You would then need to have 15 sexes, one for each type, all acting in the mating.
15 sexes? Types? Lol, I have no idea how you jumped to that conclusion. Imagine the design for a tree's root took up the equivalent of 15Mb of memory. Would you rather invest in 15 15Mb cores (1 in each seedling), or 15 1Mb cores (1 in each seedling), and then simply select the correct 15 seedlings at planting time? That's distributed intelligence (or in this case, information).
Hey, it's my own theory, right? I personally don't think that it is complicated enough yet.
Heheh, to each his own
I said "chitin-like material" not "chitin". It is similar in shape and function, not in composition. These don't even need to be carbon-based life-forms (though I imagine that it would be the best).
You can't have carbon-based lifeforms in a carbon-void environment. I know, we take it for granted here on Earth, but we're dealing with ferrous/silicate asteroids here.
Now, I wish to revise my theory further (got some better ideas). Sadly I cannot stay with the game "lore" any longer, since I really can't find a realistic reason to why fifteen seedlings would be needed.
Because if the seedlings were composed, at their core, of nanobots (or micromachines), they could be reconfigured at planting time into a root generator, cannibalizing themselves as they go. And it would most likely take the mass of 15 seedlings to start the process.
I might give you some pictures of the other sexes later.
No pr0n D:
I still can't quite grasp why Dyson seedlings have
to be living organisms. Living organisms require inordinate amounts of energy, are prone to decay, genetic degradation, chemical/hormonal imbalances, even disease. And if you're trying to oxygenate (or even mine) an asteroid belt, the last thing you'd want is for your tools to go completely haywire in 3 generations.
If you think that objectives end there, you are mistaken. To survive and gain control over surroundings is more accurate summary of objectives. The objective of a dyson tree is to gain control over asteroids. Because other trees have the same objectives there is also objective to neutralize other dyson trees. Conflict of interest.
Ants don't actively seek to spread and cover more terrain - if they did, they'd be a bigger problem than what they currently are. And yes, of course there's conflict - conflict between different races/clans/tribes/owners, not internal conflict between seedlings/trees of the same kin.
And the only reason there'd be conflict between different tribes of the same seedlings would be defined in a game plot device, not as a function of their design and purpose. Just as the divides in human culture are defined by religious beliefs and geography.
There is lots and lots of competition inside species which makes it stronger as a whole.
Based on what evidence? The human race has been competing with itself for the last 3'000 years - and look what its done to us, our moralities, beliefs, relationships, and even the planet itself. Gaza, Rwanda, WWII, anyone? Have we become a stronger race for it? I don't think so. And no, building bigger bombs doesn't make you stronger, it just makes you more liable to do something really stupid.
I know you're invoking natural selection here - the idea that the strong survive by getting rid of the weak. What evolutionists fail to realise is that even the "weak" species play fundamental roles. Earthworms, for instance, aren't particularly strong, and would lose in just about any fight - but without them, our soils wouldn't be nearly as fertile as what they are.
Just remember that the purpose of the theory of natural selection was to explain how the current species spread came to be. In Dyson, we already know exactly how the species is to behave, the environment it will act in, how it will need to respond to stimuli, and how it will reproduce and spread. Introducing further competiton at this point is insanity - all it will do is promote counter-productive individualism, which (as I'm sure you've learned when you need 400+ seedlings to take an asteroid) will severely hamper your efforts.
edit: Also don't listen to Wogan who thinks that he knows components of asteroids The word "asteroid" here is used to describe the round things on which trees live, they could very well be in alternative universe whith different minerals than our own.
Still with the alternate-universe thing? I honestly can't see why it has to be that way - we have plenty of asteroids in our own universe already. Just because they're represented with circles in the game doesn't mean that they're circles in real life
Plus, it was a scientist in this
universe that proposed the idea, and an author in this
universe who proposed the technology.