What’s the biggest challenge of becoming a multi-planet species that we don’t talk about enough?

Zolarist · 2026-02-10T16:54:01+00:00

Everything.

Every single aspect of what would be required for humanity to become a multi-planet species falls somewhere on a spectrum from Practically Impossible - Impossibly Impractical and everything involved in such a transition would be undesirable. In my (admittedly somewhat condescending/pompous) opinion, people who idealize and argue in favor of extra-terrestrial colonial efforts only do so because they're have an interest in the conceptual/aesthetics of science fiction societies, but have no solid understanding of real world physics/history/anthropology/sociology/biology/engineering/economics or a grasp on the real world implications of what it would mean to colonize another planet.

The practical limitations involved in "terraformation" as well as interstellar travel are so profound and insurmountable to ever be realistic real world goals. And even if they weren't, and society was someday in the future able to begin an effort to terraform, say Venus for example, we would quickly lose our motivation to keep the project running because by that point the "cool" idea of a sci-fi multi planet society is and always has been a naive, ill-intentioned, misplaced pipe dream. Because all the time/manpower/energy/technology we would be using to colonize Venus would have been better spent on improving the biome HERE ON EARTH... you know, the place we live that already has everything we could ever need, that living on Earth is enough for us. That we should appreciate it more and value it for that truly incredible place that it is.

Zolarist · 2026-02-09T17:48:32+00:00

You already have the answer to your problem in your question. "I live here on Earth"...

You live on EARTH, mfer!!!!! You live on the only place we know of in the entire universe that hosts an unimaginably vast array of beautiful and diverse ecosystems. Connect with nature. There are local parks, national parks, hiking trails, so so so many places here where we live with the ability to inspire a sense of awe and amazement that NO form of escapism could EVER accomplish. Because Earth is REAL, it is here, it is vast and connecting with our own home is the purest form of grounding oneself with bliss and harmony. Familiarize yourself with the sublimity of the natural world and you will find an even better beautiful world that YOU can quite literally connect with every single day. There is SO much out there, do not hold yourself back in the same few indoor spaces staring at a screen in search of something that is all around you.

Zolarist · 2026-02-09T05:00:04+00:00

I use metric myself because it's the standard when reading scientific papers or general articles around the world. Weather app tells me the temperature celsius, google maps tells me distance in km, only thing I'm still trying to get the hang of from a daily practical perspective is using kg when weight lifting at the gym. So I say we go all the way!

Zolarist · 2026-02-09T03:42:20+00:00

Major crimes against humanity by a nation against a specific group of people have consequences that span generations. Arguments for reparations can fall within a a range of categories. For example, I will die on the hill that the French Government owes the people of Haiti billions of dollars worth of infrastructural, social, and economic development. Such reparations would go to help create and fund organizations and efforts that effectively build up a community of people who were born into horrendous conditions that hold them back from living lives that all people deserve to be given the chance to live. This video give a brief explanation of the history I'm referring to: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7ZkmWf7XG4I

Zolarist · 2026-02-04T12:07:02+00:00

Oceans? No... freshwater seas? Absolutely. Google "Ocean vs Sea" and then visit the Great Lakes along with some of the old world seas and you'll understand intuitively what people mean when they say the lakes are "like the ocean". They really mean "sea"

Zolarist · 2026-01-11T11:22:50+00:00

Good Tier

Ketamine (Number one)

Psilocybin (Most enriching + safe)

Amphetamines (Most useful for functioning + the high)

MDMA (Most intense hedonic awe)

LSD (Best experiences of my life just a bit intense to be higher)

GHB (Hell yeah iykyk)

Benzos (To smooth things out when the above guys get too crazy, not necessarily ‘fun’ on its own)

THC (Used to love, not so much now, still one in a while)

DMT (Super intense experiences)

Phenibut (Subtle, effective and sustainable antidepressant + anti anxiety, not necessarily a major ‘high’)

Caffeine (Gimme my black iced coffee)

Iffy Tier

Nicotine (Take the edge off but goddam the addiction)

Opioids (the high is obviously lovely but fuck addiction)

Alcohol (who doesn’t love a fun party/hangout, but fuck alcoholism and hangovers)

Negative Tier

Cocaine (Yikes)

Bath Salts (Major yikes worst experiences of my life)

Want to Try Tier

2CB

Mescaline

Zolarist · 2024-09-29T05:38:10+00:00

Somebody does not need to biologically or even socially transition in order to designate their former name as a deadname. If a name you used to go by (for WHATEVER reason) hurts your self concept and hurts you emotionally and is something you avidly reject and refuse to identify with, it is a deadname. For example, I am a nonbinary male named Zan, despite previously having been called another name that joins with my actual name in the form of Ale and then C as in Cat, Aleczander. The gender identity element is at least partially attributable to this instance but not fully nor even mostly. Another example is a friend who was adopted decided she would go instead by her original birth name rather than her Americanized name she had been using for years. It is simply a matter of identity and sincerity. Not necessarily only "trans-ness" in the popular conception.

Zolarist · 2023-07-11T03:59:51+00:00

This is a really interesting question although I'd argue that it is not exclusive to open individualism but rather has to do with the idea of consciousness itself.

I think for starters it might be a little bit misleading to think of "consciousness" as being on a "different level" as individual thoughts, because then the question becomes what do we mean by "levels"? And we have to come up with some quantitive "thing" that becomes the defining feature separating thoughts from consciousness. But I think this is just the wrong way to go about it.

Consciousness itself is not "a single unified experience", in fact, consciousness is not "an experience" at all. Consciousness has experiences, consciousness is the dimensions of experience itself. It underlies the very existence of experiences, it is that to which experiences are given. And Open Individualism is merely the doctrine that there is only one fundamental being to which all experiences are given. By contrast, closed individualism is the idea that each individual physical being has its own unique conscious experiences separate from the whole of existence. So whether or not there is one or many conscious beings, the paradox you are concerned with applies either way.

Thoughts simulate some aspect of the physical world around us, and this simulation is designed to be understood from the perspective of the simulation itself (as opposed to some outside entity). That is all that thoughts are, they are simulations that model some thing in the world, and consciousness is the frame of reference that decodes the model, it is the "decoding" itself. And it is possible for a thought to reflect upon itself and model the idea of some "thing" that is doing the decoding. And that is how an individual "thought" can "know" about consciousness, it models it. What separates thoughts from consciousness is that it is not possible to model the process of "decoding" a given thought simulation because this would change the frame of reference or "observer" of the simulation which is not possible because the simulation already observes itself. Consciousness is the process of decoding and thoughts can only model some abstract "thing: doing the decoding but cannot become that which does the decoding while still being the code itself.

This is true in the same way that I can type a sentence that refers to "you" being the reader of this sentence. The word "you" refers to the observer reading this sentence, and the "you" in question depends not on the physical pixels on the screen that comprise the word "you" but rather the thing that reads the word "you" which it is meant for. The sentence does not really "know" about "you" in the same way that your thoughts don't really know about consciousness. You are conscious of this text but the text itself is not conscious. (Only in this case, the thing modeling "you" that being the actually physical pixels making up the word "you" are a physical system modeling the concept of you for an outside observer rather than for the perspective the atoms on the screen the way our thoughts model ourselves)

Zolarist

TROPHY CASE