If the latter is the true case- then it is accurate objectively to say that which preceded you occurred simply as a method for you to be here- and in turn, unless you are the end of it- you exist likewise simply so that you can further this chain. Philosophically we can reconcile that how we like. The overall positivity of the message doesn’t have to change, maybe it becomes a less egotistical one than “the universe exists for you..” and is more like “we are all a part of this big interwoven thing, building towards some unknown end on a grand scale...”

It’s very complex and hard to wrap ones head around because our entire perception is structured in a way that makes it hard or impossible to really understand such things, much less intuitively get them.

Of concern here- it is very possible our understanding of time is subjective. That cause doesn’t precedent effect- but that the effect necessitates the occurrence of the cause, and the nature of our existence and perception requires us to see cause before effect- so that when a raindrop falls and causes you to get wet- you may actually have gotten wet, and something needed to cause that- so a raindrop fell.

There is a link- and may objectively be a link, between our perception of things and the way things are. If we separate the two however- it is possible that reality doesn’t function anything like we perceive it to. Time and space may be fundamentally different than our experiences and perceptions tell us they are- if they strictly exist as we think they do even.

There’s actually a name for this way of thinking in science. Philosophically it may or may not hold true- scientifically it is a bias and a fallacy to link cause and effect through the idea that there is purpose- but that isn’t necessarily to say there isn’t- it’s just that science is concerned with how things work procedurally, not any purpose that drives them. That said- there are increasing studies and support into an idea of a sort of “purpose” in science. That is to say, when science sets out to model reality- the “shape” of the universe or how reality works and what it is procedurally- questions arise.

Such theories see dogs as guiding our early social and technological evolution as we learned from them. The oldest known human writing is about 5,000 years ago. Currently the oldest pictographic example of figurative story telling is believed to be about 44,000 years old. The time tables for our development are theoretically in line to make this theory possible. I think it’s interesting, and it would be pretty neat if old dogs taught our ancestors how to do tricks!

Speaking of battling mammoths and such. Some theories hold that humans actually learned many of the things that anthropologists feel were the foundations of modern society... from dogs! These theories hold that through watching dogs and working with dogs we were able to imitate them and learn how to hunt in “packs” as teams- allowing us to hunt larger prey more effectively and thus have more food, which allowed us to grow. They believe the territorial nature of wild packs allowed us to learn basic ideas like “protecting our territory” through patrols and markers. They even say that dogs making dens helped us learn to make shelter so we didn’t have to rely on natural shelter like caves.

Also... as a fun fact...

If you were to compare our ancestors from that long ago to modern humans you’d also likely conclude we had become on average more fragile and neurotic too. Most people certainly aren’t self sufficient hunter gatherers battling elements and mammoths and such with sticks and rocks.

<error. Expected response 500, received 03000.>

It’s important to talk about representation in video games, about the imagery and the themes and the attitudes, I think. It’s a very fine line between satirizing and glorifying often. And maybe she’s right and all of us who enjoy these games are sick on some level- but I have t yet met a person who was “well” so we are all flawed in our ways. Murdering video game hookers is maybe one of the less harmful ways a person could be sick I think.

So maybe the art, the statement is on he player. My SO gets upset any time I torture an NPC or even choose a ride dialog option. She has a very pure heart. Mine maybe not so much. But they gee rally make you a criminal in the games, set you in an environment tailored for and encouraging you to mayhem and sadism. And well... you aren’t really required to do a lot of what you CAN do. Is that how you think? Is that how you think the character- how a “criminal” thinks? So there is art to it I would say. Like a performance art piece. It can be a bit meta. I mean- maybe part of the art is seeing who puts the controller down and walks away or who just says “I’m already a criminal... May as well...”

I mean- we can argue artistic merit all day- and often times that line is blurred. However- since it is an open world game and murdering hookers isn’t part of some tightly crafted and paced narrative that uses the symbolism or makes an inherent statement... we can rule out certain kinds of artistic merit. We can chalk it up to realism- but then again- if all the things they did or didn’t specifically program for you to do- those were choices.

I love GTA. I love seeing what sorts of things will be in the next game. I’ve played every GTA on console starting with GTA 1 as soon as they came out. That said... I don’t know if removing strangling hookers for fun is a political maneuver as much as just one based on some folks morality.

Well, that’s sort of the conundrum isn’t it? Inevitably, when we create something, we can’t help but create it from our perspective of the world- even if we try to create from another perspective it is just the lens through which we personally view the person we imitate-which even if unintended is a form of satire.

For all the possible advantages - many argue that it is almost impossible, or so difficult that a better solution could be done with less cloodging. Building a tower that tall- let along one that attaches to an object in orbit... its a very difficult physics problem that if we could solve- we probably would know enough we would t need to solve it because we could do something better.

But maybe someday we could do something like that. Of course- it’s all cloud talk. While we are “closer than ever” to being able to possibly do something like that- it’s more “closer” in the same way that you might say stepping 4 steps over from the middle of the continent is closer to the ocean than you were.

They generally try not to send nuclear stuff into space. It’s unavoidable often- many deep space probes etc. use types of very simple nuclear reactor that generate very small amounts of power. But if a nuclear device is onboard a craft that fails to launch- it can contaminate many thousands of miles of earth. If we aren’t launching craft- that’s one less danger. But... a nuclear factor in orbit could come back down- oe worse... someone could MAKE it come down- a terrorist or enemy for example. That would be bad.

Now to the original premise- many of these “cords” or “elevators” attached to station with large solar arrays could not only transmit solar power back down to earth- but we could send UP power when solar isn’t enough for the station. Sort of like how home solar panels can charge the grid, or the house can run off the grid as needed. These panels could also help with climate change- or even someday be part of a network that can modify global weather!

In space, when you close your eyes- you still see lights. The radiation penetrates your eye lids. There’s nothing but the space ship and or your suit to protect you- and our main protection against radiation are bulky and or heavy barriers- lead being one of the best. Or is prohibitive to shoot a lead lined brick into space- but a method to assemble craft in orbit, and get materials up for cheaper by the oz, could allows us to crate the shielding to protect deep space explorers better.

Space wants to kill you. Beyond the atmosphere, you lose the protection from cosmic radiation which the atmosphere and magnetic field of earth gives. Even shuttle missions and certainly stints in a space station are enough to expose you to high radiation- and that’s still close to earth, and not for the potentially years in space a mars mission could be.

Not just that- but even though mass still matters once you’re flying free or earth- it’s not so tricky, and certain experimental propulsion systems that work in suave but not in atmosphere could allows us to build larger craft with the power and endurance to mitigate some of the challenges of deep space flight design.