Something That I Get Chills About Is The Fact That The Oldest Story Told Made By The Oldest Civilization

— Ursula K. Le Guin, from “A Rant About ‘Technology’”

It really was a pity the Velika As A Great Being arc wasn't finished, (or even properly started, arguably), because Bionicle never really got to explore its Matoran Universe characters as artificial beings having or acquiring personhood.

Almost every other story about robots, cyborgs or artificial beings plays with or explores what it is to be 'alive' or 'human'. But in the absence of organic sapient beings, it was never really a thing in Bionicle. The Matoran never questioned their status as being alive or being people, and even the Glatorian seemed to readily accept them as people upon first meeting them.

So it would have been fascinating to see them confronted with the possibility that they were not people, just convincing imitations of the real thing, according to Velika.

i think I’ve said this before but i really like the idea of the nuva adaptive armour morphing to fit social environments as well as physical ones. Like, it morphs to slightly resemble Glatorian armour when they go to spherus magna, or perhaps even starts to resemble other types of clothing when they’re among civilian villagers.

I think it needs to become common knowledge that "inability to read social cues" can show up as overcompensating.

You don't know how much misbehaviour is allowed, so you become the perfect child who never tests rules.

You don't know if someone is irritated with you, so you'll be extra generous and self-effacing.

You don't know how much is expected of you at work so you'll kill yourself in a minimum-wage job and not notice that nobody else is working like this.

"Hardworking and quiet" should be as much of an autism red flag as "ignores rules and doesn't know when to stop talking". Or why don't we just start using words to communicate so i can stop tracking everybody's eyebrow twitches, that would be great.

in the future, Braiding Sweetgrass will be assigned to all students to read in school, and mostly they will hate it, because it seems to them like poorly structured rambling about nature and vignettes from the author's life. Soooooooo boring!

We will struggle to explain to them: no, no, this book was actually completely revolutionary for its time. When Kimmerer talks about the honorable harvest, learning to listen to the teachings of the plants, understanding nature as animate and alive, and the relationship of reciprocity and mutual dependence between humans and other life forms, these are ideas that were genuinely new and mind-blowing to us when we were young.

It wasn't just those in power that saw nature as "Resources" or some kind of mechanical system that would be better off without human interference—almost no one else knew another way to think. Yes, yes, we knew about symbiosis, but we hardly ever applied it to ourselves. Kimmerer is serious when she says her cultural perspective was almost wiped out; the culture we inherited as children literally didn't have the concepts she is talking about, and that's why the book was so important!

We will tell the students that it would have been weird even among "environmentalists" of the time to think of trees and insects as your family. I mean, well, yes, we knew that everything was related, but we thought Charles Darwin was the first to come up with that. You don't understand, we will say, most of these ideas about living in right relationship with nature would have been thought of as extra-scientific, sentimental or spiritual crap.

"Did you just not know where food and clothes came from?" they will ask, with eyebrows raised. Yes, but back then, food was mostly grown in enormous fields of only one crop where everything else had been killed with chemicals. We didn't really think of agricultural environments as "ecosystems"—"nature" was a separate thing—I mean yeah, we harvested logs from forests, but that was different. No, we basically thought Earth was divided into "human uses" and "nature," and that people shouldn't be in the "nature" parts. No, really!

The students will be fascinated and ask things like "But what about parks?" "Would a hay field be nature or human uses?" "How about pollinator gardens?" "What about the ocean?" and we will try to explain to them that we really just didn't think that hard about it

it was not on wheat...

people on the left love to point out instances of hypocrisy because its easy and you never actually have to make an argument, but you always leave the door open. i don't know how this keeps happening, like everyone says "hmm isn't it strange that chuds say racial diversity in a fantasy setting is 'unrealistic' but they're fine with dragons and magic" without fucking thinking for even a second. like, that implies that realistic grounded historical fiction is fair game to be all white, right? like you never actually said whether diversity is good or not, you just offered a contradiction that can super fucking easily be remedied and cruised over.

new piranesi is top tier relaxation material. dissolving chunks of static demand sinking into the sound.

are there any ride or die new piranesi fans in existence? im thinking of making more stuff like this

one thing you need to know about me is that i am constantly having insane galaxy genius ancient greek philosopher level thoughts about everything ever all the time but before leaving my mouth they get filtered through seven layers of autism and come out sounding like a youtube comment made by a nine year old