-
Posts
1,705 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Developer Articles
KSP2 Release Notes
Posts posted by SunlitZelkova
-
-
I watched 2012 for the first time. I found it to be a pretty entertaining movie, which asks some interesting questions about morality when comes to saving the world, albeit perhaps not so original ones. It was refreshing to watch in 2024 when all the movies seem to be about relatively normal life, while the end of the world talk comes from IRL stuff (barring superhero movies which require a perennial doomsday to defeat).
I can’t decide between the oligarch calling an Antonov aircraft Russian or the Chinese Mi-26s airlifting giraffes and other animals as the most funny part.
Interesting to note, while the Chinese do not possess Mi-26s, they do operate a number of Sikorsky S-70s, which are partially depicted by way of Blackhawks with PLA insignia also used by the Chinese in the film.
Given the neutrino “mutation” nonsense in the beginning, I was thoroughly surprised that the arks ended up being ships instead of spaceships. Considering the shipbuilding giant it is today I’d say the premise of building a massive ark for 100,000 people isn’t too far fetched, although doing it in the Himalayas and in total secrecy might be.
I also found it funny that Japan, Russia, and China got stuck on the same boat together. I’m a Japanese person who has an interest in the Russian (well, Soviet) and Chinese militaries. I have seen a loosely similar concept explored in Japan Sinks: 2020, in which many Japanese refugees end up in Russia, Japan Sinks: 2023, in which a good portion of the Japanese population is evacuated to China, and I myself considered exploring the concept with the idea to conduct an amateur study of what kind of resources would be needed to relocate the entire population of Japan to new-built cities in the Russian Far East in the event of either a fantasy Japan sinks scenario or a climate disaster which renders Japanese summers unlivable. The latter is an idea I did not pursue. I also considered looking at the cost of moving the entire country into balloons on Venus, but I didn’t look at it either. My Mars city calculations over in the S&S section have now dissuaded me from taking a look at any such situation in a capitalist context. But I digress.
As far as apocalyptic stories or movies go, I like this one in that it has a relatively happy ending. I feel that “man just tears itself apart” type stories are too rooted in Hobbes’ view of man’s “true” nature without civilization, which was never meant to be an actual sociological or anthropological take on humanity and was simply a philosophical argument.
The truth is that we are very kind animals. It’s wrong to think that every man and woman would become a murderer the moment the kings and their courts were toppled; I think this idea focuses too much on the way law is used to restrain people and not enough on how morals do too. Yes, we can be violent. But if we were not primarily an altruistic species, I don’t think we would have gotten this far at all. “Men” (I use men in the sense of man vs. savage) created civilization, not the other way around.
IMO, of course.
Oh, and by the way, I now really feel like Moonfall was just an attempt to emulate what 2012 did but in an over the top way. I think 2012 works because the social phenomena of belief in that doomsday was popular. The idea of the Moon being an alien ark and it crashing in to Earth? At best a few dark web conspiracy lunatics know about it, at worst Roland just made it up himself and hoped people would be interested.
-
3 hours ago, DDE said:
So here's the problem: we're probably headed into leaner times (streaming + multiple box office bombs + general economic instability), and Hollywood doesn't have a good mechnism for cutting costs. In fact, as times get leaner, the meddling will increase, and so will risk mitigation through reliance on star power, and those guys and gals definitely aren't downshifting.
There's no real way for Hollywood as it currently is to avoid crashing and burning
Could it really ever collapse though?
There’s always gonna be millions going out and watching movies just to kill time or spend the day, even if it doesn’t look like a triple Oscar winner.
If there is something that’s going to die in the coming years, I’d expect it to be trilogies and reboots. The former due to the riskiness involved in committing to three movies in case one bombs, the latter because they have to run out of stuff to remake eventually, right?
Honestly it’s hard to see any industry or nation for that matter “crashing and burning” unless a movie mogul (or whatever) Gorbachev comes along. Everything just feels so monopolized and entrenched, from business models to the average person’s lifestyle and habits.
-
1 hour ago, DDE said:
If there was no plan to add consent mechanics to KSP2’s multiplayer, sneaking up on unsuspecting ships and stealing their fuel would be an interesting challenge.
-
I finished reading the book The Dawn of Everything: A New History of Humanity. When I say finished reading, I mean reading the arguments rather than the evidence, because the book is kind of self-defeating after a certain point.
It claims, with evidence, that arguments about how the organization of society developed, mainly that we went from tribes to city-states to empires (I’m paraphrasing there), come from philosophy and are not supported by modern day anthropological and archaeological evidence.
I think their theories are very effective when it comes to looking at North America, because it’s self-evident from data gathered as early as the 19th century that the ways different groups of people organized their society varied. The idea of idyllic tribes living among nature, oblivious to complexity, philosophy, and creativity, is very much a colonial stereotype.
It gets more difficult to believe when they try to reframe theories about places in China, Egypt, Eastern Europe, and Mesopotamia, mainly because it involves thinking about well known places in different ways.
The authors successfully illustrate how scientists during anthropology’s infancy were captive to their own biases in creating notions like “the state” and categorizing societies based on their mode of subsistence.
But it raises the question of whether these authors are captive to their own biases (one is an anarchist activist) in trying to paint a certain picture of history being a certain way or another.
Their arguments about the nature of how we organize society track and so does their criticism of “big history”’s presentation of human history.
I am just skeptical how historical evidence can be used to support a discussion of those arguments (from either side) when, as illustrated when it comes to how Caucasian scholars looked at indigenous American societies and history and how that influenced the popular view of them, everyone seems to be so beholden to their political bias.
It’s still a good book though, and I recommend it to everyone. Just be careful not to take the evidence too seriously. They make clear how big history likes to cherry pick information to paint a picture of tribes-to-empires, but it is possible they are doing so too.
-
17 hours ago, ColdJ said:
That is the way to go, hopefully my examples above give you an idea of what constitutes harm.
I think my main concern that causes me to question definitions of harm is people being overbearing.
I think people (above the age of consent/legality or whatever) should be allowed to make their own decisions, but given a good education of the pluses and minuses of the possible choices at hand.
Unfortunately I feel people (at least my age, early 20s) don’t really get taught the skills necessary to properly weigh pros and cons and end up going more with their emotions.
It’s hard to find the balance between a warning and an order.
9 hours ago, magnemoe said:One obvious problem with polygamy is that the powerful and rich would get most of the wifes. More so in an hierarchy male dominated society. This would easy generate lots of social instability more so as you could not manage an farm alone historical.
Now if you had very high amount of combat deaths is start making some sense, but these sort of losses would not be sustainable.
Do not know how Nepal avoid this trap but think it goes both ways for one, I also guess the relationships has been more fluid more like modern marriages. But it has never been common in the west at least not after the iron age.I am terribly sorry but I must now correct myself. I was using the wrong term. Some families in Nepal practice polyandry, not polygamy, although polygamy can be found in Nepal too, it is not what I studied about.
The way it works is one wife usually marries an entire family’s brothers. The husbands are not drawn from different families.
Tension is mainly around personal issues. It’s been several months since the anthropology class and I don’t seem to have taken notes on the subject, but I recall that having two males helps raise lots of farm hands and keep the population stable.
I’ve found the TED Talk I watched during my studies. I don’t know if it’s okay to post it, so just Google “Are five husbands better than one TED Talk” and you can find it if you’re interested.
-
4 hours ago, ColdJ said:
Unfortunately ethical rules in modern society have been constantly erroded compared to what used to be and as such morals have been weakened. To grow up with a good moral compass one needs good examples to learn from. It is getting harder and harder to find good examples.
Genuine question, what constitutes “ethical rules” and “morals” in “modern society?”
Take for instance polygamy. The idea that it is immoral comes from Christian ideas, which don’t really make it “modern” per se. Yet its growing occurrence in the West is cast down upon by traditional thinkers as immoral.
Meanwhile Nepal has had it forever, and such relationships are no more tumultuous than the average Western marriage. Nepal, obviously, is part of the modern world, given it still exists in 2024. Why does what happens in the West get called modern, and in other places it isn’t?
It’s even more ironic considering a lot of Western legal, political, and moral traditions date back to Roman times.
I myself don't have an answer to this question. I think making one would require a degree of myth making, as you would need to cast human culture into one monolithic story, when in reality the differences are varied. “Human culture” is a little like “desserts.” They wildly vary to the extent it’s questionable if they are related. That analogy is bad but I hope I get my idea across.
4 hours ago, ColdJ said:For me, the simplist way to try to be good is to use the question "Would I want someone to do this to me?" If the answer is "No" then to do that thing to someone else is most likely wrong.
I agree.
I think the problem though is when the question is raised of whether we should protect others.
Take for instance polyamory as mentioned above. I personally would have major emotional stress if I tried to be in such a relationship. I wouldn’t want that done to me. Using the Golden Rule, that makes polyamory wrong. But what if someone else thinks differently? Do I have a right… is it right… for me to stop someone from having such a relationship just because I think it is “wrong” based on the Golden Rule, while that person might think it “right”… because as a matter of course they don’t mind having it done to them?
And to what extent is it okay to protect others? I think trying to over police what strangers do is a no-no, but what about family? If the person who thinks polyamory is wrong is a father, and the person who wants to partake in it is his daughter, does he have a right to stop her?
How would he feel if his father tried to stop him from doing what he wanted? BUT, there’s the Golden Rule! So isn’t it right to stop “wrong” things from occurring in the world? Because I would want someone to speak up and help protect me from another person trying to “wrong” me?
This dilemma brings me to what I said,
7 hours ago, SunlitZelkova said:There is no right or wrong but the rights and wrongs we (or one) decide(s) upon.
I could say “the way to solve this is respect other’s autonomy and right to make their own decisions so long as those decisions don’t harm others,” but then there’s the question of what constitutes harm.
I think it would be very hard to solve this dilemma, because what constitutes harm and what constitutes non-harm is also relative.
-
Is the right answer to put aside differences and cooperate even if it’s not what one personally desires, or to strive for your personal desires even if they come into conflict with those of others?
Is constantly changing your opinions based on interactions with others admirable, or a case of being at the whim of others’ ideas?
The discussions on this forum in recent days have been my first introduction to these issues in philosophy/ethics/whatever category.
More and more I’m seeing everything as relative; just a human construct. Things are what we make of them. There is no right or wrong but the rights and wrongs we (or one) decide(s) upon.
Humanity is complex and I’m all for it.
I had these thoughts while it was raining outside, so it counts as a shower thought, right?
-
Just now, Scarecrow71 said:
I never said it will come. I said I have hope that it might.
Thank you for the correction!
-
This franchise changed my life too.
I first learned about KSP2 in 2020. I had heard of KSP long ago (in like 2015 or 16) from a YouTuber called PhlyDaily. I had guinea pigs from 2015, but in 2020 one passed away, followed by another just weeks later. This hit me very hard. I did not have any human friends at the time, due to a combination of mental health issues and moving around due to my parent’s divorce.
2016 was the darkest year of my life so far perhaps. I was struggling immensely in school and in a few months would lose my the last of my human friends.
I would sit on the couch with one of my pigs in the evenings, and he would look up to the ceiling a lot. I interpreted this as him wanting to go to the Moon.
Also at this time I was interested in Soviet history. So through a combination of being enamored with the Soviet mass song “14 minutes to start” (the refrain of which is in my signature) and my pig’s desires, the seeds of a new interest in space travel were born. I had originally been interested in space during elementary school, but dropped it after my parents divorced.
But the dark times continued. I was bitter, neglected to spend time with my pigs, and focused on war and conflict.
Things changed in 2020. I lamented how I was never able to take all of my pigs to space (I planned to make a cardboard rocket and blast off with them to the “Moon” and let them run around on the surface). Now two of them never could.
I became interested in spaceflight again at last. I revisited Wikipedia articles for the first time in nine years about rockets and missions. But it wasn’t enough. I wanted to be able to go to space myself, just as I “partook in combat” virtually through video games during my interest in historical wars.
I recalled that rocket game, called “Kerbal” or something from that PhlyDaily video so long ago.
I looked it up and lo and behold, not only was KSP thriving, a sequel was in the works called KSP2.
I was blown away by the trailer. The dreams of my childhood, going to the Moon and then interstellar, returned to my mind.
KSP1 seemed out of reach for my computer. KSP2 promised better graphics. I was hyped. I still ended up finding a work around to play KSP1 and learn the ropes in the meantime, but I remained highly excited about KSP2.
To be honest, the (still rumored) death of KSP2 does not bother me much. It’s what happens to the franchise that does.
After I bought KSP, I was able to go to orbit, land on the “Moon”, and I even attempted to go to “Mars” (I played stock and simply imagined it was the real solar system, because my computer couldn’t handle RSS). But it was something that seemed like magic, like stepping into a real life spaceflight simulator, compared to what I did in my elementary years: drawing rockets and then cutting them out and playing with them as toys.
KSP fundamentally changed my life in that it gave me a positive hobby. So many video games involve some degree of violence, and yet this one is peaceful (although I did build an SA-2 Guideline replica once lol). As a result I was able to have a really good pandemic experience.
The amount of time I spent playing dropped in 2022, as another of my pigs passed away, and I so strongly identified KSP with being with him, while also lacking coping skills to deal with his passing. But the interest in space exploration remained. Through all the ups and downs, I feel I have been a much happier person in 2020-2024 than I was in 2012-2019. KSP was a big part of that.
I only played sandbox mode through these past four years. In 2024, simultaneous with starting college, I will be starting my first ever science save, with a goal of building a space program during my time as an undergraduate.
What will happen now? At first glance it seems like it should be fine, but KSP social media accounts and even this forum moved very heavily into promoting KSP2 (as an example, the KSP2 section of the forum is above that of KSP, despite the game not even being finished, and the only creations showcased on Twitter now are all from KSP2).
Will they make an about face and return to promoting KSP content? Will Private Division want to continue supporting KSP if it just makes people think about how they failed to deliver the second one, thus hurting their brand name and reputation?
I certainly hope not. I voice my fears not to sow panic, but in search of solace.
-
Does anyone know if you can book a (cheaper than one way) two way international ticket, get there, and then cancel the return and get a refund? If you bought a fully refundable ticket.
My dad is thinking of doing this for me this Summer. We’d fly United.
-
On 4/28/2024 at 8:52 PM, kerbiloid said:
Hobbitroopers?
The helicopter itself is from the Soviet epoch, a by-product of Mi-26 (uses its engine/reductor).
Mi-28. It’s pretty different from the Mi-24, perhaps resulting in some doctrine change on the use of attack helicopters?
-
20 hours ago, TheSaint said:
Today I loaded 400 rounds of 9mm ammunition, cleaned the kitchen, and played a game of Ticket to Ride with my family. And consumed an adult dose of alcohol. In an appropriate order.
My mom bought me that game for me when I was like 9 or 10 and we never played it. It’s still in her game closet, so we’ll need to try it out some time.
-
On 4/26/2024 at 8:50 PM, kerbiloid said:
It would be so cool to know how this thing would have fitted into Soviet doctrine in Central Europe had the Pact not fell. It’s very different from the Mi-24.
-
3 minutes ago, Kerb24 said:
Anyone know if the SLS is at the same scale as the Saturn V? I'm going to get it either way.
It’s not. It’s smaller. Saturn V is about 1:110, and SLS is 1:160 I think.
-
The issue with what happened to me here over the past couple weeks is that it wasn’t an opinionated matter we argued over, it was-
1. The definition of something
2. History of something
The first time, the guy had a weird definition of something that sounded like something else, so I looked up the dictionary definition to see if I was right. It didn’t match up and I pointed that out. Then he continually changed his own definition until he accused me of not discussing in good faith.
Second time, I made stupid statements about something in history. I honestly did not know I was wrong. In fact, other people in the discussion later politely pointed out the flaws in my statements and I accepted I was incorrect and retracted my statement. But before then, this guy- the same guy as with the definition talk- simply says I’m “making walls of words” and again speaks of me “lacking good faith.”
This isn’t public policy or favorite foods we’re talking about. If we can’t correct each other when we’re wrong and accept that we’ve been wrong when it comes to facts, how are we supposed to learn anything? Isn’t that what the internet is supposed to be about? For All Mankind had a clip of Tim Berners-Lee praising the then potential value of the internet in the 80s and he spoke of a “more informed electorate.” Obviously politics is politics and it can get nasty in its own right, but what about technical discussions? Discussions about the humanities?
I think I’m getting back to my point I made in my long post about climate change. Everyone has armies of rhetoric and data on their side to defend their arguments, and criticism and differing data is “politicized” or has an ulterior motive.
If I or others can’t or don’t want to correct or be corrected on facts when we’re wrong, what’s the point of even being here? Just hop in, see if we fit in the echo chamber, hop out if we don’t and then post tweets and occasional witty jokes from time to time? Isn’t a forum all about discussion?
I’ve never expected people to change their opinions when I’m criticizing them. But if there’s a fact they’re talking about that’s incorrect, I have a hard time sitting by and letting them be wrong. I wouldn’t want someone on this forum to let me continually make inaccurate statements, and when I did that in the history discussion, I’m glad I was corrected.
Considering most of the people who regularly post in the main section of the forum I visit- the Science & Spaceflight section- are also the same people who have espoused the climate change denial arguments I listed in my climate change post in this thread, perhaps I just need to recognize the people there are not who I thought they were when I joined this forum and read about the better forum movement and rules intended to make it a more positive place.
The Lounge is cool though, so I’d still visit here. But I can get space news on Twitter and don’t really have any more technical questions to ask people over there, so if it’s just a place to report the news and make jokes from time to time- discussion, while legal, will lead to arguments if anything beyond supportive comments are made, even if someone is incorrect about something- what am I even doing there?
I’m also now thinking about how I don’t even really follow much spaceflight news beyond what’s going on in China. I might as well just head over to Sino Defence Forum (where I’m much more conscious of what kind of people they are and how it’s important not to start arguments).
-
I feel like the reason the world is so divided is because no one has the modesty or backbone to conduct extended, intense debates/arguments.
If we fail more than 2-3 times to convince someone of something, we don’t have a hard look at what we’re saying to see if it’s wrong, we accuse the opponent/target of being “brainwashed” or “lacking good faith.”
Idk, maybe I’m spending too much time with the people on this forum who are mostly old enough to remember Apollo or STS-1 and need to interact more with my own generation.
-
5 hours ago, kerbiloid said:
How could three men be buried in one tomb?
Did they die at once? Then why this burial composition is so strange.
Usually people don't bury with hand put on another one's crotch like he's petting or protecting the neighbor. They either align or cross the arms.
And the bones don't look lying straight.
No gifts are seen. This also makes the sacrifice version less probable. The interworld travellers usually have a bribe for the underworld spirits.Because Ice Age people actually might have had varied culture and not a monolithic way of thinking across Eurasia.
5 hours ago, kerbiloid said:IIrc, the Indians were successfully using force and violence against other tribes, while of course a missionaire can just give advices.
Hence why I said within their group.
5 hours ago, kerbiloid said:"Righteousness" = "following the right rules, established for greater good".
AI can't be programmed, it can be taught on examples. That process can be programmed.
The objective of all life is to survive, no?
Would you say one’s desire for food and water is an opinion?
I suppose it could be.
5 hours ago, kerbiloid said:"Decision" means "punishment for those who doesn't follow it", otherwise it's a "wish".
For the punishment, the Wendat should have an intertribal mechanism to force any tribe to follow the decision.
Otherwise is just an anarchy.
If they had such mechanism, it doesn't look that their society was so much kind and soft, because the punishment is for the whole tribe, including innocents. Good people don't do so.
The Wendat did have punishment mechanisms for things people agreed were bad, like murder. Instead of punishing individuals, the whole clan would have to pay tribute to the clan of the slain person, creating an incentive to prevent others from committing murder. Kandiaronk said this was more effective in preventing crime than European punishment of the individual, but we don’t really know for sure whether that was true or not.
What the Wendat did not do was force people to do something they didn’t want to. No one was forced to participate in war against another tribe if they were not convinced it was the right course.
I don’t think a decision requires punishment of those who don’t agree and cooperate. Sometimes decisions involve recruiting volunteers to execute them, in which case those who oppose go unpunished because they aren’t needed.
5 hours ago, kerbiloid said:The very place of 35x56 km2 is either for several villages of peasants, or for 2..3 tribes of hunters-gatherers.
They are antagonists, they need the opposite. HG need forest, not field; P need field, not forest.
At the same time once the agriculture appears, the peasant population exceeds the hunter-gatherer population by orders of magnitude, and inevitable conflicts force the HG either to leave the place, or to be assimilated.
So, I'm afraid, it's a fantasy.7 hours ago, magnemoe said:Not the case. Pacific Northwest tribes were “peasants of the fish” in that they conducted mass harvesting and processing of salmon according to the right time in the season. The environment they lived in was unsuitable for HG lifestyle because the main trees were conifers. They raided each other for slaves because the leaders could not convince their own people to take up the intense labor needed for processing salmon.
But the northern Californian peoples, who lived with access to similar abundance of salmon, consciously refused harvesting salmon and preferred the hunter gatherer way of life, because they valued work for the individual and did not believe in slavery, unlike the almost bourgeoise-like leaders of the Pacific Northwest peoples who showed off their immense wealth (and shared it) during potlatch.
But the Pacific Northwest people never raided the northern Californian HGs, despite being in close proximity.
(The northern Californian peoples actually did keep a small number of slaves, but the institution was frowned upon and those who owned them were ostracized)
-
2 hours ago, darthgently said:
That top stage looks very Von Braun
It would be very interesting to know if Soviet space artists took notes on what their Western counterparts were doing, or if they both read Jules Verne as kids and ended up following the same (convergent) evolutionary path.
-
https://x.com/cnspaceflight/status/1783621625495318904?s=46&t=Jd73T2beq0JLNtwTy1uR5A
Shenzhou-18 has docked with Tiangong.
There are now 13 people on orbit. Shenzhou-17’s crew will depart in 4 days.
-
2 hours ago, kerbiloid said:
Are you sure, they were buried?
Based on the left one, they were killed, or inhumated alive to send them to gods of the underground, especially since the middle one was an anatomically deformed (hermaphrodite? just strangely looking?), and possibly impaled like a vampire.What’s the likelihood they were killed lined up like that?
2 hours ago, kerbiloid said:Yes. The arguments.
Your images come from a European caricature of the native person.
Both a Frenchman named Lahontan and the Jesuit missionaries who lived there spoke of how the Wendat did not use violence to force others (within their group) to do things they wanted them to.
2 hours ago, kerbiloid said:Savonarola is almost an etalon of righteous, non-selfish person, like an AI, just wanting others be as righteous.
But the road to hell is paved with good intentions.
See, what happened next.The AI is not going to want others to have arbitrary values like “righteousness” and what not. It’s just programmed to ensure the physical survival and expansion of the colony.
This regulates basic needs and the functions of the colony.
The colonists are free to decide how they want to spend their own free time.
2 hours ago, kerbiloid said:Any low-level tribal and criminal society doesn't have a leader established by law, as there is nobody to establish the law.
You follow the strongest, or the most rich, or the "eldest" family of your tribe.
But you are free to stay alone, until some force wnats to take yours or you.When I say “law” I mean public decisions, which the Wendat did make when deciding things like going to war or not.
No one could force anyone to do anything. It was up to the persuasive powers of the person proposing the action to convince others to help.
2 hours ago, kerbiloid said:Occupying (in good sense of the word) what area, km2?
Typical density for the hunters-gatherers is ~0.1 human/km2.
Largest European cities were 10..20..50 k, and they were fed by farmers.
18-25 villages over 35x56 km area, with a total population of 18-22k. Lands farmed extended up to 880km squared.
These were not hunter-gatherers. Many tribes besides them cultivated maize and other crops.
And yet, no money, no institutionalized trade, no authoritarian chief. Farmers did not force others to give them something in return for food, they gave it as they believed freedom was an important value, and you’re not free to do much besides gathering food if you’re hungry.
-
21 minutes ago, Spaceception said:
So they'll connect to the ISS long enough to do checkouts, but are aiming to separate as soon as possible?
It sounds to me like it’s more than just checkouts, more like learning the ropes of space station operation.
All that’s changed is the timeline is a little shorter. I guess they realized it wouldn’t take as long as originally envisioned.
-
3 minutes ago, DDE said:
Sci-fi isn't to blame, it's a reflection of the thinking applied to the real world, especially by third-party well-wishers.
Very good point!
-
19 minutes ago, Geonovast said:
I don't want this.
But I also don't want to not have all the NASA sets.I have the same dilemma with Star Wars sets lol.
-
3 hours ago, kerbiloid said:
Based on the smooth, symmetric, and sharp geometry of their statuette, I would doubt that they were able to define the age of ceramics, and that it's older than 1922 when it was revealed to public.
On Mellaart et al.:
https://www-gazeta-ru.translate.goog/science/2018/03/13_a_11680993.shtml?_x_tr_sl=ru&_x_tr_tl=en&_x_tr_hl=ru&_x_tr_pto=wappI’m talking about the burials of people.
https://www.donsmaps.com/tripleburial.html
Not everyone was buried. So why these people?
One possibility is some social organization beyond an egalitarian hunter-gatherer tribe existed.
3 hours ago, kerbiloid said:Nobody argues. That hulk needs this food more, unless you can prove to him the opposite.
People actually argued all the time. Debate and persuasive powers were valued skills among the Wendat.
They just didn’t force people “at gun point” to do things. At least not people of their own tribe.
3 hours ago, kerbiloid said:https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Girolamo_Savonarola
Still prefer the perfectly righteous man to rule and judge you?
I don’t get your point with this, but it does make me wonder how a religious group would fare in trying to colonize Mars.
Kinda like those Mormons in The Expanse who planned to fly interstellar.
5 hours ago, tater said:I was using "pre-state" to mean tribal or other smaller groupings of humans. The specific label doesn't matter. This is a term Pinker has used. Bottom line is I'm talking smaller units (largely kin based) where I think different rules apply. Regardless, peoples here (the Americas) were stone age.
So would you say technology level defines what types of societal organization are feasible?
I wasn’t trying to say different rules didn’t apply, just that the rules were varied. It makes me believe varied forms of societal organization are possible now, too.
By the way, the Wendat, who had a unique form of society in which leaders existed but no one was required to follow them by “law,” only if they could persuade everyone through orating skills and debate, had a population of up to 30,000 when European settlers began to arrive.
Obviously there was certainly strife, there was still crime and the Wendat went to war every now and then, but it worked as far as maintaining everyone’s basic needs went.
I list this example not to say that such a form of government would be viable on Mars, but just to say that “tribes” are sometimes a lot bigger than they are imagined to be. I don’t think population size really affects what forms of government are feasible. At least when you’re under 50,000 people or so. I have no idea about millions, which the Mars colony could be expected to reach.
Hard Images
in The Lounge
Posted
For anyone who is confused, what he means by “hard” is an image that “goes hard.” “Goes hard” is slang for something cool or epic.