(no subject)
Jun. 17th, 2004 10:46 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
herewiss13The map is not the territory. The map is, in fact, rather arbitrary.
Pheremones are not the dopamine, etc. which they stimulate production of. In most cases, one imagines, a different messenger chemical could have performed the same function. The particular molecule which _does_ trigger a particular receptor does so only through the contingencies of evolutionary history.
This is all a round-about way of leading up to an odd question evoked by some SFnal aliens whose pheremonal output was a near-universal aphrodesiac. While an amusing device, what are the chances of such chemical compatibility...especially when there isn't selection pressure for any _particular_ signal molecule? Not very likely. So my question is:
"Could an Alien Skunk concievably spray perfume?"
On one hand, the aerosol is a chemical messenger and hence ought to be arbitrary. But would an ecology, similar enough to our own to _have_ skunk-like species, evolve in such a way so that their desirably chemicals (and undesirable ones) would be antithetical to our own?
I'm not expressing this well.
Sugar is a beneficial molecule. Hence, receptors sensitive to its presence trigger positive responses. It tastes 'sweet' because it's objectively good. Shit, being full of everything the body _doesn't_ need anymore, is something to be avoided...both for its own toxicity and the toxicity it attracts. Therefore the molecules it exudes trigger a negative response.
Since these, and other scent-reactions like them are based on basic biological and metabolic requirements, they aren't free to be arbitrary like behavioral messenger molecules presumably are. You aren't going to get an ecology where "sweet (to us) = bad."
So no, when you're dealing with interspecies chemical communication, the basics ought to be somewhat universal...at least universal to that particular type of cellular chemistry. Negative smells will be negative smells. And a skunk by any other name wouldn't smell any sweeter.
Though I'd love to see a chain of argument that could prove me wrong on this. ;-)
Thus concludes another unravelling of Eric's convoluted trains of thought. Tune in next time for Darwinian Hunting Weaponry and How to Go About Killing an Animal Which Makes a Grizzly Bear Look Wimpy.
...yes, I _did_ fill in all the gaps, yes? Nothing too leap-y in the argument?
Pheremones are not the dopamine, etc. which they stimulate production of. In most cases, one imagines, a different messenger chemical could have performed the same function. The particular molecule which _does_ trigger a particular receptor does so only through the contingencies of evolutionary history.
This is all a round-about way of leading up to an odd question evoked by some SFnal aliens whose pheremonal output was a near-universal aphrodesiac. While an amusing device, what are the chances of such chemical compatibility...especially when there isn't selection pressure for any _particular_ signal molecule? Not very likely. So my question is:
"Could an Alien Skunk concievably spray perfume?"
On one hand, the aerosol is a chemical messenger and hence ought to be arbitrary. But would an ecology, similar enough to our own to _have_ skunk-like species, evolve in such a way so that their desirably chemicals (and undesirable ones) would be antithetical to our own?
I'm not expressing this well.
Sugar is a beneficial molecule. Hence, receptors sensitive to its presence trigger positive responses. It tastes 'sweet' because it's objectively good. Shit, being full of everything the body _doesn't_ need anymore, is something to be avoided...both for its own toxicity and the toxicity it attracts. Therefore the molecules it exudes trigger a negative response.
Since these, and other scent-reactions like them are based on basic biological and metabolic requirements, they aren't free to be arbitrary like behavioral messenger molecules presumably are. You aren't going to get an ecology where "sweet (to us) = bad."
So no, when you're dealing with interspecies chemical communication, the basics ought to be somewhat universal...at least universal to that particular type of cellular chemistry. Negative smells will be negative smells. And a skunk by any other name wouldn't smell any sweeter.
Though I'd love to see a chain of argument that could prove me wrong on this. ;-)
Thus concludes another unravelling of Eric's convoluted trains of thought. Tune in next time for Darwinian Hunting Weaponry and How to Go About Killing an Animal Which Makes a Grizzly Bear Look Wimpy.
...yes, I _did_ fill in all the gaps, yes? Nothing too leap-y in the argument?
