In this context related in terms of my last question.

I've seen this lots of times in fiction and TV shows where sub-species, such as Marvel's Mutants and Inhumans or anything considered 'super' or enhanced' are treated with extreme prejudiced and abuse by the humans for simply what they are.

A portion humans are accepting, yes, but most often than not a bigger number humans with guns or weapons try to kill a major the sub-species under the excuse of 'protecting' themselves/families or even land.

For me, I have a sub-species on a the threat of genocide by a good xenophobic portion of humans so to solve that, the population (9,000) escape to a new world and start over there away from the threat of humans.

Would the humans be consumed with their emotions to try and hunt them down to that other world? if they believe there is a continues threat if they're even able to get that far

Would the whole leaving to there just delay their fate? I know there's always gonna be haters, that much is prominent in human behaviour. Negative emotions can motivate them since

Humans generally are the same, no matter the world or time period. What I'm asking about is general understanding of the psychological and social aspect of a powered sub-species impacts the world and the human population that are the most dominant species on the planet.

Also, even with the xenophobic aside, the presence of powered people will alter social iterations between people and families. Though how would a society function with paranoia of enhanced among them and how quickly would it get toxic in general if the enhanced gets exposed?

  • $\begingroup$ You are asking us to describe the motives and actions of the people from your story. We are more into world building and less into story-writing. $\endgroup$ Jan 11, 2019 at 14:50
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ This one is really too story based. It's up to you to decide how obsessed the humans are and why. Also, the phrase "you can't run away from your problems" is about ignoring emotional pain or practical day-to-day stuff you are obligated to deal with. It's not about leaving life-threatening situations. $\endgroup$
    – Cyn
    Jan 11, 2019 at 15:02
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ I don't think it's story based. In my opinion, the core question here is "is hate a sufficient reason to pursue genocide of a long distant population of superhumans", and that can more or less be answered. $\endgroup$
    – Liquid
    Jan 11, 2019 at 15:08
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ Whole lot of unrealistic lazy-writing tropes buried in that question. $\endgroup$
    – user535733
    Jan 11, 2019 at 15:32
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ Not opinion based. Just like Biology, Astrophysics, and Geology can be used to model planets that don't exist. Psychology, Sociology, and Historical references can all be used to model the societies on such planets. $\endgroup$
    – Nosajimiki
    Jan 11, 2019 at 15:58

2 Answers 2


It largely depends on what basis your human society "works" on.

In this context related in terms of my last question. I've seen this lots of times in fiction and TV shows where sub-species, such as Marvel's Mutants and Inhumans or anything considered 'super' or enhanced' are treated with extreme prejudiced and abuse by the humans for simply what they are.

Yes, but in most of those settings the humans feel threatened because the inhumans coexist. When two species (take for examples ordinary humans and Marvel's XMen) live in the same space, some tensions will inevitably happen.

They could be even trivial accidents, mind you - such like "mutant cab driver crashes in public park". But those sorts of thing can be used to fuel racism and xenophobia on the long run. The existence of superpowers, hostile superhumans or inhumans (like many villains tipically are) and the moral questions posed by super-vigilantes are enough to scare off a society.

So, those medias have a pretty good grasp of how to represent the rise of xenophobic policies in a country. But they are believeable only as far as the threat is perceived as real by the general public. If there is no threat, there is no claim for those policies in the first place.

So, regarding your question(s):

Would the humans be so consumed with their emotions to try and hunt them down to that other world? Would the whole going there just delay their fate?


Hate is one thing, but it's not enough as a motivation to pursue your refugees to the new world. When you say "genocide" and "hunt" I think you are referring to a large scale operation, where some sort of government agencies are involved (the army, the inquisition ?, the hunt-down-mutants corp). We're not talking about rag-tag bands of mutant haters, acting on their whim.

For a government to move, there must be a reason; and a pretty good one too since no matter how you put it, but pursuing those people will be somewhat costly. A bit of the effort would be repayed in form of consent from the mutants-hating portion of your population, but it's a shaky gamble.

Consider how war are justified. There are often "ethical" reasons on the surface, but they are almost always supported by more practical reasons (economic, political, strategic). In other words, the justification is not the root cause. Ask yourself: would there be other reasons for your government to persecute those mutants, after they escape?

As you are considering this,

or would the rift between worlds be good enough to halt the humans from crossing over?

consider that depending on how your rift is made and how difficult is to cross it, the government estimate of cost/benefit will change.

  • $\begingroup$ the sub-species was originally made (illegally) by a government agency to be viable agents or careers alongside their human agents but when the agency fell and truth was exposed and the species fled into the human world to hide; the whole ethical issue exposed to the public, their powers are classed as a 'defect' for what they are with a starting history of causing havoc (unintentionally for new power users). That's generally the government's motivation... $\endgroup$
    – SKKennell
    Jan 11, 2019 at 15:14
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ @SKKennell If the whole story is already exposed to the general public, the government can't hope to cover it up by mass extermination (and arguably this can't be called a "emotional" reason, rather a dark-political one). Again, the general public may resent the inhumans for the havoc, but it would be difficult for the government to frame them for the whole thing and shrug off its responsability. Much more so if a genocidal expedition has to be funded and justified. $\endgroup$
    – Liquid
    Jan 11, 2019 at 15:22
  • $\begingroup$ I see where you're coming from. The agency itself wouldn't have informed their other government parties of their illegal creations but the agency would have papers on the powers as highly dangerous given it's unpredictable manifestations. the government itself wouldn't be the exterminators, they'd just looking to round them up bc of that documentation/incidents. Other countries governments could cover things up to claim they never got to said county. They don't a high number to start with and targets attacks, more advanced groups or more, could eaisly compromise the numbers to extincti $\endgroup$
    – SKKennell
    Jan 11, 2019 at 15:32

In most cases, the rift would be enough at first, but would not be a permanent solution. As you point out, the root cause of xenophobic violence comes from feelings of one's own territory feeling violated. Take that away and all that would be left are a small handful of extremists who likely could not muster the support for a government sponsored war.

The most likely outcomes are:

  1. With only 9000 survivors, a genocide may not require government sponsorship. A rogue fanatical captain with a single warship and a few hundred loyal followers might be all it would take to wipe them out. While this could happen, historical cases of military factions defying orders by attacking someone are VERY rare. When military insubordination happens, it's almost always about refusing to fight, not choosing to fight who you are told not to. That said, I can think of two times in history when this kind of behavior was somewhat common:the Roman Age of Generals and the Age of Piracy. In both cases, it was during times when strong military forces were privately owned. If in your universe, your space navy is mostly an amalgamation of privately owned mercenary fleets, then a single business owner with a personal grudge might issue such a mission without government sponsorship.

  2. As Human territory expands, eventually this world will fall inside of what the rest of mankind views as theirs reigniting the territorial conflict. This would be like how certain native american tribes were continuously displaced or destroyed as US territories consolidated.

  3. As the mutant population, technology, and wealth expands, fear of reprisal triggers a pre-emptive war to cull or finish them off. Wars & massacres to suppress rising powers are not uncommon. Examples include the 2nd Punic war, Spartan slave culling, & the 2nd Gulf War. As you can see, these events are normally carried out by populations who have already won an initial conflict. If the mutants engaged in open war before being forced to run away, this outcome would be much more likely than if they were simpilly a displaced population.

If the mutant planet can avoid the above 3 scenarios for a few generations, and build up enough economic and military strength to be to hard to be worth displacing, then they could probably earn lasting peace as an officially recognized independent nation.


Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .