OOTS headcanons?

[brian 333]

Benefits include not having to praise the king.

Until someone has the hubris to cure megalomania there will always be a king, monarch, dear leader, chairman, grand poobah, or whatever who requires lip service from the peons. But it's a nice fantasy.

[Peelee]

Until someone has the hubris to cure megalomania there will always be a king, monarch, dear leader, chairman, grand poobah, or whatever who requires lip service from the peons. But it's a nice fantasy.

Diogenes sighed.

[Lord Torath]

Hey look, the only reason we don't have a mars colony is cause people in charge hate fun

And i guess because the resources that would go towards it are better spent elsewhere I guess

Also:

https://www.arcamax.com/thefunnies/n...itur/s-2778420

Back on topic (I know, right?), I completely agree with woweedd's headcannon. If Old Blind Pete was the guild's best sniper, it seems likely he'd have been called upon to snipe people the guildmaster wanted dead. Maybe he started feeling bad about some of his targets, and maybe after killing Haley's mom, he decided not to kill the next target, and ended up getting his eyes removed.

[Dasick]

Diogenes sighed.

Bah he's just a cynical old man

Until someone has the hubris to cure megalomania there will always be a king, monarch, dear leader, chairman, grand poobah, or whatever who requires lip service from the peons. But it's a nice fantasy.

Tribal structure is very egalitarian actually. Modern bushmen don't really do the chief so much as they do "respected person we trust to help us through tough situations"

Something to look forward to post ww3 :D

Also:

lmao

[Peelee]

Bah he's just a cynical old man

That's a weird way to say "brilliant".

[Fyraltari]

Yes and no.

Malthusian predictions never came true due to advances in technology, but there's no particular reason to believe these advances will continue as we are running out of the fossil fuels with drove most of the advances in the first place.

If only people were developing alternative forms of energy...

However, war and crime is basically how malthusianism manifests itself since forever.

That's just straight up wrong. War and crime aren't correlated to population density (excpet for the obvious fact that crime need people to happen, so less people mathematically means fewer crimes).

Also epidemics. All three are on a massive rise, and antibiotic resistant bacteria didn't even kick in yet.

That last one is strongly linked to the current ecological disaster.

The long peace the 1st world has enjoyed is going away and we're going back to business as usual.

If you think the first world has gone through a "long peace" you either weren't paying attention in history class or you have an odd definition of long.

If everyone could learn to live in a wine barrel, sure. Everyone wants a cheap iphone and doesn't care about child slaves digging for cobalt though. Why would people be content with what they have when we have a perfectly serviceable population of fit young people we can send off to get us some more stuff.

You serious?

Birth rates slowing down is a local minima.

Here's the United Nations' World Population Prospect for 2019, it shows that while world population is going to continue growing until at least the 22nd century, the growth rate is slowing more and more, with more than a 1/4 chance that it stabilizes or starts decreasing by 2100, at somewhere between 11 and 13 billion humans. We can provide for thirteen billion humans today. We just don't. The problem isn't overpopulation, it never was and likely never will be, the problem is overconsumption by a privileged few.

Demographically speaking this is a disaster because many developed countries are starting to see 2:1 retired to working adult proportion, and the technological advancements aren't keeping up.

Technological advancements are more than keeping up, the wealth is just being hoarded.

So we're either going to pillow the elderly or go through some more of that delicious world wide economic downturn stuff. Whee.

Or, just a thought, we could stop ****ing people over, and since we're going to have to rework our entire econmic system to account for fossil fuels running out and, you know, the ongoing ecological disaster, anyway, we might as well do so in a way that provides for everyone.

Turns out the way to sustainability is not being a prick. Who would have thunk?

The advances needed to colonize Mars will come really handy in cleaning up house, whether it's dealing with hostile environments (Brian already mentioned making deserts bloom), creating energy and resource efficient settlements, or terraforming techniques.

I think you have that backward, the technological advancements made to deal with the problems we've created that it is too late to fix may come in handy whenever we get to actually colonize another planet, in a few centuries. Which likely won't be Mars, but an inhabitable exoplanet on a distant star.

The idea that some wondertech is going to be invented that's going to fix everything and allow us to continue our ****ty behaviour without facing the consequences is wishful thinking. And a dangerous one at that. We know what the problem is. We know what the solution is and we know who is stopping the implementation of this solution. We've known for decades.

[Dasick]

If only people were developing alternative forms of energy...

How's that working out for the european nations that were using wind or whatever generating 50 or 100 percent of their energy

That's just straight up wrong. War and crime aren't correlated to population density (excpet for the obvious fact that crime need people to happen, so less people mathematically means fewer crimes).

Crime definitely is. War is... uh kind of a stretch. It relies on the idea that all wars are about economics (supposedly the encyclopedia of war says so) and obviously the more populated a piece of land is, there's a certain "carrying capacity" there, going over which is bad enough fro economics

If you think the first world has gone through a "long peace" you either weren't paying attention in history class or you have an odd definition of long.

I'm mostly going by what people think. People in the first world tend to think this whole situation is going to last forever.

You serious?

Clearly not except for learning to live in a wine barrel part.

We can provide for thirteen billion humans today. We just don't. The problem isn't overpopulation, it never was and likely never will be, the problem is overconsumption by a privileged few.

Or, just a thought, we could stop ****ing people over, and since we're going to have to rework our entire econmic system to account for fossil fuels running out and, you know, the ongoing ecological disaster, anyway, we might as well do so in a way that provides for everyone.

Turns out the way to sustainability is not being a prick. Who would have thunk?

Yeah but what are the chances of that changing before it's too late?

Technological advancements are more than keeping up, the wealth is just being hoarded.

I don't think so, but disagreeing with you on this point would be too pedantic, even for me. The important point is, it's not happening. The wealth isn't getting unhoarded or shared anytime soon. In part because enough people don't have a problem with the situation so long as they get a piece of the action

I think you have that backward, the technological advancements made to deal with the problems we've created that it is too late to fix may come in handy whenever we get to actually colonize another planet, in a few centuries. Which likely won't be Mars, but an inhabitable exoplanet on a distant star.

The idea that some wondertech is going to be invented that's going to fix everything and allow us to continue our ****ty behaviour without facing the consequences is wishful thinking. And a dangerous one at that. We know what the problem is. We know what the solution is and we know who is stopping the implementation of this solution. We've known for decades.

I think I made it clear that I don't think we're going to Mars or anywhere soon for that matter. Its not even feasible on a societal level in the sense that it needs enough popular/political drive to happen, let alone technological.

On the bright side, going back to the stoneage is going to do wonders to our environment in a couple centuries or millenia or so.

[Fyraltari]

How's that working out for the european nations that were using wind or whatever generating 50 or 100 percent of their energy

what are you talking about.

Crime definitely is.

Gonna need me a source on that one, chief.

War is... uh kind of a stretch. It relies on the idea that all wars are about economics (supposedly the encyclopedia of war says so) and obviously the more populated a piece of land is, there's a certain "carrying capacity" there, going over which is bad enough fro economics

Aye, because no-one's ever waged war over oil slicks in deserts, heh? Wars aren't caused by population growth.

I'm mostly going by what people think. People in the first world tend to think this whole situation is going to last forever.

In my experience, people are generally pretty anxious about civilzation collapsing any time soon.

Clearly not except for learning to live in a wine barrel part.

Okay, that's good, but the wine barrel (it wasn't a barrel, by the way) is quite the exaggeration.

Yeah but what are the chances of that changing before it's too late?



I don't think so, but disagreeing with you on this point would be too pedantic, even for me. The important point is, it's not happening. The wealth isn't getting unhoarded or shared anytime soon.

Not with that attitude that's for sure.

In part because enough people don't have a problem with the situation so long as they get a piece of the action

Lots of people have a problem with it, actually.
Hey, look up the news about France, that's all I'll say about the subject because dem rules.

I think I made it clear that I don't think we're going to Mars or anywhere soon for that matter. Its not even feasible on a societal level in the sense that it needs enough popular/political drive to happen, let alone technological.

Right.

On the bright side, going back to the stoneage is going to do wonders to our environment in a couple centuries or millenia or so.

That ain't happening either. Our choices right now are definitely punk. The question is: cyber- or solar-?

[brian 333]

As I recall, the Stone Age induced global warming on a massive scale. Mile-thick continental glaciers melted in just a few thousand years after humans learned to knap flint. Let's hope we don't make that mistake again.

[Tzardok]

Disregarding on wether that was manmade or a natural process, the end of the ice age is what allowed humans to build large societies. I don't think you can call that a mistake.

[brian 333]

Disregarding on wether that was manmade or a natural process, the end of the ice age is what allowed humans to build large societies. I don't think you can call that a mistake.

Diogenes would.

There was nothing 13000 years ago that prevented large societies from existing except that the technologies of the time could not support them. There was more than ample farmlands and grazing lands. People were just beginning to learn about crops and animal husbandry, so feeding large populations was a problem.

[Dasick]

Disregarding on wether that was manmade or a natural process, the end of the ice age is what allowed humans to build large societies. I don't think you can call that a mistake.

We're currently threatened by a Total Species Wipe as a result of large scale societies getting into the industrial revolution

As I recall, the Stone Age induced global warming on a massive scale. Mile-thick continental glaciers melted in just a few thousand years after humans learned to knap flint. Let's hope we don't make that mistake again.

No, no. The warming was from the previous high tech civilization that failed to reach for the stars.

what are you talking about.

There's a bit of an energy crisis going on, and the countries who were putting their eggs in the renewable energy basket dont seem to be doing better?

Gonna need me a source on that one, chief.

Crime in cities is disproportionately higher, as measured in incidents per thousand or whatever. I can pull those statistics up if it would be enough to convince you, but it's such a complex topic I don't even know where to begin on that source. Like, what's a source in this situation?

Aye, because no-one's ever waged war over oil slicks in deserts, heh? Wars aren't caused by population growth.

We wouldn't need as many oil slicks if there wasn't such a demand for it. It's actually a lot more complicated than that though.

A growing population needs more resources, and rising living standards require even more of them. Like, it's more complicated than that obviously. But it seems like wars are a lot like animals fighting over territory to me, with just a lot of pretty ornaments because people like to pretend we're more sophisticated than that. And animals fight over territory because they need the food and such.

In my experience, people are generally pretty anxious about civilzation collapsing any time soon.

90% of the time the topic comes up it goes like this:

"Hello friend, would you like to spend some time doing fun prepper hobbies, which are not only fun but will be useful too?"
"wow, you're crazy this civilization is never going to collapse! Im going to stay home and watch netflix instead"
"...but! ...but! ... hmm, ok fine be that way"

Maybe people are anxious and have a negative reaction because they're anxious tho.

Not with that attitude that's for sure.

I try to keep my sphere of concern aligned with my sphere of influence. I do what I can, which actually broadens my sphere of influence over time. I just try to keep a realistic perspective perspective. Si vis pacem para bellum

Lots of people have a problem with it, actually.
Hey, look up the news about France, that's all I'll say about the subject because dem rules.

Oh, I know. And Netherlands too. But imo, people doing the hoarding are not so easily persuaded.

That ain't happening either. Our choices right now are definitely punk. The question is: cyber- or solar-?

I dont think solarpunk is on the table at all.

And I don't think our problems are projected to be resolved enough for cyberpunk to persist. Like, we need even more energy for that, or more efficient use of energy, and neither is really happening. Nuclear fission would be a game changer but it's been 15 years away since the 50s. And there's too much NIMBYing to get good ol plain nuclear off the ground.

[brian 333]

Nuclear fission would be a game changer but it's been 15 years away since the 50s. And there's too much NIMBYing to get good ol plain nuclear off the ground.

Heinlein had an idea to put obsolete nuclear vessels in ports, and if they started to have issues, tow them out to the 600 ft deep line and scuttle them. The rest of the time they pump electricity into the grid.

Not long ago there was a group going around about Salt reactors that cannot explode because the fission does not occur in pressurized water, but inside molten salts, (lava.) The beauty of this system is that if its core has to be dumped, it goes into huge ice-cube trays and when it cools it is already divided into portable bricks. It can also use otherwise toxic radioactives because it cannot be made into a breeder reactor that makes even more toxic radioactives. All of its reactions are downhill. It starts with Thorium and ends up in the low radiation, long half-life forms of Uranium, (which can be left in the fuel,) or otherwise inert metals. Lots of naysayers, some whom have valid safety concerns, but most of whom just say "Radiation! Aieeeee!"

Fusion, if nothing else, has the drawback of adding massive amounts of heat to the environment.

Mars is incredibly colonizable. You don't have to terraform: tents will do. You make plastic from corn, blow a balloon, fill it with a bunch of algae tanks and pump Mars air through it. Then when your tank is packed, you dump the algae outside your tent and start over. When you have a high enough percentage of oxygen in the tent you plant more corn and make bigger tents. While you're waiting for the corn to grow, you wash salts out of Mars dirt and begin to grow living soil.

Not easy. Technical challenges all over the place, but at every step you are learning things you'll never learn on Earth. Luna is a bad choice for Earth life because it has a two-week long night. And massive daytime radiation. You're stuck living underground on the Moon. On Mars you get an extra half hour every day, and with properly coated layers of tent material one can walk around outdoors, naked if your tent is far enough from your neighbor's.

[Dasick]

You don't have to sell me on nuclear. The problem with it is all the NIMBYing and social resistance to it.

Problem with colonizing mars is that they're definitely going to become either a technocracy or a military dictatorship, and the war for independence is not going to go well for us.

[Synesthesy]

You don't have to sell me on nuclear. The problem with it is all the NIMBYing and social resistance to it.

Oh yeah, Nimby is a thing we always speak about.

But, I'm Italian. I'm happy that we don't have Nuclear Reactors because I don't trust the mafias of our country to build Nuclear Reactors. I can trust US, UK, France, Germany.... But I don't trust my own country on that.

[Grey_Wolf_c]

Oh yeah, Nimby is a thing we always speak about.

But, I'm Italian. I'm happy that we don't have Nuclear Reactors because I don't trust the mafias of our country to build Nuclear Reactors. I can trust US, UK, France, Germany.... But I don't trust my own country on that.

Nuclear is also, by far, the most expensive energy source currently on the market (barring experimental ones such as wave power that only exists as PoC). It makes no economic sense to build a nuclear reactor as long as there are still surfaces where you can put solar and coastline/mountains where you can place wind turbines (and Italy is particularly blessed by both of those). [Note that if the damn thing has already been built, by all means keep it running as long as it can; I just doubt the economic sense of building new ones]

Also, I remain unimpressed by claims of how clean nuclear is, given they always externalize the cost of digging up the Uranium. Yes, yes, it doesn't take much Uranium to run the thing, but given how rare the damn thing is, you still need a big damn mine to dig through hundreds of tons of other rock to get the ton of uranium needed for the reactor. And I'll grant you that some of those mines aren't dependant on fossil fuels to operate... but that's onyl because they run on unpowered human effort which are honestly an ethical nightmare even if they don't contribute to climate change as directly as a mines dug with the help of these monsters.

ETA: Oh, and the cost trend graph lower in the article is also not what you want to see: where wind & solar are, somehow, still getting cheaper every year, nuclear is charitatively plateau'd or, worse, gone up. Oh, and the other thing is that you can have a wind power or solar up and running in months. Building a nuclar power station is a commitment of a decade plus before you even see one MW coming out.

Grey Wolf