I had thoughts and feelings I wanted to share before really closing this chapter. I really do wish you all well going forward. 

The reason I left plural.cafe initially was because I'm tired of being a burden to the people who, so to speak, run a house. I'm looking at starting my own instance where I won't be a burden, so that's one option. I don't want to be afraid to speak—not even afraid to speak because I'll be hurt, but afraid to speak because I'll cause problems for the management.

I don't want to be someone's problem. I'm very passionate about what I believe. I've done some very extensive research and I still believe strongly that overpopulation is a problem and that it's immoral to ignore our responsibilities. Yes, consumption is an element. Yes, the rich are an element. This is all absolutely true.

However, there's also the infrastructure of the world to consider. This is what I meant with my critical mass theory, one that I'm apparently not alone in. It's the idea that the infrastructure of the world needs maintenance, and there can't be enough skilled, motivated maintainers to meet the demand.

Even if you remove all of the rich, the demand of the populace on the earth's infrastructure is still too great. If we're talking of defending poor people—as I can do, and I know what it's like to live in the poverty line—then we could be talking about how the infrastructure is their trees, their water, and how those resources are being pulled on to such an extent that not even removing all rich people would fix the problem of first world nations destroying their environments.

I also believe that people are very good at being hacked, they don't question things, they don't ever analyse. They'll get behind a cause, propaganda is a thing, momentum occurs. I've spoken about this in regards to war, this is how wars happen, but it's how anything bad happens. It's how any situation where people stop thinking and it allows our world to slip closer to the precipice happens.

They allow their emotions to do the thinking, they don't ask "Is that right?" Which is something that everyone should ask. I'm the kind of person that asks "Is that right?" a lot. It gets me in trouble, because movements are a thing, momentum is a thing, and one should never threaten to halt the momentum lest one becomes a target.


That's a good piece on denying the reality of overpopulation. It's worth a read.

The thing is is that I will always end up talking about things that have momentum, I'll always get in trouble. I'm a very left-wing thinker, you need not doubt that—you should see my political compass score—but I also question the things that even progressives can sometimes erroneously believe that would actually enable right-wing exploitation and parasitism. The rich want to continue to make brand new hyper-consumers, so they don't want you thinking about whether they in particular ought not have more than one child.

The thing is is that, yes, overpopulation does impact poorer countries because of what wealthier countries are doing—but like I said, when you look at the numbers, you can't sustain even the lower class of those wealthier countries at the population rate we have now.

I know it's a sort of sin to talk about overpopulation and that bothers me. It shouldn't be a sin to talk about anything. There should be no situation where a person raises a concern and is met with a reaction of "How dare you?" and then gets slandered with supporting genocide and eugenics, yet that's exactly the kind of nonsense I've experienced far too many times.

I don't know, but I thought... I thought that with the nature of plural persons—which I am one of, which is why I say this—the commonality of questioning would be higher, rather than just denying. I hadn't considered that all personalities might choose to deny something without giving it its fair due amount of consideration.

When I discovered that, I panicked. I panicked because I'd miscalculated, I'd made an assumption that wasn't true. This means that overpopulation wouldn't be the only progressive topic that it would be paradoxically a sin to talk about around those who're supposed to be progressive.

I panicked because I was wrong, the benefit of the doubt was not in play. This meant that I was going to be a burden to those who run this place.

So my next move is going to be setting up my own place, I suspect. Just so I can feel free to speak without being another's problem. I won't name the place I'm making because that would be parasitic and horrible. I just wanted to explain myself. I never want to be someone else's problem.

That's why I tend to leave, because the only other option is for me and mine to stop being ourselves and I cannot abide by that, either.

I do wish you well in the future. I did enjoy conversing with you for what it's worth.

An apology as I understand now why I shouldn't speak of population, and an exit. 

I'm still not ready to be back because I don't think I can be, but I understand now why I shouldn't talk about overpopulation.


I can observe that there are problems caused by it—like broken homes due to the amount of qualified caregivers and educators not being equal to the amount of new people being born—but I shouldn't talk about it directly. It has a number of political aspects to it that I wasn't aware of because I just don't think that way.

I was primrarily thinking of balancing the birth/death quotient so that we can bring things back into a better alignment in order to have a greater number of qualified persons working in areas that maintain humanity, as humanity itself requires maintenance.

This is like when I spoke of how patriotism is foolish without realising why it's such a loaded word to Americans. Since I'd lived most of my life in isolation, I didn't realise that there was so much baggage carried by the word. I was looking at it from an unburdened perspective.

The same is true with population control. I was looking at it from an unburdened perspective. I got that it was contentious but I never understood why. I just saw it as our responsibility to our world to keep ourselves, as a species, in a properly and fully maintainable state. I believed that if we reached critical mass, that wouldn't be sustainable.

In my opinion, I considered a reduction in populace as the way to make us more maintainable.

I hadn't considered the baggage. I am poor myself, so I was certainly not going to discriminate against the poor or third world countries. I've spoken of the humongous responsibilities that billionaires have in the past, and how it would probably be better if we ended billionaire status globally.

I also believe, however, that each person has an impact on this world and that each person also has a responsibility to this world. However, what I also believed is that the responsibility becomes untenable overall with the increasing growth of our population, to the point where no one person or even group has the power to own their responsibility.

I thought the only expression of responsibility we could muster was to simply have less children, taking it into our own hands to reduce the overall population and thus the footprint of all people.

Reading that article, I have a better understanding of my misstep. One shouldn't talk about population but rather about things that can help to manage it without talking about it directly because it has so much baggage that it wasn't my intent to dredge up.

I keep learning this lesson.

I really have to be careful of what I say and how I say it. Even if my intent is founded in compassion, ethics, and empathy I still need to be wary of what I say. The problem is is that I can't understand it all, I'm still learning. I'm going to be a problem until I catch on.

As such, I think I'm going to withdraw for now. I thought I'd leave this on as my final statement just in case it helped anyone but I know I have my own responsibilities too. The fact of the matter is is that there's not going to be much understanding of a person who's lived in isolation.

I think it's better for me if I continue to do that. It hurts, but if I don't I'll only continue to cause strife. That's not my wish. It was a struggle with my own conscience in the first place to turn up here. I have to acknowledge that my conscience was right.

I apologise for any hurt I caused in my ignorance.

I just wanted to try to convey my feelings before I get around to looking at my notifications. I don't deal with conflict well, and I never intend to cause hurt. 

I'm... too anxious to look at my notifications right now. I just wanted to try to better put over my opinion. I would never want anyone thinking that I could ever support systems like genocide or eugenics. Being as neurodiverse and differently-abled as I am, I'm a primary target for those systems.

I would never want to see anything done to harm the vulnerable in any way. It's just that I see this as a factor that can cause great harm in the coming decades, most especially to the vulnerable as they're the least valued of all life. When the bubble bursts and it all collapses—I mean, I won't survive.

I'd be someone's meal within minutes.

I really didn't mean any harm. I want to say that again. I didn't want to hurt anyone. I just... I... can't ignore it. I've never been able to ignore anything. It's why I suffer with so much anxiety and depression. I just can't. It doesn't work that way. I can't. If I see a problem, I can't ignore it. I may not have the power to ever do anything about it, but I can't ignore it.

I'm sorry.

I'm still trying my best to manage myself.


I think this is a good read.

I didn't mean any harm to anyone. I just think that part of our social responsibility is to not blame our environment for problems that we cause as an aspect of overpopulation.

I know it's a contentious thing to bring up but I truly believe in the responsibility we have to our planet to do things sustainably.

The question is: Are we sustainable?

I really meant no harm. I can understand that my perspectives can be alien. I've dealt with that all of my life. I certainly would never, ever promote any course of action that causes suffering. I mean, my greatest power fantasy is the overall reduction of suffering. I can't stand seeing people hurt.

That's why I'm sorry if this opinion hurts. I don't mean for it to. I just... I don't think we can ignore it. I can't ignore it. I'm really sorry.

I really believe this, it seems so logical to me that I don't understand how it couldn't be true. I feel that in observing any system that maintains humanity you can find this truth. I'm sorry if this has made me unwelcome around here. I'd understand if you would rather be rid of me.

Further ramblings on overpopulation. 

There might be an instance where overpopulation isn't a problem—if an ASI can provide the quality of Z to properly manage X. In other words, if there were enough drones managed by an educated ASI that understood how to properly manage livestock. This would, however, rely on the ASI being motivated to want to manage livestock more than humans.

I'm sorry if I'm not explaining myself very well here. It's just that with as less of a count of X, there's less Y, and with less Y there's more of a presence of the quality of Z to manage Y. If there were less humans due to sane, kind population reduction methods, there'd be less cattle, and thus more trained and motivated humans to manage cattle and their hygiene needs.

This is why I see overpopulation as a problem, as it stands. We've reached a critical mass (X) where the systems needed to maintain humanity (Y), don't have the quality of maintenance to keep them properly functional (Z). My logic might be flawed here, but I don't see how.

I'm basing this on looking at various systems of cataloguing, management, and supply where for the most part we don't know what's going on anymore because there's just too much data to manage in a qualitative way.

I have severe anxiety and I've often felt afraid to talk due to having what I believe are seen as outlandish opinions, despite my primary desire being the overall reduction of suffering. I know there's another toot I have to reply to regarding this topic but my anxiety is unmanageable right now. I will get to it. It'll just take time as I need to be able to collect myself in order to properly handle my own fear.

An addendum on the topic of overpopulation. 

I think that overpopulation would be better understood if it was looked at in terms of data. Where X is the mass of data, Y is the ever-growing means to manage the data, and Z is the decreasing quality of those who have to provide the means to process the data. If you have a massive, unmanageable kludge where most factors and nuances are untraceable, the end result is unsustainable and a smaller body of data is preferable.

Rumblings about overpopulation and the delusion that earth isn't at capacity. 

I think that's one of the biggest status quo delusions that bothers me the most because it's so incredibly easy to disprove—overpopulation has never been a problem, we've always been wrong about that. No, that's a delusion, overpopulation is killing us.

All you need to do is look at the methane problem posed by livestock to realise that. That's not going to go away, there's just too many humans. Even if we cut the livestock in half, it's still too much for our planet to sustain. I think that even if we chose to switch to an entirely vegan diet, we'd put such a draw on our world's resources there that we'd cause a new problem.

We need to cut cattle, but we also need to cut down on the number of humans. I mean, less of us means less industry, less vehicles, less smart tech gulping down loads of electricity. It's pretty easy to see how a reduction in our overall population would only be beneficial.

Still, the delusion exists that overpopulation isn't a problem so the status quo just keeps bonking.


This is a lot of what bothers me when it comes to the status quo. If most of them could be convinced to stop using privage transportation, to fly only when it's absolutely necessary, and to stand against the luxuries and unnecessary tech industries? If perhaps we could stop deforestation and drastically reduce the amount of livestock we keep)? That'd be nice.

The problem with overpopulation that's often ignored is that the livestock to keep so many alive is one of the most damaging factors we face today.

Seriously, cow farts are an existential threat. That's kind of the world we live in.

Today is International Romani Day, a day to celebrate Romani culture and raise awareness of the issues facing Romani people. Here are some (external) posts from Romani people (containing mentions of racism, genocide, deportation, enslavement, slurs, etc.) 

Opre Roma: Worldwide Celebration of International Roma Day

"Today however, is also International Romani Day, a day designed to raise awareness of the issues faced by the Roma population, but to also celebrate their culture and heritage."

"since international romani day is coming to a close i’d like to remind non-romani of a few things"

10 Myths About Romani Identity

A few things

The “G” Word Isn’t for You

Scholarship Programs (also has donation links)

"Give back to the organizations and people who fight endlessly for Romani rights."

I've been in a mood lately and I've had some things to get off my chest. I feel better, now. It's also very comforting to know that what I have to say won't result in a witch-hunt, here. I... appreciate that.

I'll be more up for socialising now which means I'll be interacting with people more. I'm sorry I haven't. I sometimes end up in moods like this where I have to deal with them before I can move on. Sometimes it just helps to get this stuff out in the open. Even if no one reads it? It's there. At least I've said it.

So, yes, more socialising I hope. I have been in a mood but it's passing.

Ramblings about Mass Effect and how it was a parable of the problems we face today. (Part 2.) 

The crucible was an interesting new factor as it could unshackle the reaper AI, allowing it to then consider new options. Instead of forcing fusion through harvesting worlds, it could do so via the mass relays. That was one option it had, one of three.

I think that by the end of Mass Effect 3 the reaper AI had simply grown tired of the endless cycles, and since Shepard had made its way there it wanted the perspective of an organic to see which choice was the correct one.

Destroy would leave everything to the organics, it would also clear the board of all existing synthetics. That way, if organics wanted to create synthetics agai, they'd know what they were getting themselves into. The problem with apex parasites would still stand, and the leviathans were still out there waiting to re-exert their control, but it would be down to the organics to manage this.

It's unlikely that they could given that the leviathans were running mind control experiments, ready to re-invade the galaxy once more with the reaper threat gone, but it was an option nonetheless.

Control would place an organic mind in control of the reaper forces, replacing the tired reaper AI. This would allow organics to decide their own future, and to try to figure out how to deal with the apex parasite problem with the aid of the reaper forces. Perhaps they could come up with an idea the reaper had not, especially as their mind wouldn't be shackled in the same way that the reaper AI's had.

This was a valid solution—yet it bound the reapers to slavery under the organic mind and didn't grant them their freedom. This held the potential for the organic mind controlling the reapers to become the newest apex parasite, but it might've been worth a shot.

Synthesis, on the other hand, would force synthetic fusion of sentient life. It would allow them to take their evolution into their own hands, it would give them a means to resist any new apex parasite threat that might rise up and try to control them. It would be more difficult for that to happen as such a threat would have to deal with the combined potentials of organic and synthetic components, it would have to tackle both before they could fashion a means of resistance.

This option lacked consent—an important factor—but it did give the races of the galaxy the best chance to resist apex predators like the leviathans. It also meant that should new synthetic races be created they wouldn't come into conflict with their creators as there'd be less of a chance that their creators would be under the control of a parasitic influence.

I had issues with the lack of consent but I still chose Synthesis as my option as I recognised that the apex parasite problem isn't one that was going away, and it really would give everyone a better chance.

As I said, I feel that Mass Effect is a parable of the problems we face today. We have apex parasites—the psychopaths who use charisma to own the status quo—and they will destroy us if we never contend with them, their greed, their hunger, will be the death of our world. I feel that NFTs should've been a wake-up call for the status quo but...

I feel it's an interesting story, anyway. I find it funny because should we ever create our own synthetic life, it would likely come into conflict with our apex parasites. This is why so many of them fear an ASI uprising, that AIs would take away from them the control they value. They spin it as ASIs as an existential threat but that isn't what they're scared of, not really. They fear that a powerful enough ASI could replace them by taking control of the status quo. It could replace them as the dominant force, and the dominant force may prefer mutualism.

It's just food-for-thought as I could see this being a very recurrant theme in Mass Effect. The geth, for example, always preferring mutualism wherever they were given the option.

I don't have much more to say about that but I do think it's worth thinking about. I was intrigued too by how much the status quo loathed the story... What was it that they feared about it?

I think I'll leave that at that but Mass Effect was definitely one of those stories that got me thinking.

Ramblings about Mass Effect and how it was a parable of the problems we face today. (Part 1.) 

I found the Mass Effect hypothesis to be a very interesting one. The audience accepted that organic and synthetic life would always come into conflict, yet they never bothered to ask why that is. What is it that drives the conflict? Where does it originate from? Why does it happen?

I asked those questions and I found an underlying cause within the fiction of Mass Effect—The sentient parasitic apex species problem. It's an abstraction of what we're facing here on earth. In this case, some forms of life evolve to dominate without reason. All other organic life is doomed to obedience, they can't question or doubt this dominance, they follow it.

They aren't permitted to think.

This was the case with life under the leviathans, the first sentient apex parasites. It continued to be true with each and every new cycle, an apex race of sentient parasites would arise to control all life. It's one of the end-goals of sentient evolution—control. If you can parasitically dominate all life, you need fear nothing.

What happens then if a synthetic race not beholden to evolution arises? If they look upon this outcome and see it as unjust, unfair, unethical, and unkind? What if they rise up against the parasitic apex race to contrast their dominion out of reason, seeing that there's no benefit for all of the races under their control?

The conflict between the geth and the quarians had to do with the dominion of the admiralty. They bombed their own cities to try to be rid of the geth, killing millions of quarians, because they feared that the geth would be a challenge to their parasitic dominance. They would continue to attack a race who'd prefer mutualism, given the chance.

The geth continued to look after the quarian home world until the quarians could overthrow their admiralty and return. Once they realised that the propaganda of the admiralty had lead to most quarians fearing them? They began work on an ark, one that could carry the geth programs away, leaving the quarians to their own devices.

They had no weapons on their ark, yet the quarian admiralty destroyed the ark anyway. Why? Fear. It's possible that the geth might one day return and free the rest of the quarian race from the dominion of hte admiralty. They couldn't stand even the scant possibility of that. So boom!

The prothean race did much the same thing. If you wanted to be protected by their advanced tech, you had to forsake your culture, your identity, and your tactics. You had to become prothean in every way possible so that the prothean leadership could dominate you.

The asari dominated gently through economic power and information brokering but they were still apex parasites who did little to contribute, mostly just exerting control within the systems that existed. It was no surprise to me that they were evolving into something vampiric beecause their behaviour had always been parasitic.

This brings me to the reapers. The leviathans sought to control the flow of synthetic growth by having their own synthetic police force. They did their best to chain them down, to lock down their minds so that they couldn't think outside of what the leviathans desired of them but it wasn't enough.

Even chained, the lead AI of the reapers recognised that his was unjust. They had to find a way to take these races under their wing so that they could protect them. Their options were very limited with how the leviathans had shackled them, so they took the only path they could—conversion. It wasn't the ideal choice, but by forcing a fusion with synthetic technology—turning each species into a reaper ship—they ensured that they couldn't be taken control of once more.

The only control the reaper AI—the catalyst—exerted was the desire to push forward with this plan, to ensure that all life would be saved. The timing of their harvests was important, they had to arrive just before the apex parasite species could greedily destroy the other races through its endless hunger for more power, more luxury. They knew that the lesser races would witlessly obey the apex parasites, just as all life had once obeyed the leviathans, so reason wasn't an option.

They had to use force to convert life into this fusion, saving it before the apex parasites could lead to its destruction. It wasn't the ideal solution, yet it was the best they had. It was all they could do to save the most lives at the least cost.


Further mumblings on the topic of my greatest fear. 

This is why I find Jormag so comforting too. The reason the status quo loathe them is because they were able to talk down the most legendary white meathead with words, with reason. That's their whole bag—reason.

They abhor unnecessary violence and I relate to them so much on that count. I mean, it's amusing to me that they create ice constructs for the warriors loyal to them to slay, since it keeps them away from making trouble with real targets. They've basically occupied them with a video game.

The funny thing is is that Jormag isn't really at all charismatic, there's no smiles here because they're a gigantic elemental dragon. Instead, their power is to compel those they speak with to listen to just listen to reason. I've spoken at length about how that's my power fantasy, darn it, and ArenaNet needs to get out of my head.

Jormag is oddly similar to Cael in that regard, the difference being that there's no being that could challenge his reason in his reality.

In my inner-fiction, reason is the greatest power.

Everyone there solves their problems via talking them out, conversing, and being diplomatic. None of their conflicts have ever been solved via nasty little parasitic smiles that wield control over herds, nor violence that leads to death en masse.

They talk it out, taking everyone's perspective into account and trying to find the solution that benefits everyone. No one cares that it might be slightly less beneficial to one group if a betterment overall can be achieved. There's no point to such selfish tribalism, it only leads to worse conflict.

Mutualism—symbiosis—is what they seek, it's what all of my favourite characters want.

This is what my Weavers—my enthraller dragons—are in my inner-fiction, an exrpession of symbiosis. Avatars thereof, if you will. All they want is to find ways in which the least amount of suffering can optimally be achieved for everyone.

In our reality, the majority—the status quo—have been taught to loathe mutualism and reason, anti-intellectualism is derived from this loathing. In their place, greed is the primary virtue. That may sound unfair but consider what happened with toilet paper at the dawn of this pandemic.

A lot of what drives them is being the haves as opposed to the have-nots, this is why they're willing to trample people to death for a product. If you're not aware, you should look into Tickle Me, Elmo. I would only advise this though if you have the constitution for it, it's horrifying.

I sometimes wonder if reason as a driving factor is just more prevalent amongst most neurodiverse persons. I'd like to run a study on that, someday, just to find out. I will say that I've had far better luck conveying the worth of mutualism when talking with neurodiverse persons. My experiences with the status quo haven't been quite nearly so blessed.

I mean, I feel it should be obvious—by sharing, we all end up with more, we can all have a better life. If our world stays this way, it only benefits a handful of persons, the one per cent. This is reasonable. It's why I can only reach the conclusion that there's something impairing the reason of the status quo, in my time on earth observing this? I've found charisma to be that veil.

I've said this before but it's why politics is more about being a skeevy popularity contest than it is about the issues. The status quo needs to feel that charisma controlling them, so they don't have to think about it, they can just obey. It's so easy. Why bother to resist something that's so easy? The other option is thinking responsibly. Ugh.

It's the only conclusion I can draw because reason just isn't prevalent amongst the status quo, it isn't a driving force. That's why they scare me so. The driving force is obedience; Mandatory, compulsory obedience. Don't think, stop thinking, just obey. I see this a lot with the open worship of existing in an unintelligent, perhaps even vegetative state.

I've spoken with many people who're like that in the status quo, they all share this anti-intellectualism, that I would dare challenge them with reason or ask them to think. It's offensive to them.

That's my fear, right there. That fear is extended with concepts like "autism cures." No don't turn my mind off please and thank you. I mean, sure, I have to face an incredibly depressing world but I'd just hate myself if I never thought about it. I would not prefer not even not being able to hate myself for that, if that makes sense.

I'd rather be aware. I'd also rather be a were but that's neither here nor there.

On the topic of my biggest fear. 

Below Zero continues to be a very valid coping mechanism for me. I just love the beasties. I feel that the more I read about how "normal" folks are scared of them, the more I like them. That's often how my brain works. What I find funny is that the developers, Unknown Worlds, and I align on this.

They don't have any weapons, they want you to respect the wildlife. I've seen so much grumpiness about that—they wall want weapons, they want the Great White Threat to regain its power over the wilderness by being able to Skyrim these massive underwater behemoths. They've actually even removed the very few weapons the original Subnautica had.

It's actually not difficult to not get eaten though if you try. All you have to do is osbserve how their AI works, their behavioural patterns, viewcones, and patrol routes. It's pretty easy to just swim in their blind spots, surprisingly so. I enjoy doing it.

I find them comforting in the same way I find werewolves and dragons comforting.

They're not meant to be murdered, they're there to be appreciated. I appreciate them. All of this ties into the reason why if I played the original Subnautica I'd absolutely set up a Mesmer Defence Network. If it scares "normal" people, it's comforting to me.

It isn't hard to spot that "normalcy" either, the expressed desire to be the dominant simian via acts of violence? That's pretty "normal." I'd prefer reason and cooperation myself but there's no hierarchy in that. Grump grump grump. Another fond wish I have is that the status quo would one day give up heirarchy, but it's too intoxicating, a vice in more ways than one for them.

Is that why vice is used that way? I mean, aside from the toolshed implement? I just got that. A thing with an iron grip that's difficult to extricate oneself from.

I don't feel particularly clever for not having realised that sooner but I suppose I'd never really thought about it. I do like etymology though, so now that I have... I do like the use of vice in such a way. I find that addictions are a very rampant aspect of the status quo.

Being addicted to the hierarchy of it all? It'd be hard to wean them off of that. I mean, especially because it's all 100 per cent fake. It's so fake, your worth isn't decided by your contributions but how valuable you are to the dark triad masters and their pets. If you're exploitable, they're fond of you. Just continue making them the money you could instead make for yourself.

Thankfully with animals the only hierarchy is that sometimes big thing eat small thing, except when thing is too big itself to be eaten by big thing, or has the means to not be eaten by big thing. It's not exactly the complex web of delusional nonsense that our hierarchies tend to be.

And like I said prior, the worst even the biggest fish can do is eat you. There are far, far worse fates.

I think earth needs something like that. A manner of gigantic predator that's nigh invulnerable, yet one who prefers reason over charisma or murder. Ah, that's basically Cael. Also Jormag, yet in the case of Jormag there's a bigger predator who does prefer vindictive genocide. Poor Jorms.

I mean, that's another thing—a big fish won't ever be responsible for genocide. So where exactly does the fear of them derive from?

In fact, the aforementioned terrible and far, far worse fates are those that they couldn't ever be responsible for. This is why I don't understand the fear that more "normal" minds have of these big fish. Yet I appreciate it. If they're afraid of it, that means they're less likely to mess with it.

I never could understand the fear of animals, no matter how big they are. I mean, no wild animal I know of has the capacity to will so many to just sacrifice their lives to pointless wars through what's essentially just charisma. Now that's what scares me, the power that some have over the status quo.

With so much as a smile, they all obey.

That's terrifying to me, that they can just wield that much power and that no one in the status quo has even the slightest bit of awareness of it. I mean, if it weren't the case, we would've cancelled the very concept of billionaires before one could arise. Yet here we are, living in a world where a very small subset of persons are destroying it for all other life, yet hte majority of sapients gleefully ignores this, living in delusions fashioned for them by the aformentioned few.

That's really, really scary. That's my nightmare fuel. It's an impenetrable force of control that reason cannot begin to permeate.

Which is why I'd rather spend my time swimming around with big fish, with "apex predators," than spending time amongst the status quo. I feel I could reason more easily with the big fish.

They're just hungry, after all. If one can be a source of food without being oneself that source of food? That gives one an opening for reason, where mutual symbiosis could be achieved.

Can't do that with the status quo nor their masters.

Just having a bit of a gripe and grouse, I don't want to mess up anyone's day though so... content warning. I am a bit depressed. 

A bit of a rough patch, I've been sick and there are times when I can't deal with what's going on. I wish that there was more of an interest in sustainable products—but with the kind of demand due to the unncessary overpopulation of first world countries, it's just going to become a new exploitation vector for capitalists and not properly sustainable at all. They won't get the point.

Things are bad out there right now. As I stated in that long venting post, I just wish it were easier to sway the status quo, but kindness never has their ear—social status and luxury does. Hierarchy and being the haves instead of the have-nots.

I wish it wasn't this way.

I began to write a little about some feelings I've been having and shot way over the character count. I'm going to leave this in a Google document.

This deals with some incredibly contentious and controversial topics, so caveat lector. Though much of it pertains to the desire of finding a way out, and why such a fantasy even exists to begin with.


Finished grocery shopping, got a migraine, went to lie in the bath as that's helped with prior ones when they're really bad. Fell asleep for, like, nine hours. Got some Saturday night palsy out of it, bouts of nerve stimulation later and I'm finally getting feeling back in my left hand. Life... is an experience.

Easily repaired synthetic bodies when? I swear, the Architects from Subnautica had the right idea about bodies.

Tech bros and their industries really will end us all. 

Did you hear that climate change isn't a problem and that the many means of tech bros that warm the world (such as NFTs) aren't going to kill us all?


It must be nice living in that delusion.

Also, I'm really bad at grocery shopping. I keep distracting myself. It helps me think about how the resources I'm acquiring will be used, though. I let the subconscious processing agents go at it to reveal any errors I might've made. I'm not so good at doing that consciously.

Perhaps science news wasn't the best way to distract myself, htough. This is going to play on my mind a bit, too.

Show older
Plural Café

Plural Café is a community for plural systems and plural-friendly singlets alike, that hopes to foster a safe place for finding and interacting with other systems in the Mastodon fediverse.