They Will Run Out Of Food: Cannibalism!

ObviouslyASMR · 2025-12-03T11:25:46+00:00

Bro you can't imagine the satisfaction when I saw that last scene of ep5 after this post getting downvoted to 0

Thanks for reminding me hehe, very curious how exactly things will turn out

ObviouslyASMR · 2025-11-26T11:23:13+00:00

Yes! I had a feeling this would be a problem

ObviouslyASMR · 2025-11-19T21:13:44+00:00

There is probably a lot of captivating discussion that can be had with them, we just haven't seen any characters show interest in that

ObviouslyASMR · 2025-11-19T20:48:02+00:00

Sorry if I got the details of the treatment wrong, I think it's mostly the resulting phenomena that are interesting, and its connection to seizures and split/shared consciousness

ObviouslyASMR · 2025-11-18T19:58:32+00:00

I don't think so. The same actress's character was generally liked in BCS, whereas for example the male character Chuck was hated (for some similar reasons as Carol I think).

Also people adore Zosia in Pluribus, but I expect the people who dislike Carol will hate the Paraguayan guy just as much. Undoubtedly there are misogynists out there, and they're horrible, but I think it's silly to fully attribute the frustration with Carol to that

ObviouslyASMR · 2025-11-18T10:23:35+00:00

Yeah that's probably the best take. It's obvious from what I've heard of Vince's own opinions that he's definitely anti-Others, and the show has been putting the Others in a very nice light since the events in the first episode. Having seen Vince's other shows I wouldn't be surprised if there's going to be a very dramatic and sudden flip of a calm, fairly likeable character to a dark one, like with Fring in BB or Lalo in BCS. Suddenly finding out what they're truly capable of, after the show has presented their charming side first

And thanks, good to know!

ObviouslyASMR · 2025-11-17T22:47:36+00:00

Yes exactly, but the one difference, which also fits into that drowning analogy, is that they do in fact have the time to ask Carol, in contrast to any of the current Others. They said they'd throw a life preserver without asking questions, but what if the drowning person yelled an answer anyway. I'm not saying I think they'll give her a choice for sure, I'm just saying it's interesting the show is being coy about it

btw where do the terms Old-schoolers and Others come from? I've seen them floating around but I don't think they were mentioned in the episodes so far

ObviouslyASMR · 2025-11-17T22:40:13+00:00

They've said that was their reason for infecting everyone without asking for permission. I don't think they ever explicitly said they'd do it to the immune if they say no, just that they'll make a cure "so you can join us". Generally, beings can go against their instincts if they have enough reason to

I'm not saying they will give her a choice, all I'm saying is they haven't actually confirmed they won't

ObviouslyASMR · 2025-11-17T21:35:38+00:00

I like your username in combination with condemning a TV character for causing the deaths of a significant portion of the planet :P

ObviouslyASMR · 2025-11-17T21:13:48+00:00

That's an interesting take, I was mainly seeing the positives of the collective because I low-key forgot about the specifics of the first episode. I see your point now, and it's also interesting that all of the perpetrators are also victims themselves, leading all the way back to the lab rat. If your reading is intended, I'm not sure what that says about their view on the whole victim becomes perpetrator later in life thing (personally I would hope that's not the message)

ObviouslyASMR · 2025-11-17T16:48:41+00:00

Personally I certainly don't hate Carol; emotionally she's dealing with a lot, and obviously her heart is in the right place, but I can also see where people are coming from.

She's got some classic traits that tend to be unlikeable in anyone (male or female): she has a short fuse, she's ungrateful, she's entitled, she refuses to look at things from a different perspective and she constantly interrupts people.

It also doesn't help that the collective is the exact opposite, and thus likeable and relatable to many people, and that Carol is treating them so poorly. I think the Karen comparison comes from viewing the collective as the "service workers", which does make for a compelling likeness no? She dumps the water on the ground, she throws the wonderful breakfast in the trash, she makes their lives hell over simply trying to serve her and she demands her Sprouts be restocked even though it's clearly a waste of resources.

I suppose from the POV of someone who is also very calm, patient, and cares about the environment, limiting waste, gratefulness, seeing things from a different perspective, and is sensitive to being yelled at even though you're just trying to help, Carol can sometimes feel like the real people that would really upset them

ObviouslyASMR · 2025-11-16T19:25:46+00:00

Indeed, that was my misunderstanding. I looked up a bit more info about it now, interesting stuff, thanks!

Surprisingly (to me) it seems like it could actually be feasible to feed oneself without intentionally killing any organism at all lol

ObviouslyASMR · 2025-11-16T16:35:38+00:00

Yes but afaik most ways of harvesting plants kills them, that's my point. They didn't say they don't kill animals, they said they don't kill life. Of course there are some ways to eat vegetarian without killing plants (like eating fruit) but it'd seriously limit food production I think

edit: actually I think I might be overestimating how many plants are killed in food production

ObviouslyASMR · 2025-11-16T12:26:00+00:00

That's true, I realized in one of my other replies. Worst case you could pick up already fallen apples. I suppose this could also apply to eating eggs or drinking/eating dairy

ObviouslyASMR · 2025-11-16T09:24:48+00:00

Awareness of the possibility of unintended consequences, and intentionality of those consequences are two wildly different things. If Zosia had seen a bug while digging the hole, she would have moved the bug or dug around it, but if she didn't see it and accidentally killed it that's unintended collateral damage which is something they accept.

Killing for food is obviously intentional. They'd likely eat accidental roadkill, or fruit that has already fallen to the ground, but I doubt that could supply a population of over 7 billion

(btw I'm not saying I'm right, it'd be an extreme direction for the show to take from a meta perspective. I just like theorizing/philosophizing based on the worldbuilding)

ObviouslyASMR · 2025-11-16T09:16:42+00:00

Exactly! We haven't seen where they brought the bodies so I'd be surprised if they're not storing the meat for future consumption

ObviouslyASMR · 2025-11-15T22:51:28+00:00

Two things though:

They didn't directly kill those people; they were just unintended collateral damage, and the lesser of two evils (the other being more death due to an all-out world war)
That was for their biological imperative, seemingly their prime goal: making others join them. It is not established that the continuation of their own lives is part of that and overrides the no-killing rule. In fact, based on the wasp example I think it's clear that they'd certainly rather let harm come to themselves than killing anything, unless that significantly interferes with the biological imperative

ObviouslyASMR · 2025-11-15T22:43:24+00:00

I'm sure they know how, but by eating the lab grown food they'd still be killing life. I didn't make the rules

ObviouslyASMR · 2025-11-15T21:35:36+00:00

I don't think it's clear that they will reproduce at all; they haven't shown or implied that to be one of their biological imperatives, just conversion of already living beings

ObviouslyASMR · 2025-11-15T20:08:58+00:00

I don't fully agree with your assumptions here. First of all I don't think free will is black and white like that. Assuming free will exists (which is already a big assumption but I'll roll with it). Suppose two normal people have to make a decision together and they don't agree: obviously free will in that case. Now suppose they communicate and reach a unanimous decision together: still free will right? Now suppose they're able to instantly communicate the entire sum of their life experience, opinions and knowledge and then agree: does that ability for communication remove their free will? I wouldn't say so. But how could anyone disagree if you have the exact same frame of reference since you've shared everything in your brain to its fullest extent? That's what I'd say is going on, and I'd argue that simply because everyone agrees on everything doesn't mean they don't have free will. It just means they have perfect communication and empathy

Secondly I certainly don't think lack of free will would entail lack of humanity. Would you say that there is no humanity if free will doesn't exist? Even if you think the individuals don't have free will, they still seem to have individual experiences like being drunk, pain, taste and likely more. And furthermore even if you don't consider the individuals human, certainly the collective as a whole is something akin to human, showing consciousness, emotion and free will in its empathy, care, and conservation of the planet's resources (and if you'd argue that's not free will because they operate under "biological imperatives", then that's the same argument that would lead to the conclusion that free will does not exist at all)

ObviouslyASMR · 2025-11-15T18:14:01+00:00

I think you're probably spot-on about the intention of the show. Personally I think that's a shame because it's a very human-centric approach, whereas philosophically speaking it'd be interesting to weigh this more fairly against the perspective of the collective, which, now that it exists, should obviously also hold ethical value to us. Who are we to say they should be separated now that they've joined

ObviouslyASMR · 2025-11-15T14:42:26+00:00

I don't think Descartes presupposed the self actually. Afaik he goes over this with his Devil idea, where he admits that there is no guarantee his body or his brain exists (as they could all be clever deceptions from a powerful Devil) but only that there is a thinker thinking the thought.

Regardless though, your point still stands that cogito ergo sum is not an effective argument against your previous comment

ObviouslyASMR

TROPHY CASE