Altitude Nuclear Explosion

[Yora]

In general, nuclear bombs do not "go off" when they are hit by something. They are extremely delicate instruments and anything that hits them should destroy the trigger mechanism before it can detonate the trigger charges. And even if the TNT in the bomb does ignite and explode, it would start in one part of the bomb first and spread out from there, instead of causing everything to go off simultaneously, which is critical for the working of the bomb. The chance of a nuclear fission explosion due to a nearby conventional combustion explosion should be extremely slim, if not even outright impossible.

[Gnoman]

I was wondering about missile defence systems like the Star Wars project and what would happen in a large scale nuclear war between two nations. Not so much if it would be effective in stopping a full MAD type exchange which I understand is nigh impossible but what would happen to the nukes they'd actually hit. Would they go off, if so could that cause an EMP burst and if not what would be the effects of a lot of radioactive debries on a balistic trajectory in space? Assuming a lot of nukes would get through would any of that matter globaly in comparison? I'm assuming modern or even slightly futuristic technology and that the targets are just two large countries, not the whole world.

This depends on how the system is set up. If you have an extensive orbital network of mirror satellites for ground-based lasers combined with bomb-pumped x-ray laser satellites (the theoretical model for the unbuilt 1980s Star Wars system), then eliminating even a full-scale strike is entirely possible. ICBMs are extremely vulnerable in their boost phase, and remain vulnerable to a somewhat lesser extent during their orbital period. It's only during late-stage reentry that they reach the incredible speeds that make them so hard to hit. Virtually any damage to a RV will effectively destroy it, both due to the probable loss of the ability to survive reentry heat and the fact that nuclear warheads require a greater degree of precision than any other mechanical device ever built, which is easily disrupted by damage, such a system would be able to take down 80%-100% of any given strike.

By contrast, a system that depends on satellite kinetic interceptors and point-defense interceptor missiles will have a much lower success rate, as it is unable to engage targets when they are most vulnerable, and the effectively-infinite ammunition of a ground-based laser system will not exist. While stopping a single missile from a renegade state, or even a volley from a hijacked SSBN, would be quite feasible, against missiles flying in thousands the system would be lucky to stop 10%-%30. Even this lower figure would still result in several million additional survivors on the side that employed the system.

As for the effect of destruction, it would also depend on the system used. Actually detonating any of the inbounds would be extremely unlikely, unless the leading wave was deliberately "salvage-fused" to detonatate if any damage was taken, presumably to disrupt targeting for the ABM system. However, if the system used bomb-pumped laser satellites, each of those would, of course, be a small nuclear detonation in and of itself. Actual effects of such detonations on the planet would be minor, as the atmosphere and Earth's magnetic field is quite good at blocking EM radiation. Long-range TV and radio reception would become impossible for days or weeks because of interference, and virtually all civilian satellites would be destroyed unless they had the bulk of the planet between them and the explosions.

This brings us to the thorny question of debris. Any warheads destroyed in the boost or terminal phase would scatter a great deal of radioactive material over the launch area or the target area. This would, however, not be as bad as fallout, as the fragments would be quite large, making clean up quite practical. This leaves us with the orbital fragments and the fallout from any orbital detonations. This, I'm afraid, is quite a difficult problem to figure out. A certain portion of both would be cast away from the planet, or (in the case of fallout) scattered by solar wind. Another portion would manage to form a semi-stable orbit and remain in LEO for a short time. That leaves us with several tons worth of plutonium (plus debris from the rest of the warhead, but that will almost certainly burn up harmlessly) falling as meteorites over an extremely large area. Any fragments that burned up would presumably be little different from the fallout left by an atmospheric detonation, but any chunks that DON'T burn up would be extremely dangerous due to their density. If scattered across a landmass, the damage would be quite significant, and would require an expensive, lengthy clean up process due to the vaporization of the fragments on impact.

[Ksheep]

In general, nuclear bombs do not "go off" when they are hit by something. They are extremely delicate instruments and anything that hits them should destroy the trigger mechanism before it can detonate the trigger charges. And even if the TNT in the bomb does ignite and explode, it would start in one part of the bomb first and spread out from there, instead of causing everything to go off simultaneously, which is critical for the working of the bomb. The chance of a nuclear fission explosion due to a nearby conventional combustion explosion should be extremely slim, if not even outright impossible.

Depends on the method used. A Gun-type device could conceivably still detonate. I did forget that Implosion assemblies require simultaneous detonation around the entire core, so those would probably be safer in the long run, and I think most ICBMs use the Implosion style nowadays.

[Gnoman]

Except for Little Boy, gun-types are almost never used outside of things like torpedos and artillery shells where the narrower profile is critical. Implosion types are safer and more powerful.

[Ormur]

This is very helpful, especially your reply Gnoman. This also brings up an interesting possibility for the backstory I'm working on. The game would take place in the aftermath of a nuclear war between two parties where only one actually suffered from extensive bombardment but the whole world experienced things like EMP pulses frying most electronics, the climate changes and other immediate results of a localised but large nuclear holocaust as well as perhaps advanced cyberwarfare.

One idea that this gives me then is that after some tragic escalation one country strikes first with a few thousand bombs in a few hundred MIRVs but that most of them get destroyed by an extensive orbital system of X-ray lasers and mirror satellites that also inadvertently wipes out most civilian infrastructure in orbit and maybe not to inadvertently the other side's SDI. The other side then lunches a second strike that meets much less resistance, maybe only from ground based facilities. Somewhere in between specially designed EMP bombs ruin most electronics on the planet as collateral damage.

What I had heard about the problems of systems like that though wasn't necessarily that they couldn't hit stuff but that they'd be easy to fool with decoys and that the satellites were themselves vulnerable. ICBM's could be designed to scatter debris that would either scatter most the lasers or confuse targeting of warheads. Is that perhaps a problem with the above scenario. My first idea was simply a successful first strike by one party along with EMPs and all that.

[Ksheep]

From what I recall, the decoys are typically part of the reentry vehicle. The initial launch fires a single rocket, and once it get suborbital it releases it's warheads (The Peacekeeper, for instance, can carry up to 10 independently targeted warheads), and it can also release decoy warheads as well, mostly to confuse physical defense systems such as anti-ballistic missiles. If you can damage or destroy the ICBM during the ascent phase, you should be clear to go.

I now wonder, what would the effect of cloud cover be on x-ray or chemical laser defense systems, either on targeting or damage to the target? Could the aggressor time the launches such that the first third or so of the ascent is protected by cloud cover (by, say, launching during a thunderstorm)? Would the risk of fried electronics via lightning strike outweigh the gains by having cover?

EDIT: On the Gun-type missiles, there were some made. South Africa had an arsenal of nuclear weapons (dismantled in the late 80's) that consisted solely of gun-type devices, and they had been working on creating ballistic missiles when they started disarmament. I can't find out if they had any successful tests using gun-type ballistic missiles, but they were made and, if some rogue state were to try to make nuclear weapons, it is conceivable that it would be the route they follow.

[Gnoman]

This is very helpful, especially your reply Gnoman. This also brings up an interesting possibility for the backstory I'm working on. The game would take place in the aftermath of a nuclear war between two parties where only one actually suffered from extensive bombardment but the whole world experienced things like EMP pulses frying most electronics, the climate changes and other immediate results of a localised but large nuclear holocaust as well as perhaps advanced cyberwarfare.

One idea that this gives me then is that after some tragic escalation one country strikes first with a few thousand bombs in a few hundred MIRVs but that most of them get destroyed by an extensive orbital system of X-ray lasers and mirror satellites that also inadvertently wipes out most civilian infrastructure in orbit and maybe not to inadvertently the other side's SDI. The other side then lunches a second strike that meets much less resistance, maybe only from ground based facilities. Somewhere in between specially designed EMP bombs ruin most electronics on the planet as collateral damage.

What I had heard about the problems of systems like that though wasn't necessarily that they couldn't hit stuff but that they'd be easy to fool with decoys and that the satellites were themselves vulnerable. ICBM's could be designed to scatter debris that would either scatter most the lasers or confuse targeting of warheads. Is that perhaps a problem with the above scenario. My first idea was simply a successful first strike by one party along with EMPs and all that.

Try treason to justify the scenario. The Eastern Alliance becomes convinced that the deployment of an extensive ABM system by the Western Alliance is a prelude to an overwhelming first-strike aimed at the disarmament and subjugation of the Eastern nations. The only way to meet the perceived threat is to launch an overwhelming first strike of their own, but the missile shield is in the way. So they suborn a high-ranking Western official, "arrange" for him to take overall command of the SDI system, and then launch. He successfully manages to confuse the system enough for it to allow the first wave through, with that wave being primarily EMP bursts to cripple the defense radars and communications links, with a few targeted for groundbursts on key command and control facilities. The disruption caused by the explosions, however, cuts his command links to the SDI system, and the commander that takes over engages and destroys most of the rest of the attack. In retaliation, the Western Alliance sets the Eastern nations on fire.

Decoys are of limited value. While you could easily launch extra rockets, they contribute nothing to your overall strike, and the sort of bomb-pumped x-ray laser or ground-based system is going to -by deliberate design- have an extremely wide beam to reduce the accuracy problem and potentially take out multiple missiles per shot, making on-missile decoys almost completely useless. As for scattering the beam, that's simply impossible. These would be multi-megawatt class weapons that would have a fair chance to vaporize a battleship, let alone small space debris. The only real value of decoys is to swamp the point-defenses in the terminal phase.

[fusilier]

In general, nuclear bombs do not "go off" when they are hit by something. They are extremely delicate instruments and anything that hits them should destroy the trigger mechanism before it can detonate the trigger charges. And even if the TNT in the bomb does ignite and explode, it would start in one part of the bomb first and spread out from there, instead of causing everything to go off simultaneously, which is critical for the working of the bomb. The chance of a nuclear fission explosion due to a nearby conventional combustion explosion should be extremely slim, if not even outright impossible.

Just to add to what others have said. The implosion device's timing has to be very precise, so blowing up a nuclear bomb externally won't typically set it off. It's more likely to set off a a Little Boy like bomb: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Little_Boy -- but still probably unlikely.

However, blowing up a nuclear bomb will disperse radioactive material, so in a sense you may have changed the weapon into a kind of "dirty-bomb".

[Eric Tolle]

The mention of x-ray lasers reminds me of a book where they discussed the biggest problem with a nuke-pumped x-ray laser (side from the fact they were a fraud); aiming. As the author put it, you were supposed to aim at a rapidly moving 2 meter spot thousands of miles away, requiring accuracy in the the hundredths of seconds of arc...while a meter our two away a NUCLEAR EXPLOSION was going off! Never mind the nuclear detonation, the high explosive triggers would make precise aim more than problematic.

[Ormur]

Yeah, I'm wondering if nuke-pumped X-ray lasers are too implausible for a near future setting.

[Gnoman]

The mention of x-ray lasers reminds me of a book where they discussed the biggest problem with a nuke-pumped x-ray laser (side from the fact they were a fraud); aiming. As the author put it, you were supposed to aim at a rapidly moving 2 meter spot thousands of miles away, requiring accuracy in the the hundredths of seconds of arc...while a meter our two away a NUCLEAR EXPLOSION was going off! Never mind the nuclear detonation, the high explosive triggers would make precise aim more than problematic.

The entire process of detonating a nuclear warhead, from the time the conventional explosives are triggered to the point where there's nothing left but energy expansion, is measured in nanoseconds.

Assuming that an X-ray laser is within your technology to build, the beam would be generated and impact the target within a time period so short there isn't time for it to move.

Even ignoring that, the most likely engagement scenario would be either during boost, or head-on in the ballistic phase, which further reduces the effect of motion on aiming.

There are significant technological difficulties inherent in an x-ray satellite, but aiming is not one of them.

[fusilier]

The entire process of detonating a nuclear warhead, from the time the conventional explosives are triggered to the point where there's nothing left but energy expansion, is measured in nanoseconds.

Assuming that an X-ray laser is within your technology to build, the beam would be generated and impact the target within a time period so short there isn't time for it to move.

Even ignoring that, the most likely engagement scenario would be either during boost, or head-on in the ballistic phase, which further reduces the effect of motion on aiming.

There are significant technological difficulties inherent in an x-ray satellite, but aiming is not one of them.

I don't think he meant holding the beam on a moving target, but instead the accuracy needed to hit a small target at range.

The original Project Excalibur sidestepped the whole issue by just having a bunch of x-ray lasers pointed in many directions, basically making an x-ray laser bomb. At that point it was having enough of them to take down enough missiles.

[tbok1992]

Well, this isn't technically a worldbuilding question, but a bit of advice I'd like to ask on a scene I've been wanting to write for a while:

It's from my novel I'm still slowly picking away at, and it's a very important scene.

To put it the short version, main protagonist is going back to the hotel he's staying at to talk to his female love interest to unwind after a particularly difficult battle, but suddenly he hears a crash from her room.

He runs up there and he finds her stark naked (Because that's how her camouflage powers work, like an octopus, and she uses them so nobody can actually pin down her identity when she's doing various adventuring work) and very badly injured, having crashed through the window trying to enter via her wings, and revealing all her mutant-y features that had been hinted at at the novel but never explicitly shown.

Her injuries are in the realm of various large cuts and broken bones, and when the protagonist tries to call the hospital, she weakly slaps the phone out of his hand with a tentacle.

Amongst her other mutant-y features (Great black claws on her hands and feet, shark-like teeth, eyestalks, tentacles, tentacle-wings) she's got something like D&D fast healing (Albeit on a 1 hp per-5-minute basis rather than a per-"round" one), so she will survive without hospitalization, and likely recover relatively quickly, but what I'm wondering is what would be the best way for our protagonist to tend to her wounds?

The protagonist is relatively knowledgable in the area of "field medic-ing", and keeps a roll of bandages, tape, cotton balls and a flask of rubbing alchohol on him at all times for cases like this. But keep in mind that the female in question has severe mutant-y body image issues that she's covered up through most of the story using concealing clothing, and she's been developing an attraction to said lead across the story, so she REALLY does not want him to see her like this (She uses her powers for her adventuring work, but uses her camoflauge abilities to conceal her identity, and she has very resilient skin to make up for the lack of covering), so there's likely going to be resistance on her part.

[hymer]

Sounds like what she needs is to have all the fiddly bits (broken glass in particular) removed fast, before the wounds close over them. And replacement for lost blood volume and dead tissue, unless she gates such in from elsewhere. The whole thing is going to be costly in energy too, I suppose. So she needs, I think, something sugary to drink and a steak dinner - eggs and milk could also be good. But don't serve it up until her stomach and intestines have healed up enough to deal with it, if any of those ruptured. Well, probably they didn't, or there would be a whole new problem with stuff going where it shouldn't.
If you fail to get rid of all those foreign bodies, she'll need to develop some quick (and I expect painful and ugly) boils* to expel them.

*Edit: Sorry, translation problem. I don't know what the word is supposed to be, but I assume someone with that fast healing ought to have a method of transporting foreign objects out, even after the tissue has healed over it. And that it probably isn't pretty or painless.

[Storm Bringer]

like hymer siad, if she isn't in serious danger of death, then the best course of action is basically slightly modified field medic stuff: clean the wounds, bind it to prevent forgin contamination, and then sit back and wait (either for full medical care, or in this case regeneration).

Normally, you'd leave large glass shards and such in situ until the patient is in a proper hospital*, but if she has some sort of mutant fast healing powers (with attendand fast-clotting or rapid artery closeure ability to prevent death by blood loss), it might make more sense to remove the glass. however, that would be something the hero likey need to be flat out told, as it's against normal field medic training.

basically, if she can rapidly (sounds like in a hour or two) heal her cuts and can stop her bleeding quickly enough (matter of minutes. i'd say she'd need to be able to stop the bleeding form the major wounds inside 5 minutes or she'd be in need of a major blood donation.), then her major worry is going to be things like secondary infections.

That, and how to explain to the hotel staff where the huge pool of blood on the hotel room floor came form.

as for the patients reactions, it depends a lot of how seriously she percieves the wounds. if she not convinced she will be heal naturally and without conventional medical treatment, and has body issues, she may well activly try and limit the heros efforts to help her to the bare minimum needed., that, and the obvious things like pulling bedsheets and such over herself, even while hes trying to work on her.

I'd also aggree that she'd need a lot of high energy food to restock the damage done. she'd basically be stripping the fat out of her body to provide the energy for this (bear in mind even a "average" sized person has a good week or twos worth of body fat on them). she'd likey be noticeably thinner after she recovered, and packing away a lot of simple sugars (i.e. chocolate bars and such) to bebuild her fat levels to normal amounts.

* Basically, you don't know how deep the shard has gone and what blood vessels it might have cut. if it's still in the body, its going to slow the blood loss quite a lot, but if it cut a major artery, then taking it our will result in a LOT of blood loss, enough to kill within a 10-15 minutes if you can't repair the artery walls.

[headwarpage]

Agreed with the previous posters as far as the effects of her physiology on the needed medical treatment. For normal humans, the primary short-term issue in that situation would be blood loss. Assuming that the blood loss can be dealt with, the next issue would be foreign bodies in the wounds. Assuming those can be removed, all that's left is healing. For a normal human, that involves stitches and the very real risk of infection. Your protagonist may or may not be prepared to deal with all of that. For most people in the modern world, first aid consists of knowing how to keep your patient alive while you call 911.

But assuming your protagonist is prepared to provide full medical care without calling the professionals, he'll know how to deal with those issues for a normal patient. And I'd imagine that he'd try to treat her like he'd treat anybody else. So the real characterization in this scene is going to be how well she knows her own capabilities and how she responds to him. Does she know her own body well enough to know what's needed and what isn't, or is she a little bit innocent with regard to her own abilities? Is she willing to let him treat her? Is she prepared to explain how she's different from normal people, or is she going to let him do his thing and remove the stitches herself a few minutes later? Are these injuries something that's actually life threatening for her, or are they life threatening for a normal person, but she'll be fine in an hour or so? All of these things (and more) are going to affect how this scene plays out.

[Gnoman]

Population issue in my world:

In the year 0, the Human population had a population of around 50 million, with essentially normal distribution of age, sex, and such. Every individual over the age of 10 marched off to war, except pregnant women, nursing mothers, and those simply too old, ill, or crippled to fight. They were victorious, but only about 10,000 returned. The returnees, including those that would normally be considered children, became the upper nobility, and married many of the left-behinds in polygamous group marriages (adopting any children that were involved). The rest of the left-behinds became commoners.

What I don't know how to figure out is this:

Roughly how many left-behinds would there have been, and how would that population be broken down? Further, how would the resulting disparity between men and women (as the majority of left-behinds were women) alter birthrates and other social issues?

[hymer]

There's no such thing as 'year 0'. If you start counting with 0, you get the wrong result.
That aside, it depends directly on the 'normal distribution' you talk about. What's normal in neolithic times and now varies quite a bit.

[Gnoman]

In my world, they number the four month "year"between the Armistice of Tears (a twenty year period between the time that the humans rose up from slavery and forced the fallen god's armies to recognize their territory and the time when those armies began attacking again) and the First Battle (where the vast majority of both sides was annihilated in a human-elf victory) as "0" (because it takes place between the Enslavement Era and the Imperial Era.) Quirk of the calendar.


As for normal, it's pretty close to 18th century standards. Early Iron-age technology is offset by higher levels of magic.

[hymer]

Does magic alter age distribution? I gather that a life expectancy of 40 is what we believe was the case in late 1700s, but this is affected by a huge infant mortality rate. If infants are readily saved, we'd get a higher average, but also a different distribution. But then again, people may get fewer children if more of them survive, which would even out the numbers so they look more like 18th century ones.

Edit: An example: If the mortality rate is about 2% yearly, you get an average life expectancy close to 35%. But in real cases, the first year(s) of life has a much higher percentage; the ones from 15-35 a much lower; and it rises again after that. So exactly how deadly childhood is makes a big difference in how many children, mothers and elderly stay behind.

[Gnoman]

At this early date, magic is still somewhat unrefined. Non-magic plagues (such as the Black Death) cannot occur because they are easily curable, but the diseases themselves are not eradicated. However, the infant mortality rate is almost on par with a modern first-world county as far as disease is concerned, because the rituals used as part of the birth process actually work. Kids do have a greater chance of being eaten by kobolds or orcs, though, so it's not all good. Call it about half-way between 1700 and now.

[Aux-Ash]

Gnoman. Everyone between age 10 and "too old"? Depending on definition that could be as high as 60. Your other comments suggest that the demographic population is something more akin to today than past times.

So... all in all... we're probably talking about something close to 16-20 million marching off to war. With only 10 000 returning... that's a demograpic disaster...

And worst of all... the massive loss of skilled labour is even worse. You've lost almost every smith, every fisherman, every miner, every farmer, every magician. Mortality-rate is going to skyrocket (especially among children and elderly). Cities will be abandoned and people will starve to death en-masse. Sure, the women will likely have skill that matters (especially if this is standard fantasy) but they'll unlikely have enough hands between them to do that -and- everything else.