I know it's cliche, I know it's probably a bad idea, but best case scenario, I write it well and then it stabilizes on the list. Worst case scenario, it gets deleted to no-one's surprise and I work on something else, with the knoledge that I gained from a failed attempt. But this is not the thread for criticism, I'm only asking for help with the science.
What problems, cellularly, mentally, or biologically, would you face if your body was indestructible?
EDIT: immediately to me, being no authority on the subject, is the skin cells, being replaced, don't fall off or something like that.
I don't know about the others, but for mental, there is SCP-275. SCP-275, the Ironskin Woman, is a good example for what happens to you mentally.
What about a homicidal maniac who uses said invulnerability to go on a rampage?
Also, what about his subconscious knowing about this ability, and doesn't hold him back like your body usually would when you're about to hit something? Like how those martial artists break bricks using only their fists.
Well, we have SCP-1504, tootin' my own horn here. He forces a site to blow up and we don't know if he's dead or alive. He probably survived the explosion, but we don't know. Why did 1504 do this? He was angry, he wanted to die. He was done with living. From my own opinion, an invulnerable person, after a length of time, would want to feel pain, so they would do everything in their ability to feel that pain. It would not be subconscious.
I know people on this site have psych degrees on this website, and I call on thee.
Can a man with the above mentioned problem cope with it by being psychotic and enjoying killing things and such?
Well to start there is a lot wrong with the question you're asking.
You don't just… be psychotic, it's not a conscious decision of "well I guess I'll develop psychopathy today."
Also, psychopathy is not a clearly defined psychological term, or at least it is not an official designation in the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM.) The closest there would be Antisocial Personality Disorder, which is marked by…
A. There is a pervasive pattern of disregard for and violation of the rights of others occurring since age 15, as indicated by three (or more) of the following:
1. Failure to conform to social norms with respect to lawful behaviors as indicated by repeatedly performing acts that are grounds for arrest.
2. Deceitfulness, as indicated by repeated lying, use of aliases, or conning others for personal profit or pleasure.
3. Impulsivity or failure to plan ahead.
4. Irritability and aggressiveness, as indicated by repeated physical fights or assaults.
5. Reckless disregard for safety of self or others.
6. Consistent irresponsibility, as indicated by repeated failure to sustain consistent work behavior or honor financial obligations.
7. Lack of remorse, as indicated by being indifferent or rationalizing having hurt, mistreated, or stolen from another.
B. The individual is at least age 18 years of age.
C. There is evidence of Conduct Disorder with onset before age 15.
D. The occurrence of antisocial behavior is not exclusively during the course of Schizophrenia or a manic episode.
In a nutshell, people diagnosed with antisocial personality disorder are indeed antisocial (which is not the same thing as asocial, which is what people who dislike social situations are) and work only for themselves, do things that only directly benefit themselves, so on and so forth.
So to go back to your actual question, could someone who was invulnerable cope with it by being psychotic and enjoying killing things, it wouldn't so much be coping with it as already being in a state that would inhibit their ability to care about it. Would someone with ASPD be more likely to exploit their condition to kill people? Possibly, but unless doing so was a direct benefit to them there's also the chance that they wouldn't change the way they interact with others at all. Then again there's not really a case-study of an invulnerable/immortal person who also had ASPD, soooo…
I think what you've got in your mind is a more movie-like psychopath, who has a clear-cut motivation of "killing is fun, woo-hoo!" While there have been cases of mentally disturbed individuals who derived pleasure from killing, it is not the norm.
I hope I've suitably answered your question.
Well if you are talking indestructible as in nothing in your body could decay, decompose, die, or anything similar to that, then you would likely become a gigantic mass of tumors in a pretty short period of time, seeing as your cells would be dividing normally but none would be dying off.
But what if your cells didn't need to die off, or are indestructible unless they need to not be?
Does that (comparably) make sense?
Then you're making it invulnerability in every way except ways that would be detrimental, which is a super power, which is fairly boring.
Do you think A literary workaround would work?
What specific cells Need to die off?
And what If no new cells are being created because none are needed?
I will make note of these
There was a character in the "Alvin Maker" books by Orson Scott Card who had a powerful protection spell put on him as a baby, basically he could not be injured. He grew up as an utter asshole and bully, because he just had no frame of reference to undestand what it meant when he hurt people. He never had a chance to develop normal empathy. There was a similar character in Naruto, protected by sand magic from birth so he just could not understand what pain/death meant to everyone else.
Physically, if every part is indestructible you would have some major challenges with hair and nails eventually. If there was no cell death starting at conception, you would get some truly funky birth defect. The only reason we have fingers for example, is that the cells in-between died as they should have during gestation. Check out Thalidomide for an idea of what could happen.
Wow, that's exactly what I meant in mental issues. Thanks. But eventually, if he decides he likes Killing things, can he eventually realize, but not care?
That's kind of what happened in Naruto, and I think I've seen it elsewhere as well. The character becomes sadistic because they are fascinated by this mysterious thing (pain/death) everyone else gets to "enjoy" but they can never have. They start to maim and kill because it is the only way to even get close to the experience.
This is the EXACT thing I want this character's mindset to be.
The mindset that I link to a guy with a wide grin on half of his mouth, and showing one pointed tooth among the rest.
I know it's not what you're after here, but I feel like I need to toss out a caution flag.
This is a fairly well-worn trope, it is going to be quite challenging to put a fresh spin on it. Not impossible, by any means, but it will be a hurdle to keep in mind as you write.
I'm going into it fully aware of this fact. I also have a question, that if he's indestructable, can he still be "hurt" by being pelleted by bullets? Is there any way that I could right this that he is able to be subdued? like can he still be KOed by concussion?
Blunt force hurts because of the tissue damage it causes, microscopic tears in muscle fibers that were stretched a bit too far too fast. Concussion is just when that happens to brain tissue. Without cell damage, the most extreme physical sensation possible is pressure.
It's possible, depending on how you frame the mechanics, that he would be susceptible to the "pain" of electricity, extreme heat, and extreme cold. All three sensations come from nerve stimulation and don't necessarily have to involve actual injury. He could also be made dizzy and/or seasick for whatever that might accomplish, as that is inherent in our balance mechanisms and would not call for any damage.
So maybe in the Containment the gaurds have tasers… No wait, the barbs wouldn't pierce, so maybe… Cattle prod launchers? Does anything exist that remotely resembles this?
I don't think that electricity at range would be effective without the ability to penetrate, it's a matter of ensuring a solid contact point.
But why not just give the gaurds regular cattle prods? I don't think they need to break the skin to work.
I call bullshit on this. Do deaf people go crazy and start forcing people to listen to music? Do people who can't taste force feed people to live vicariously through the taste buds of others? I don't see why not being able to feel pain or death would result in anything different. It feels cheap to me, like the author didn't actually think out the ramifications of their character's abilities.
No, but if he was mentally unstable (as in torturing squirrels in his backyard{yet another Orson Scott Card reference}) from the getgo… Well, the reason and origins don't matter, What matters is the mindset he's currently in having a name. It adds an immersion of sorts.
Interesting mental picture of a guy force feeding people naga bhut jolokia.
Anywho, he is indestructible, nothing more. So, if someone couldn't injure themselves in attempting stuff, what kind of feats could he accomplish?
This is assuming that his bones and muscles and the like retaining their flexibility, their max being just before the point where muscle would tear and/or bones would snap.
To a certain extent, yes, they do. Sensory impaired people quite often become fixated on what they are missing and go to some extreme lengths to try and claim a piece of the experience.
It's not uncommon for a blind person to want to "see" a landmark or piece of art, so they go visit it in person and have a companion describe it to them. This desire to experience something vicariously is so common in fact that many major museums have special arrangements available for vision impaired tour groups.
Obviously, this perfectly rational coping mechanism has been grossly exaggerated for narrative purposes. But that's arguably a basic function of fiction.
Anywho, he is indestructible, nothing more. So, if someone couldn't injure themselves in attempting stuff, what kind of feats could he accomplish?
This is assuming that his bones and muscles and the like retaining their flexibility, their max being just before the point where muscle would tear and/or bones would snap.
Well?
I'm pretty sure all fatigue that is experienced with general workouts and such is because the muscles get tiny tears in them. So if you had a guy who was unable to have his muscles teared due to invincibility, he would basically never feel fatigued ever. This means that he could work at his peak strength all the time, as his muscles would never get sore. That said, he would never grow stronger either because they wouldn't do the tearing&replacing that makes muscles bigger.
So this is where you think of how far he went before this effect starts really getting started. If he was invincible from birth, and didn't get any mutations as a result, he would be perpetually stuck in a young boy's body because old cells wouldn't tear and replace themselves to make him grow, and if new ones simply grew over top of the old ones he would eventually be one big walking tumor.
You're pretty much screwed on all fronts with a strictly invincible man. If I had to do this, I'd make him more like a snake; I'd have him grow a new set of invincible cells underneath the old layer, then have the old layer essentially fall off. That's the only way I could see this working physically. That way he could grow as well, though it would have to be way slower than normal.
Uh. Dude. I'm pretty sure the fatigued feeling can be from the fact that lactic acid builds up in muscles. So, basically, yes he would still feel fatigued because of lactic acid buildup.
I'm also pretty unsure if physically growing works like that because as far as I understand that he would probably still have cell replacement, just his bones aren't going to snap. I'm pretty sure that most people don't grow by having their bones break.
Living the dream, or dreaming the life?
You're right about the fatigue, that was a mistake on my part.
In terms of muscles growing, they grow by splitting the muscle fibers via stress together with increased hormones release (caused by the stress) and increased flow of nutrients into the muscle. So if one were unable to put stress on the muscles then it would make sense that they wouldn't be able to expand their muscle mass.
And as for what I was getting at with him growing; if he's invincible and unable to lose cells by having them physically removed (cut off and such) or destroyed, then it makes sense that they also wouldn't fall off naturally or break down by themselves. Meaning they would either pile on top of one another and never die until he was a big mutated tumor, or they wouldn't ever replace themselves which would mean that he wouldn't be able to grow past his present form. I shouldn't have put the "tear" in "tear and replace themselves".
I suppose the cells could die on their own and be replaced naturally, but if the cells can die than they could be killed off, meaning that they wouldn't be invincible. Those were just my thoughts on the whole thing.