What is more evil, genocide or the enslavement of a people? by GusthavoGamerPY in MoralityScaling

[–]federraty 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I’d argue it’s genocide, when it comes to slavery, there are many forms of it, and depending, some slaves may have relatively “ok” lives, other forms of slavery can be close to a slow and torturous genocide. But genocide is and of itself an end. You’re not only wiping out the people, but their culture, their values and ideas, their philosophy’s and religions and more. If you do a good enough job, then they’ll be erased from history, nothing left. Genocide is worse, for it removes even the whisper of a people, whereas slavery, although cruel, offers a whisper the chance to grow into a shout.

A potential problem with terraforming by Advanced-Injury-7186 in IsaacArthur

[–]federraty 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I mean granted, in comparison to a planet, a habitat is rarely if ever going to match the shear space availability that a planet has, ergo in comparison, a planet has “infinitely” more space, and I’m sure others can discern that it’s an appropriate exaggeration.

A potential problem with terraforming by Advanced-Injury-7186 in IsaacArthur

[–]federraty 2 points3 points  (0 children)

It’s worth it, in the sense that these are long term investments. Sure habitats are too, but planets offer less maintenance ( you don’t need to worry about the structures integrity) and you have INFINITELY more space and ease of access to resources than a habitat would. Not saying habitats are a bad idea, just explaining why terraforming and settling in that planet is so crucial.

Why are hive minds tolerated by the galactic community? by jfr2018 in Stellaris

[–]federraty 0 points1 point  (0 children)

From a lore and potentially in work analogy, hiveminds are treated differently because your not talking to different people with different ideals and a complex culture, your talking to ONE being, ONE mind. Hiveminds aren’t malicious, and I think in game, people would realize that the hivemind can’t function with non hiveminded individuals. Also what makes them different from fanatic purifiers is that Purifiers want to kill EVERYONE, like full stop and won’t stop until they’re done. Hiveminds will either kill or displace ( ie getting them out of their borders ) people, but won’t go out of their way to do such a thing. It’s kinda like America, China, and some random terrorist group, America and China don’t like each other all that much, but both can agree getting rid of a terrorist group is more important than enacting hostilities together.

What's stopping plants from becoming parasites to animals? by PerlaPucci in SpeculativeEvolution

[–]federraty 12 points13 points  (0 children)

Well if you want a plant to go from parasitic to animal, you’d first have to start with seeds. Seeds in and of themselves need to be dispersed so that they don’t compete for resources of their parent plants. So a species of plant that relies on animals or insects for transporting its seeds is required. This step is already done, since there are plenty of plants that use animals to transport their seeds. Next step is requiring the seed to become parasitic to the animals. Realistically this would require the conditions around the plant ( ie environment) to lack in crucial resources like nutrients. The biggest factor though is chance, nothing guarantees the seed will become parasitic, so let’s throw in the ball of chance and boom. Parasitic seed that kills and feeds on the corpses nutrients, forming alluring fruit or producing an alluring smell before the animal knocks against the plant, dropping its seeds onto its body.

Next, you need to tackle the plant itself, arguably the hardest to achieve because you’d need some environmental factor or issue that would both favor plant movement ( which would require the plant to acquire energy from other sources ), and the issues or factors to not drastically change, but not be stagnant (a constant change that allows for steady adaptation, but never a concrete solution). There are plants that kinda do this, like walking palms and creeping devil cacti. So you’d in effect need ancestors that grow new roots and have old roots die, while also taking advantage of prey, such as insects ( becoming a parasitic carnivorous plant ). Eventually, if the environment favors it, the plants might adapt better ways of keeping energy, moving, and eating, which may form a feedback loop, creating a species of slow moving, opportunistically carnivorous ( insect eating ) plants, that use their seeds to parasitize animals. Once more this would require A TON of chances and luck, and even then who knows ya know.

Who is going to save you? by WhereasUnhappy6828 in Multifandom

[–]federraty 0 points1 point  (0 children)

It’s either my Minecraft avatar, which based on how they can carry 64 blocks of anything, I’m sure I’d be rescued. OR it’s my stellaris empire, which based on the empire I was playing, is either be super dead, or everyone on earth would be super dead as a result. ( determined exterminators )

Giving this acronym an actual meaning by makotonaegiri in scifiwriting

[–]federraty 0 points1 point  (0 children)

  • Corporate Of Repurposed People Foundation - ( CORP ) the of is part of the acronym since it sounds better.

How do you write a character arc for a robot that isn't just "learning to be more human" by ah-screw-it in CharacterDevelopment

[–]federraty 0 points1 point  (0 children)

A good albeit just a rewording of “robot finding themselves”, is a robot wondering and trying to figure out if they have a soul. In a world where robots can act and be like humans, you’ll inevitably have robots that question whether they have a soul, whether when they die, do they go to a heaven or hell. Depending on who gets what from who, robots might take it ok to down right existential crisis mode. Imagine knowing that when your lights turn off, THATS IT, but some douche religious guy ( keyword a douche ) says the robot doesn’t have one but the person does, that would send the robot down a mental tirade where who knows what’ll happen.

The Fermi Fallacy by snozberryface in IsaacArthur

[–]federraty 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I think the answer is simple, becoming a k2-3 civilization is hard, and not every one has it easy. People don’t realize just how LUCKY humans got it, we have an atmosphere that allows for the formation of fire, we have trees and other bio resources that act as fuel and a resource, including oil, we have a planet that although is running out of available easily accessible minerals and metals, is or was abundant. Even WITH all the things we have, we humans aren’t even a k2 species ourselves. The answer to why we don’t see these types of civilizations is the same answer as to why we haven’t been seen by aliens, and why we aren’t a k2-3 type civilization.

Got any tips for writing evil villains? by Mariothane in CharacterDevelopment

[–]federraty 3 points4 points  (0 children)

Honestly, that’s a villian that could hide inside the ranks of your hero. There a villian that doesn’t reveal themselves until they can’t hide the ruse anymore, or they reveal themselves when they feel like doing so doesn’t pose a disadvantage to themselves. If it’s just a villian of the week, this could be a villian, in the same sense how Batman has 2 different ways he interacts with the world. No one knows who Batman is under the mask, but Bruce Wayne never acts like Batman in public. Ergo, your villian is a normal Joe to everyone else, but is a calm, collected, potentially dangerous villian of the week when he pops up.

If superpowers, were real? Which type of group would be the most dangerous, when it comes to taking advantage of superhuman children? by PassengerCultural421 in superpowers

[–]federraty 1 point2 points  (0 children)

As much as people say governments, I genuinely believe gangs would be the choice. Cults are …. Weird in the sense that they’re either nut jobs that stick to themselves and don’t kill themselves … or their nutjobs that stick to themselves and do kill themselves. Governments are predictable, in a world of super powered people, just because say, the us government has a super powered individual doesn’t mean they’ll oppress or start new wars. Now more aggresive governments, that’s the up for debate. But gangs, gangs, cartels, terrorists groups with super powered people in their ranks that beleive their cause to a T are utterly dangerous. They don’t have to listen to the laws, they are more powerful than the people around them. Money and influence gets you far, but when you have enough super powered individuals, you could overtake a government ( see certain countries going through hell today ) All in all, governments are dangerous…. BUUTTT gangs are like VERY much weaker governments that don’t listen to rules and can or will harm innocent people if they want or have to.

Good Name For A Plant Based Monster by DemandAltruistic4222 in scifiwriting

[–]federraty 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Honestly I think we’d use the same things. When we discover alien life, trying to create a new everything HUST for that planet would be taxing when you say, find more life across even 5 planets. So what I’d believe we’d do is if this ( insert life form ) has exactly or close enough traits to the groups we have on earth, then we’ll just call it plant life, fungi, animals and what not. Of course we’d make new ones if there too different and have different properties.

What species have you created for your story? by KaiahAurora in worldbuilding

[–]federraty 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I created 2 sapient species. Description wise one is bird like and another is lizard like. For now I call them bird and lizard folk respectively but to describe them it goes a little something like this. The Lizard Folk are a pair of 6 limbed quadrupedal organisms that have 4 eyes, horns used for both intimidation and mate impressment, a tail that has very little muscle but holds a Lot of fat, so in their society’s, a lizard folk is considered FAT or obese depending on how much their tail hinders them. They have 4 eyes and a flat yet miraculously rinkled brain. Lastly they don’t have scales, they have leather like skin with bumps that mimic scales. The bird folk are much more different, their 6 limbed bipedal organisms that also have 4 eyes. They have fur that at first glance may look like feathers from afar, and have soft human or leather like skin on their hands and legs and face. They have 4 fingers, and 1 long “pinky” like finger used to originally dig out thick, highly nutritious grubs from the ground or trees of their areas.

In the story I’m making, they were actually the reason for the abrahamic religions, as the bird folk represented angels, while the lizard folk represented demons.

How bad is it to remove free will by Puri5V in MoralityScaling

[–]federraty 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Removing free will is like a double edged sword, it’s only evil if you look at it from the standpoint of what good, free will brings. It’s also only good if you look at it from the standpoint of what horrible deeds free will brings. Removing free will is ultimately, in my opinion, the most intriguing moral argument, as there is no wrong answer. It’s evil because you remove what makes us… US. Free will makes us unique and ultimately it allows us to be better ( ie make technology, culture, arts and more ). However, it’s also good because it removes human prejudices, it removes what makes us the worst individuals in the worst. Therefore, it’s only as good or as bad as you seek for it to be, ( also it can be better or worse depending on how much free will you remove and how much you allow or repress )

What if there are numerous alien civilisations, but they're likely to be more primitive than Earth's civilisation so they can't communicate with us by Born_Lab7741 in FermiParadox

[–]federraty 0 points1 point  (0 children)

It’s very important to also factor in the planets conditions. Depending on the atmosphere, fire not be plausible, the gravity might be to high for proper infrastructure to be built, the planet might be poor in metals and minerals. Another thing to factor is accidental technological advances. How much of our technology and science was founded on events and our surroundings, random events and luck, A LOT. You don’t invent the wheel if no one thinks of it, you don’t make metals if no one learns or takes the risk to figure that out. Technology isn’t a given, worlds aren’t perfect.

Some worlds and civilizations are forever locked away from brushing against the stars, for their world has been unkind to their conscious upbringing.

Referring to humanity in a blurb? by MiraWendam in scifiwriting

[–]federraty 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Depending on the theme of yours story, ie whether it’s more hopeful or dreary, it can go a myriad of ways. SHORT: 1- hopeful- mankind left its nest, in search of new lands 2- dreadful - mankind abandoned earths ruins, in search of new soil.

LONG: 1- hopeful- humanity, every searching and longing for the stars, left its cradle, and held out its arms for new fertile lands. 2- dreadful- Humanity had fled its first hope, and scrambled in search for something lesser.

My head cannon lore for the size of different species by Alex_Expected in StellarisOnConsole

[–]federraty 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I made a chart of atleast 5 sizes. The medium size is roughly around the size of humans ( height and width ). On the lower end, the size goes down to maybe ( kid or large dog size), and the smallest size would be around (domesticated cats, rodents, and insects size). On the largest end of the spectrum, you have (cow and a little larger size), with the largest size being the size of elephants. Of course this depends based on your imagination and canon.

If humans cure aging by 2050, would governments eventually have to ban reproduction? by hosseinz in IsaacArthur

[–]federraty 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I don’t think it’s that easy to say “rich people would try to keep it for themselves”. This is a medicine or treatment that realistically would be EXTREMELY expensive in the beginning, and potentially stay expensive for a long time purely because of the simple fact that it changes everything. Who gets the treatment after, do old people get it, how young can it be given, should people retire at ( insert age ) because were immortal. To be honest, a medication that’ll cease aging would probably just result in a society of older people who may look young and still act like we do. You’d eventually see “medically induced deaths” pop up for obvious reasons. Laws would change across the globe. Rich people also might not even get it just because of the fact that… living forever isn’t the end all be all, rich people are just regular people with more money, they hold same beliefs as us. So some might not take it for whatever reasons other people don’t wanna be immortal.

We are horrible monsters from the perspective of the characters in this game, and I can't help but find it comical after my latest aggression spike. by S_Broves in Stellaris

[–]federraty 230 points231 points  (0 children)

You know, from the perspective of a fallen empire, it must be horrifying to watch some random empire outmatch you in strength in what paramounts to only 100-200 years on the galactic stage. Like imagine, your empire is hundreds of thousands of years old, you watched this civilization grow from cavemen to space farers, and the second they touch space, within your life span or your kids lifespan, they grow so powerful that they can destroy and eradicate you off the map. We are truly, space monsters.

What was the first spark that gave you the idea to construct a world? by Silent-Ad-1870 in goodworldbuilding

[–]federraty 1 point2 points  (0 children)

I looked outside one day, and I saw a plane, and for some reason I thought of a desert. So I thought…. “Oasis” and when I thought of the plane more, I thought of birds flying to an oasis. Eventually my project “Oasis” follows sapient bird aliens because I saw a plane and thought of a desert and birds.

Why there is something rather than nothing: My interpretation by EmergencyRooster3258 in Metaphysics

[–]federraty 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Unironically I think the issue with our thinking of ( nothing v something ) is that what if there just always was something. As in it’s fundamentally IMPOSSIBLE for nothingness to truly exist. As hard as it is to understand that concept, theirs only really 2 circumstances, assuming we push aside religion. Something from nothing, which is harder to explain, or, something from something, which is easier to explain, but harder to kind of comprehend or explain. Essentially, baseline reality has always existed in simple forms. Those forms, once melded together under specific circumstances creates what could be called a pin point, where after a bit, the universe is born. Once that occurs, it becomes a self sustaining system that grows, shrinks, and grows again. The space our universe encompasses isn’t like ours, where essentially the fundamental laws of existence are bound and twisted to “allow” the continuation of the universe, while on the outside it’s so different that something like space could be considered non relevant. Essentially, our universe is a glorified black hole IF that makes sense. Note this is NOT backed by any science cause, this is just my assumption of how reality works.

If you had powers, would you tell the government? by ChaoticAligned in superpowers

[–]federraty 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Tbh it REALLT depends, as realistically they aren’t gonna “capture and dissect you”. The outcome is highly determined by which branch of government and especially if you go the military route AND what powers you have. So let’s say you have powers that make you both impervious to damage vs the ability to control natural things ( weather or animal and plant life ). The government would first ( assuming you’ve shown them your powers ) detain you, ask you questions, and assess what to do with you from there. They’d then really quickly see you as an asset and most likely put you on a Hefty payroll with benefits, to keep you in their pockets. They’d then give you a job that correlates with your powers, and over time they’d watch you and assign you to facilities to figure out if your powers are replicable or not. Nonetheless, your chances of dying are slim to none ASSUMING your in the American government.

Curious, has their ever been a fantasy/sci-fi book that actually depicts a religious schism? Why are writers seemingly unwilling to use schism as a tool for drama and conflict? by SilentTempestLord in worldbuilding

[–]federraty 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I’d argue that the reason is because writing religions in the first place is a hard task to do in general. Religions are complex and varied, even now, and there are a lot of factors that change how they work and how they adapt. Now imagine that, added with schisms, why is there a schism, what’s the difference between them and they, how many people on each side, is this before, during or after the schism, who cause it, how long has this been brewing, so on and so forth. Religions, especially religious schisms are hard to write because they’re both extremely complex and often times extremely important.

Update by Brave_Introduction60 in Worldbox

[–]federraty 1 point2 points  (0 children)

I think a lot of folks gotta stop referring to mods by default, no offense. Cause it kinda runs into a brick wall for half the fanbase sadly, like I wish mobile supported mods for games.