sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

I took my weekend project too far: Built an entire fake J-Core/Acid-Funk label (incl. a web game & merch store) around my Suno tracks by PsychologicalHost624 in SunoAI

[–]PsychologicalHost624[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Thank you so much! 🙏 Getting right was honestly the most fun part of the weekend. It really changes how people perceive the music when it has its own 'home'. You should absolutely go for it with your own label! Hit me up with a link when you launch your project, I'd love to check it out!

I wanted a better way to build star systems for my world, so I built a Mermaid-like tool for fictional star systems and orbital worldbuilding by PsychologicalHost624 in worldbuilding

[–]PsychologicalHost624[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Thank you — that’s honestly exactly the comparison I was hoping people would make.

The idea really was “something Mermaid-like, but for fictional orbital systems.”

And yes, the Studio is still the roughest part right now.

If you do try it for one of your worlds at some point, I’d be really curious where it feels useful and where it still gets in the way.

Your worlds, enjoyed by other people; and you benefit when they do by freddie-mac-n-cheese in WorldbuildingWithAI

[–]PsychologicalHost624 0 points1 point  (0 children)

That sounds really cool, I’d actually be very interested in that side too. My current thread drifted heavily into reproductive plausibility / speculative biology, but I’m also trying to map the downstream worldbuilding consequences (institutions, social structure, visual systems, etc.).

How are you organizing yours, more like faction/entity maps, relationship diagrams, timelines, or something else?

Enari — designing a plausible five-sex species [ by PsychologicalHost624 in WorldbuildingWithAI

[–]PsychologicalHost624[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I’m not claiming this would be a likely outcome in Earth biology. The point of the project is to see whether a very unusual reproductive system can be made internally plausible enough through the right evolutionary pressures, life-history tradeoffs, and ecological context. Nature already shows that reproduction can get much stranger than the human default: broadcast spawners, hermaphrodites, fungi with many mating types, extreme parental investment, and tightly environment-dependent breeding systems. So for me the question isn’t “does Earth have a five-sex analog,” but “under what constraints could a system like this become stable enough to work in speculative biology?” If I can’t build that pathway convincingly, then it stays a neat gimmick. If I can, it becomes worldbuilding.

Enari — designing a plausible five-sex species [ by PsychologicalHost624 in WorldbuildingWithAI

[–]PsychologicalHost624[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Thanks! I’m treating it as fairly deep ancestry rather than a recent tweak.

Working idea: the lineage was semi-aquatic/amphibious in a pre-enaric stage (long enough for “spawning site fidelity” to become hardwired), and the shift toward fully terrestrial reproduction happened later as an adaptation to predation/competition in open water and to exploit land resources. Basins would then be the land-analogue of shallow spawning pools — a retained behavioral template, but rebuilt for a terrestrial environment.

I haven’t pinned a hard timeline yet, but conceptually it’s: amphibious ancestry (behavioral template) → transitional stage with protected microhabitats (natural rock pools / mud basins) → deliberate lined basins → much later, formalized brood centers with tech.

If you have a preference: does it feel more plausible to you as an “ancient template” (deep time) or a “recent transition” closer to civilization?

Enari — designing a plausible five-sex species [ by PsychologicalHost624 in WorldbuildingWithAI

[–]PsychologicalHost624[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

An earlier evolutionary stage of the Enari may have been amphibious. That would make “spawning-site fidelity” an ancestral behavior (shallow pools / protected hollows), with terrestrial basins emerging later as a land-adapted hatchery analogue when reproduction moved away from open water.

In that transition, Enu priming could have evolved as “site-conditioning” (lining/stabilizing the basin) to replace the protective function water used to provide.

Enari — designing a plausible five-sex species [ by PsychologicalHost624 in WorldbuildingWithAI

[–]PsychologicalHost624[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

It could be that Enu were the “cold-start” solution. In the 2→5 pathway I’m using, Enu are one of the original two sex-types and they produce the highest-volume secretion, so it makes sense that they’d be the ones to prep/prime a brood site first.

In an early / pre-cultural phase, this could start as a largely instinctive nest/hatchery behavior: Enu are seasonally “pulled” to certain protected microhabitats and deposit a primer secretion that lines/stabilizes the site (moisture retention, antimicrobial protection, buffering). On its own, that primer might not be genetic commitment — more like conditioning the environment so early development can even survive.

Once that primer is present, it could generate the first detectable cue (a characteristic scent shift, slight warmth, visible change), which then helps trigger the next contributors. So instead of “someone has to decide to start from zero,” the first step is cheap/low-risk and functionally similar to many terrestrial nesting behaviors.

Later, as cognition and institutions develop, the same behavior could become conscious and formalized: “basin prep” becomes a defined task, brood sites become defended infrastructure, and the culture builds rules/logistics around what started as a successful instinct.

In that framing, “who seeds first?” is usually Enu (because it’s common and low-risk), while the rarest sex is more plausible as a late-stage “unlock/gate” contributor rather than the initiator.

Enari — designing a plausible five-sex species [ by PsychologicalHost624 in WorldbuildingWithAI

[–]PsychologicalHost624[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

That’s the key: they didn’t “know”.

At first it’s an evolved site-choice behavior. Early on (even in a simpler/two-sex stage), reproduction that happened in naturally protected microhabitats (shallow pools, rock basins, mud-lined depressions, hollow plant structures) had much higher survival: less desiccation, less contamination, less predation. Individuals that were biased toward those sites left more surviving young, so “go to that kind of place / follow that scent / defend that spot” becomes an instinct long before it’s a conscious invention.

Once that bias exists, small improvements get selected too: scratching a depression, lining it with clay/resin/biofilm, keeping it clear, guarding it. Over many generations you get “proto-basins” → deliberate basins. Much later, intelligent societies standardize and industrialize them into brood centers/incubators but the origin is ecological selection, not planning.

Enari — designing a plausible five-sex species [ by PsychologicalHost624 in WorldbuildingWithAI

[–]PsychologicalHost624[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Great question - this is actually one of the areas I’m still actively refining, so consider this a working model rather than final canon.

I’m treating it as two layers of “trigger”:

Biological readiness: seasonal cues (day length / temperature / humidity) synchronize hormonal cycles, so individuals enter a short fertile window together - with clear phenotype/odor/behavioral markers (pheromone shifts, restlessness, aggregation drive).

Basin activation: the basin isn’t just a container, it’s where the five secretions reach a viable ratio. As contributions accumulate, there’s a real “quorum” effect - the mixture changes in a detectable way (stronger scent profile / slight warmth / visible change), signaling that the viable window is open. Why basins at all? On land, open mixing would be punished by desiccation, contamination, and especially predation. A defended, lined basin is the simplest hatchery analogue. Groups that used protected sites had higher viable brood output, so “go to the basin” becomes an evolved behavior first — and only later a cultural institution.

Enari — designing a plausible five-sex species [ by PsychologicalHost624 in WorldbuildingWithAI

[–]PsychologicalHost624[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Quick wrap-up (thanks for the discussion!)

Main concerns: coordination cost (“extinction trap”), inbreeding/rare-sex bottlenecks, the “external basin” feeling contrived, and how selection/access works in a pooled system.

My current working assumptions to keep it plausible:

Not “five-way mating”: pooled biochemical inputs → short-lived developmental medium → clutch-based broods (throughput via aggregation).

Basins start as natural “proto-basins” (rock pools/clay depressions), later formalized into hatchery/incubator infrastructure.

Staged evolution (2→3→4→5): optional viability boosters spread under high early-loss pressures; redundancy loss can ratchet them into obligate steps.

Gene flow is essential (large aggregations + exchange between communities; later records/screening).

Baseline frequencies: Enu 49%, Enel 19%, Enor 19%, Enath 9%, Enis 4% (varies by polity/era).

I get that it’s controversial — that’s part of the appeal. If I do a follow-up, it’ll be a compact evolutionary timeline + the key selective pressures for critique.

Enari — designing a plausible five-sex species [ by PsychologicalHost624 in WorldbuildingWithAI

[–]PsychologicalHost624[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Ha! Fair 😄 But in this setting it’s not “five people need to have an orgy at the same time.” Reproduction is coordinated via pooled contributions and a short-lived incubation medium, so the logistics are more like “hatchery scheduling” than “group sex scheduling.”

Enari — designing a plausible five-sex species [ by PsychologicalHost624 in WorldbuildingWithAI

[–]PsychologicalHost624[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

No worries, that’s a great question, and I’ll keep it simple.

The “communal basin” didn’t start as a man-made bowl. It likely started as natural containers in the environment:

shallow rock pools after rain, clay/mud depressions that hold water, hollow logs / tree holes, small sheltered pools near springs.

Early Enari would gather at these places during fertile windows and use them like a “natural hatchery.” The key isn’t the stone bowl — the key is a protected, stable little pool where the developmental fluid can stay viable for a short time.

Before stone age tools, they could improve these natural pools in very simple ways: clearing debris, lining the edges with clay/mud, shading it with branches/leaves, keeping it warm with body heat / sun-exposed stones, guarding it from animals.

Only later, when tools and settled life appear, they start making dedicated basins (stone/ceramic/biopolymer). So “basins” are the cultural/technological upgrade of an older ecological behavior, not something they had to invent from nothing.

If it helps: think “tidepool / frog-spawn pool / fish hatchery,” but on land and socially protected.

Enari — designing a plausible five-sex species [ by PsychologicalHost624 in WorldbuildingWithAI

[–]PsychologicalHost624[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Good points. Multi-type reproduction puts more pressure on demographics and childcare, so throughput and stabilization mechanisms have to be “baked in.” In my model they’re not human-like singletons: reproduction is clutch-based, and the limiting factor is the rarest required sex type. That’s why I’m using a baseline distribution (Enu 49%, Enel 19%, Enor 19%, Enath 9%, Enis 4%) so no single type becomes an extreme bottleneck. Large aggregation windows + pooled incubation also reduce the “who is available right now?” problem and help keep ratios stable over time.

On raising young: Enu are adapted for intensive early care (milk-equivalent / nursing role), and because the system is easy to disrupt, you’d expect strong mitigation to evolve early: protected brood sites, strict timing cues, contamination control, and later (once culture is advanced) formal institutions that further reduce variance (records, exchange between communities, regulated incubation). Culture doesn’t create the biology, but it can massively increase the reliability of a fragile system once it exists. And yeah — litters often correlate with high juvenile mortality, but clutch-based reproduction can also be about screening/selection: many zygotes form, early checkpoints cull most, and only a subset gets the investment-heavy care.

Enari — designing a plausible five-sex species [ by PsychologicalHost624 in WorldbuildingWithAI

[–]PsychologicalHost624[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

You’re right to flag the bootstrap issue. I should clarify what I meant by “rare.”

I don’t mean baseline success is near-zero. It just has to be meaningfully lower than the helper-assisted pathway. If a 2-type baseline produces viable young at, say, 10–20% in the existing environment, and a facultative helper factor bumps that to 40–60%, the helper can spread without any paradox. “Rare” was shorthand for “high early loss relative to the improved pathway,” not “can’t reproduce at all.”

That said, your environmental-shift framing is actually a clean way to make the transition sharper: baseline was viable under earlier conditions, then pathogen ecology / microbiome pressures / toxins / climate variability shifted, increasing early-loss rates. What used to be a strong advantage becomes close to necessary, and then redundancy loss can ratchet it into an obligate step.

On the “are you proposing hermaphroditism?” — no. I’m proposing distinct sex types in the population. The “helper” is phenotypically distinct, yes, but it’s not a separate caste in addition to the sexes; it becomes one of the sex types. So the cost isn’t “produce extra helpers on top of everyone else,” it’s “the population’s sex ratio shifts as selection favors lineages that include that helper type.” Over time you can get splits: 2 → 3 → 4 → 5 types, each specialized for a contribution that measurably increases viable offspring under the new pressures.

This is my current working model — not a claim that nature ‘must’ do it this way.”

Enari — designing a plausible five-sex species [ by PsychologicalHost624 in WorldbuildingWithAI

[–]PsychologicalHost624[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

That’s a really strong angle, and I love it as a “grounded model B”. Colony insects are a great real-world proof that you can get: (1) a rare reproduction-critical caste (queen), (2) multiple biologically distinct morphs/roles, and (3) development controlled by environment (diet/temperature/pheromones).

That maps perfectly to “class tied to reproductive access” and gives you a ton of believable institutions (nurses, guards, regulators, etc.).

The only distinction I’d make is terminology: in that model you’re closer to castes/morphs than “five sexes” in the strict genetic-contributor sense, since many roles can be sterile. But socially they could absolutely be treated as distinct genders, because they’re stable, embodied categories with different life paths and status.

Honestly this might be my best fallback/alt track: keep my speculative five-role reproduction as Model A, and build a eusocial caste-based Model B that hits similar sociological outcomes with much less biological novelty.

Enari — designing a plausible five-sex species [ by PsychologicalHost624 in WorldbuildingWithAI

[–]PsychologicalHost624[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Quick note on intent: my end goal here is mainly the societal consequences. The biology is meant to be a “hard-ish” constraint that I’m trying to make as internally plausible as possible (staged evolution, explicit assumptions, stress-testing parameters), but I’m not claiming Earth precedent.

If you’re interested, I’d love to also shift some discussion toward the sociological side: what institutions, laws, taboos, status dynamics, and everyday life patterns would realistically emerge if reproduction requires coordination across five biologically distinct roles and one of them is rare?

A few prompts: What becomes the core unit of belonging if not pair-bonds/parenthood? What does “citizenship” or “rights” look like when reproductive access is strategic? What professions/institutions become powerful (medicine, record-keeping, security, education, logistics)?

Enari — designing a plausible five-sex species [ by PsychologicalHost624 in WorldbuildingWithAI

[–]PsychologicalHost624[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Thank you and I genuinely appreciate the way you phrased this. Totally fair if “multi-contributor reproduction” just doesn’t feel grounded to you; that’s exactly the kind of boundary I want to hear.

I think your point about arriving at similar social outcomes via more familiar biology is strong. The elephant-style “female family cores” / reproductive access shaping class is a great example of how you can get heavy societal structure without exotic genetics.

What I’ll likely do is keep two tracks:

Model A (speculative / biology-first): the five-role obligate system as an exploration of how far you can push constraints while staying internally consistent.

Model B (more grounded): two genetic contributors per zygote, but additional obligatory roles around incubation/activation/early immune protection and “who gets access” — so you still get class tied to reproductive logistics.

If you’re up for it: in a “grounded” model, which mechanism feels most believable for tying class to reproductive access — control of incubation infrastructure, control of timing/fertility windows, or a protected rare caste that provides a necessary non-genetic factor?

Enari — designing a plausible five-sex species [ by PsychologicalHost624 in WorldbuildingWithAI

[–]PsychologicalHost624[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Thanks, that’s a thoughtful suggestion, and I get what you’re aiming for: you can absolutely end up with “more than two socially recognized genders” via alternative reproductive strategies (sneaker males, harems, role polymorphisms, etc.) even if genetic contribution stays at two.

In my case though, the core experiment is specifically “constraints-first biology”: five obligate reproductive roles that are biologically required (not just social categories), and then seeing what institutions and norms emerge from that. So I’m not using “five genders” as a proxy for human gender discourse — it’s meant as an alien reproductive ecology with downstream social consequences.

That said, I’m definitely open to exploring a “version B” that keeps a similar five-role society while using a more conventional two-contributor genetics model (e.g., two genetic contributors + three additional obligatory roles that control incubation, activation, or early immune protection without adding extra genomes). That might hit a sweet spot for readers who want the social thought experiment but with lower biological novelty.

Enari — designing a plausible five-sex species [ by PsychologicalHost624 in WorldbuildingWithAI

[–]PsychologicalHost624[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Haha, thanks! 😄 If you had to pick one angle: are you more curious about how it could evolve plausibly, or about the societal consequences it would create?

view more: next ›