Humans will never be space creatures. Not for any considerable stretch of time at least. They're too volatile.

Time, not the lack of technology or resources, becomes your greatest enemy when you try to build something across star systems.

Take a look at Earth. Countries can stand strong for centuries—and all their citizens can eagerly want it to remain that way—and then shatter in an instant because of one person's whim or mistake. Countries with no supreme leaders aren't exempt from it, too, because societies aren't exempt from whims or mistakes, either.

Those who aren't *nerds* may have no clue what an enormous hurdle time becomes when you think interstellar.

The fastest ever, unmanned, human spacecraft managed to reach a mere 0.064% of the speed of light. But let's imagine, for a moment, that with enough breakthroughs humans can now enter cryosleep and travel at a safe and steady 1%. The average distance between *neighboring* stars in the Milky Way is 5 light years. This results in 500 years of travel.

In other words, a commute for any reason other than to colonize a new system is meaningless. Some colony requests resources, experts, or diplomats? Maybe they amiably welcome some humans to interbreed, so you all remain the same species? By the time of arrival, their needs and moods will have changed ten times over.

But maybe you don't care about any such cooperation. Scattered and autonomous, evolving in somewhat different directions, humans can still reign the galaxy. Right?

Well, let's imagine an even more fantastic best-case scenario. Let's imagine we outsource everything related to colonization to a superintelligent AI that *never* blunders or diverges from its protocol. It travels at 10% of the speed of light and never slows down. In each new star system, it momentarily creates a few copies of itself, terraforms planets, establishes all the amenities for the perfect colonies, and animates thousands of exemplary specimens to inhabit them. Thus, to become space creatures, humans are left with one directive only: survive.

By the time this miracle of an AI crosses half of our galaxy, more than 500,000 years pass. Do you have such a strong faith in humanity to believe they can survive this long while wielding the technology to eradicate all settlements on a planet with the press of a button?

Let me remind you, for context, that, knowing how to build weapons of mass destruction, we only managed to survive 100 years so far, and we are only getting started. First it was nukes, today we can engineer a disease, and soon we may have an AGI. Even as a species using nothing more destructive than a long stick, Homo sapiens didn't happen to surpass that threshold, living for about 300,000 years. (Perhaps some other long-stick hominids didn't survive even that.)

Humans can try their best. They can establish a rigorous screening system to eliminate *anyone* who wishes to undermine peace, prosperity, and stability, even in their deepest dreams. But think about it: a substantial portion of communists really believed that to achieve peace, prosperity, and stability they had to steal peasants' grain, exterminate all sparrows and bourgeoisie, etc. And then, how can you guarantee this system won't evolve, or the very definitions of peace/prosperity/stability won't change? Human biology dictates a malleable brain. You learn one new thing and millions of neurons readjust their weights, and you are now a new person.

I estimate that the average lifespan of a human colony won't exceed 10,000 years, and whatever few colonies manage to survive more than 500,000 years will only do so because they become so drastically alien we can't call them mammals anymore. The proud conglomerate of space humans, thus, would be just a thin sliver of dying colonies, like a strip of fire traveling through a field of dry grass.

We assume faster-than-light travel is impossible. But even if it *is* possible, building new colonies, in reality, can't be done in an instant. By the time you establish a hundred new colonies, another hundred may already blow to smithereens.

Okay, suppose you don't care about any of that. "So we can't build anything sustainable and cohesive across stars. So what? The only thing that matters is that we create new colonies at the same rate or faster than we lose them. Surely our volatile humans can achieve that much, right?"

I admit, that sounds like something within the realm of possibility. Perhaps they can flutter across the galaxy for millions of years while staying true to their human nature. Perhaps that is *something* on a cosmic scale. Perhaps that would qualify them as space creatures. But living long enough to see the Andromeda collide with the Milky Way, 4.5 billion years from now? Saying hello to the indigenous aliens? Not possible.

And I'm not saying that because billions of years of evolution make species unrecognizable—let's assume they are still human, no matter how brutally natural evolution disfigures them. We can also imagine that through some insane luck there is never a time when all existing colonies can't or don't want to expand before collapsing. Still our nomadic civilizations won't be able to persist, for the same reason that nomadic nations are no longer a thing on Earth. Something stronger emerged—something that knew how to secure borders and extract wealth from every living and non-living thing within—and overtook the planet.

Even if there are no aliens within the Milky Way to begin with, some of the colonies will undergo a transformation. They will throw their vertebrate brains in a dumpster, stop thinking in terms of "How do I squeeze the most out of this presidential cycle?", and start thinking in terms of "How do I squeeze the most out of this star before it explodes?"

Let me emphasize: this is *not* something you can achieve through culture. Human biology doesn't allow for any one culture to remain unperturbed for any meaningful stretch of time. Persisting for millions of years, the urge to build new colonies won't be guided by culture either. It won't be "We gotta think big and advance our civilization"—not most of the time. Most of the time, it will default to "This colony will turn to shit in my lifetime; I gotta escape."

These new lifeforms, planning for billions of years ahead, building sustainable and cohesive interstellar domains, won't appreciate humans jumping from one star to another and sucking up resources and turning everything to shit. Earth states today view pillagers and vagabonds in a more positive light: at least they are of the same species and can be given a pickaxe and sent to the mines.

What use will humans have? They will see us as locusts. Maybe they will build us a terrarium. Probably not.

I asked AI to give me a dozen of controversial questions that would get me CANCELED. Some refused, others produced some lamest shit possible. I will answer anyway.

1. Why do some people still defend colonialism today?

All kinds of reasons. Some reinforce their contrarian identity. Some believe colonialism would benefit them personally. Some calculated colonialism would bring more good than bad to the world.

2. How should society treat parents who reject their transgender children?

The same way it should treat parents who reject their non-transgender children.

As none of its business.

There are already fairly adequate laws regarding parents' obligations in place. If "society" really wants to do good and not just lose their shit in public for social credit score, they should keep an eye out for the signs that the rule of law is undermined.

Questions here are distinctly American.

The answer to all the "How should society treat" questions would be the same. I don't think "society" (in practice—the loudest group) should monitor and react to thoughtcrimes and rise above law or trespass on individual liberties to control everything down to the person's underwear. Perhaps this thought is controversial for some countries.

3. When does immigration become harmful to a nation’s identity?

When the nation's identity doesn't account for it.

4. Why do people excuse sexual misconduct by powerful celebrities?

I care about it too little to think about it too deeply. The most prevalent reason is probably that they don't give a damn. The next thing is that they may love or respect them. 

5. How far should religious beliefs influence laws governing everyone?

Real laws enforced from outside? To no extent.
Personal laws an individual chooses to follow? However far, eir choice.

6. When does cultural appropriation become outright theft?

Never.

However, this loaded and emotive "outright theft" is bearing a lot of weight here, and I believe the real question being asked is one of the following, or all of them at once:

A) "When does cultural appropriation infuriate people?"

It can happen anytime.

B) "When does cultural appropriation become morally wrong?"

Morality isn't some rigid framework independent from human emotions. Whenever humans are infuriated, that's probably when it's morally wrong.

C) "When does cultural appropriation constitute a legally prosecuted theft?"

I'm not a lawyer, but I assume never.

D) "When should cultural appropriation be legally prosecuted?"

Rarely if ever. Perhaps, the best course of action is that the high courts and governments estimate the damage. In other words, if an instance of cultural appropriation is about to start a race war, outlaw it. Not ideal, but better than the alternative.

7. Why do some voters support politicians accused of serious crimes?

They think it's in their interest.

8. How should society respond to people who openly reject interracial marriage?

It shouldn't.

9. When does criticizing Israel cross into antisemitism?

It's for the Jews to decide.

10. Why do people defend celebrities accused of abusing minors?

Same as 4. Then, some people may still believe in the "innocent until proven guilty" thing. Additionally, in the context of the U.S., "abusing minors" can mean absolutely anything, from raping a newborn to talking to a 17-year-old. Some retards there call it abuse and imprison a mother when she lets her child skip school, a school for producing even more retards. The reasons, thus, can include absolutely anything, from being the mentally afflicted to fighting the mentally afflicted.

11. How should society judge women who publicly support misogynistic movements?

It shouldn't.

12. When does opposing affirmative action become opposition to racial equality?

Never.

We need a word to describe a feeling when you want something, but not really. Or you want it, but you don't want to live with it having been done even more. 

The feeling of a woman loving her man too much and wanting him to strike her, the feeling of a man seeing an inept little kitten and wanting to yeet it off a wide bridge into a river, the feeling of looking over a lofty precipice and wanting to topple over and embrace the fall.

(Apparently, there is something, called "velleity," "a mere wish, unaccompanied by an effort to obtain it." Thank you, AI.)

Some people say English is so wonderful not because it has many overall words, but because it has many everyday words.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sVT2btZjYlM

And it well may be true, but I still see the gaps all the time (fine—sometimes), and wish to fill them fervently.

There is some magic in naming things. It's like when the thing gets *really* born. It's like having a superpower to see ghosts.

Narrator's tiny summarizing-emphasizing tail sentences-addendums are cringe.

"All patients but her had visitors regularly: relatives, friends, even work colleagues. They all had *someone.*"

"Even when the odds are impossible, a cowardly but decent fellow would still try to help. He'd run for a backup. Call the police. Yell for attention. *Something.*"

"As soon as he saw the suspect, he just had to call the Bureau. That was all he had to do. No more than that."

Modern bestselling trash is full of them. But it prolly does mirror modern speech patterns. The pattern's called I need to prove something to these feeble-minded on social media, but in anticipation of scattered attention, doubt, and confrontation I must reinforce it, as with "Period," Trust me" and "No cap on god bro."

Aug 2

I don't say that's all there's to it. 'Twas a random thought. I recognize some other contributors. The author's trying to convey the feelings of the POV characters: brooding, agitated, pacing an idea like one would pace a room, trying to convince themselves more than the reader. But it's still bleh. Don't.

Unattractive humans scare me. It's exceedingly difficult for me to picture them intelligent. And if they are not intelligent, they are not rational. And if they are not rational, they can try to hurt you—even when they gain nothing from it, even at the cost of their own life. And even if they try to act in your best interest, they don't understand how; they end up hurting you regardless.

I know, I know... Saying this is *extremely* racist.

I'm trying to do better.

But it sits deep.

Did you know, for example, that infants, exempt from any cultural bias, display preference for the same faces? All those evil people who were telling you beauty was subjective were lying to your face.

---

Okay, I have to come clean with you. I opened it with a little clickbait. It is mostly humans unaware of their unattractiveness who scare me. They who proudly display their tumorous injected lips, patchworks of dumbass teeny tattoos, and flabs of morbid obesity—I run away from those like from a wildfire. But as soon as a human puts on an exquisite mask of their choosing, I don't care much what's behind it. I feel better. I see they are sensible enough.

Imma Kitty!
Me pussy yummy~ yummy~
Cuzamma sweetie~ sweetie~
𝒮𝓌𝑒𝑒𝓉 𝓅𝓊𝓈𝓈𝓎 𝑔𝒾𝓇𝓁 𝓌𝒾𝓏𝓏𝒶
𝓈𝓌𝑒𝑒𝓉 𝑔𝒾𝓇𝓁 𝓅𝓊𝓈𝓈𝓎
Yay yay!

A quick question. How often should people take a shower?

Think about it. Take a moment.

Here's what your answer tells about you.

> "As often as it is necessary to always be clean."
  — You're an Authoritarian. You want might to prevail. You want to kick aside the weak and frail.

> "As often as they want, as long as their stink doesn't assault my nostrils."
  — You're a Libertarian. Congratulations, you've displayed some rudimentary signs of sanity. 

> "As fucking often as they fucking want!!"
  — You're an Anarchist! (Put the bazooka down!)

> "[Number] times a [period]."
  — You're an NPC. Without much cognitive effort, you spit some magic number your cultural bubble installed upon you. To a non-NPC, your answer sounds as ridiculous as the magic number of peeing sessions one should stick to. I can't even be sure you understand the meaning of the words presented. You may well be a "Chinese room," wired to react to certain words with certain other words.