FA+
Shop
573
Views
Views
67
Favorites
Favorites
Category
3D Models / General Furry Art
Species Unspecified / Any
Size 2080 x 1560
File Size 1.32 MB
Report this content
More from WanderingBearcat
Since I watched Zootopia 2, I have been thinking about how a furry setting with size differences similar to real life animals would handle different species having different needs—here in particular, how much different species need to eat per day—and how a society might evolve to make things more fair for everyone. It's not a perfect system, and there are criticisms to be made, but it's what I came up with because I think it's in the best interest of society to at least try to make things more fair. I want to be optimistic about humanity (or the furry equivalent), so I want the worlds I create for my furry art to reflect that. [2026/01/22]
Category 3D Models / General Furry Art
Species Unspecified / Any
Size 2080 x 1560px
File Size 1.32 MB
What exactly is a polar bear's fair share of what an otter has earned? Seems like a great way to foment resentment among the otters.
By giving him something he has not earned, perhaps all you have helped him become is a target. Seeing another elevated often brings the eyes of others who suffer. And perhaps in the end, all you have wrought is more pain. Be careful of charity and kindness lest you do more harm with open hands than a closed fist.
By giving him something he has not earned, perhaps all you have helped him become is a target. Seeing another elevated often brings the eyes of others who suffer. And perhaps in the end, all you have wrought is more pain. Be careful of charity and kindness lest you do more harm with open hands than a closed fist.
While it's true that the bear didn't choose to be born with greater caloric needs, it's also true that the otters did not choose to be born with lesser needs. There's no fairness in one's labor being expropriated for the crime of existing. This notion just substitutes one unfairness for another, arguably a worse one because the old unfairness was a result of an indifferent cosmos and the new one a deliberate act of political power.
Never forget that all political power grows from the barrel of a gun.
Never forget that all political power grows from the barrel of a gun.
My thought is that it's not simply liberal thought.
Initially labor was of greatest import. Bigger mammals could work more and thus EARN more, putting them at the top of social hierarchies. Might made right and smaller animals fled or worked around the bigger. This is where we get the idea of lions as leaders. But then brainpower became increasingly important; a mouse can write the same book as an elephant, but on a 100th the budget. And there are more mice. From trade to the arts, smaller mammals would outcompete larger at every turn in cost and numbers, locking them into physical occupations. Leaving them lower class, poorly educated and barred from development. The old order flipped on its head, with much complaint, but things stayed stable, for a time.
Then came machines, built by small mammals to remove their reliance on larger ones. The value of sheer strength plummeted, devaluing what little larger animals had left. This was the last straw and led to Luddite movements in protest. Except, these weren't regular people smashing up machines, but the biggest and strongest in a society. They could knock factories DOWN, trample entire neighborhoods. And there was nothing those in power could do to stop it. Left to be brutish, having no weapon but their size and strength, it was only a matter of time before large animals restored the old order by force. If society would give them nothing, they would take everything.
So a compromise was reached. A rise in wages here, a tax on smaller animals there.Something to make everyone, if not equal, than more even. Now an elephant OR a mouse could be a tax attorney for comparable wages so companies would hire both. The formerly lower classes diversified, its members spreading through society, and the riots stopped. Today the mouse on the street fumes at his 90% tax bracket and politicians toss around slogans about 'a fairer system for all', but nothing truly changes. Let the rodents be angry, their rage can be handled. But everyone in power is told the stories of the old days, when society almost toppled. The elephants at least must be kept happy.
Initially labor was of greatest import. Bigger mammals could work more and thus EARN more, putting them at the top of social hierarchies. Might made right and smaller animals fled or worked around the bigger. This is where we get the idea of lions as leaders. But then brainpower became increasingly important; a mouse can write the same book as an elephant, but on a 100th the budget. And there are more mice. From trade to the arts, smaller mammals would outcompete larger at every turn in cost and numbers, locking them into physical occupations. Leaving them lower class, poorly educated and barred from development. The old order flipped on its head, with much complaint, but things stayed stable, for a time.
Then came machines, built by small mammals to remove their reliance on larger ones. The value of sheer strength plummeted, devaluing what little larger animals had left. This was the last straw and led to Luddite movements in protest. Except, these weren't regular people smashing up machines, but the biggest and strongest in a society. They could knock factories DOWN, trample entire neighborhoods. And there was nothing those in power could do to stop it. Left to be brutish, having no weapon but their size and strength, it was only a matter of time before large animals restored the old order by force. If society would give them nothing, they would take everything.
So a compromise was reached. A rise in wages here, a tax on smaller animals there.Something to make everyone, if not equal, than more even. Now an elephant OR a mouse could be a tax attorney for comparable wages so companies would hire both. The formerly lower classes diversified, its members spreading through society, and the riots stopped. Today the mouse on the street fumes at his 90% tax bracket and politicians toss around slogans about 'a fairer system for all', but nothing truly changes. Let the rodents be angry, their rage can be handled. But everyone in power is told the stories of the old days, when society almost toppled. The elephants at least must be kept happy.
There's a cold arithmetic to such a conflict. If the proportional tax rate on mice is, say 50% than any casualty rate less than this to abolish the tax would in effect return to the survivors the fruits of their labor exceeding that of the casualties. If you think of every hour of labor spent that is expropriated as a lost hour equivalent to a lost hour of life due to death, then the tax rate tells you exactly what the acceptable losses are.
Of course this leaves the other side's casualties out entirely, but I doubt any such movement would include them. Certainly there are few in Ukraine who consider dead invaders as weighing against the virtue of their resistance.
On top of this is any moral value given to resistance regardless of the outcome. Throughout history people have fought to the last man woman and child knowing full well that there's nothing to be gained except to spite their killers. What value does the mouse population put on the moral principle that no one is entitled to the labor of another? If it's high enough they may consider being wiped out entirely a price worth paying.
Of course this leaves the other side's casualties out entirely, but I doubt any such movement would include them. Certainly there are few in Ukraine who consider dead invaders as weighing against the virtue of their resistance.
On top of this is any moral value given to resistance regardless of the outcome. Throughout history people have fought to the last man woman and child knowing full well that there's nothing to be gained except to spite their killers. What value does the mouse population put on the moral principle that no one is entitled to the labor of another? If it's high enough they may consider being wiped out entirely a price worth paying.
True, true. Assuming of course that after the revolution the initial goal becomes reality. History has shown that this seldom happens. A revolution is usually won by leaders content for many to die for their ideals. When the enemy is vanquished they tend to be equally content for many 'new enemies' to also perish. And slowly but surely this comes to include anyone who doesn't directly benefit the leader. It is a tragedy that many fight only to see their children slave under the same system, with a new name.
Of course, there are always questions. Many people lack conviction. You find no shortage of those preaching rights or duties, but so few willing to get up out of their chair to actually fight for it. Perhaps an even bigger tragedy than the perverted revolution is a population of peaceful individuals dragged into a conflict they want no part of, dying for a cause they don't support. How does that change the balance, if your victory is atop the bodies of the unwilling? Perhaps it only tips things in your favor. The pacifists were not in your cause, so losing them is not losing one of yours. A cold logic in itself, to spark a conflict and step back, to assume power when the fires die down.
Of course, there are always questions. Many people lack conviction. You find no shortage of those preaching rights or duties, but so few willing to get up out of their chair to actually fight for it. Perhaps an even bigger tragedy than the perverted revolution is a population of peaceful individuals dragged into a conflict they want no part of, dying for a cause they don't support. How does that change the balance, if your victory is atop the bodies of the unwilling? Perhaps it only tips things in your favor. The pacifists were not in your cause, so losing them is not losing one of yours. A cold logic in itself, to spark a conflict and step back, to assume power when the fires die down.
I think you've seized here on exactly why there are so many ideological/revolutionary movements that smolder at the level of relatively small scale conflict without any end in sight.
I'm not one to romanticize the type of conflict I've been predicting here. The plucky rebels actually overthrowing the evil empire is largely a myth and the track record even in such cases of building something actually any better is grim. But that's all the more reason to be very careful when wading into the realm of inter-demographic conflict with the heavy hand of state violence.
No matter how bad things are, there's some stupid son of a bitch in a suit and tie with a brilliant idea that will make it all a lot worse.
I'm not one to romanticize the type of conflict I've been predicting here. The plucky rebels actually overthrowing the evil empire is largely a myth and the track record even in such cases of building something actually any better is grim. But that's all the more reason to be very careful when wading into the realm of inter-demographic conflict with the heavy hand of state violence.
No matter how bad things are, there's some stupid son of a bitch in a suit and tie with a brilliant idea that will make it all a lot worse.
It's a very fascinating and complex topic, and there's no single right or easy way to make everyone useful. Technological advancements render some natural characteristics useless, and even if they study to become technicians, that doesn't guarantee them a position, since a small animal could easily be better at that.
The best solution I see is for each species to work only for its own kind or only with species of similar size, as that wouldn't significantly affect those aspects. However, there would always be conflict if species of different sizes coexist; it's not easy.
The best solution I see is for each species to work only for its own kind or only with species of similar size, as that wouldn't significantly affect those aspects. However, there would always be conflict if species of different sizes coexist; it's not easy.
Comments