Conworld random thread

[malloc]

Interesting, though I cannot really follow it because it is very technical, and I am not a phonetician. But apparently, clicks can emerge more easily from such stop clusters than often assumed, which speaks against the Proto-Click hypothesis.

Indeed. They don't seem all that difficult from a technical standpoint which leads me to suspect that something else discourages them from developing more often.

As you mention "the apocalypse", isn't it better to build a hopeful near future where the apocalypse is avoided rather than a new civilization is built after an apocalypse? Surely, we are heading towards a severe crisis, and my future history features such a crisis, but I still have hope that a collapse of civilization can be avoided.

We shall see. Certainly some aspects of the setting would work better if people didn't have to rebuild everything from scratch. Nonetheless it often feels like it would take something truly catastrophic to discredit the far right, given its ever growing popularity.

[WeepingElf]

Interesting, though I cannot really follow it because it is very technical, and I am not a phonetician. But apparently, clicks can emerge more easily from such stop clusters than often assumed, which speaks against the Proto-Click hypothesis.

Indeed. They don't seem all that difficult from a technical standpoint which leads me to suspect that something else discourages them from developing more often.

Yes, clicks are not hard to utter, and paralinguistic use of them is quite common; it is less easy to embed them in a string of pulmonic sounds, though, which needs some practice. Perhaps they are diachronically unstable outside southern Africa. In fact, nobody seems to know.

As you mention "the apocalypse", isn't it better to build a hopeful near future where the apocalypse is avoided rather than a new civilization is built after an apocalypse? Surely, we are heading towards a severe crisis, and my future history features such a crisis, but I still have hope that a collapse of civilization can be avoided.

We shall see. Certainly some aspects of the setting would work better if people didn't have to rebuild everything from scratch. Nonetheless it often feels like it would take something truly catastrophic to discredit the far right, given its ever growing popularity.

I think that many progressives communicate wrongly - they warn of the impending doom if we don't change the course, but fail to present an attractive vision of a desirable future. That deters people and creates the impression that the future will be worse than the present. From that, people conclude that the past was better - and that's precisely what the far right draws their popularity from: they promise to restore that better past. We progressives should instead present the people a vision of a better future - and best one that doesn't involve going through an apocalypse first before things get better.

[Raphael]

I think that many progressives communicate wrongly - they warn of the impending doom if we don't change the course, but fail to present an attractive vision of a desirable future. That deters people and creates the impression that the future will be worse than the present. From that, people conclude that the past was better - and that's precisely what the far right draws their popularity from: they promise to restore that better past. We progressives should instead present the people a vision of a better future - and best one that doesn't involve going through an apocalypse first before things get better.

Not to mention, if it's guaranteed that the future will be as bad as the past - and you can easily get the impression that it is when talking to all too many self-described left-wingers - then there's no point in working for any good changes, and therefore no point in left-wing politics.

[WeepingElf]

I think that many progressives communicate wrongly - they warn of the impending doom if we don't change the course, but fail to present an attractive vision of a desirable future. That deters people and creates the impression that the future will be worse than the present. From that, people conclude that the past was better - and that's precisely what the far right draws their popularity from: they promise to restore that better past. We progressives should instead present the people a vision of a better future - and best one that doesn't involve going through an apocalypse first before things get better.

Not to mention, if it's guaranteed that the future will be as bad as the past - and you can easily get the impression that it is when talking to all too many self-described left-wingers - then there's no point in working for any good changes, and therefore no point in left-wing politics.

Yes. And if people feel as if the choice was between a restoration of the 50s and Blade Runner, they'll choose the 50s.

[malloc]

Also it seems like the setting will require some kind of severe catastrophe simply to explain why AI hasn't taken over. Something must happen that devastates the computer industry and makes it impractical to revive. Bleak as the apocalypse might sound, my vision for the setting is one where humans retain the dominant force in civilization rather than machines relegating us to the sidelines.

[rotting bones]

Biotech can be just as devastating as AI if you let for-profit corporations sell it. It's the "for-profit" part that's devastating.

[malloc]

Biotech can be just as devastating as AI if you let for-profit corporations sell it. It's the "for-profit" part that's devastating.

Technically true, although it's really hard to imagine a strain of golden rice taking the reins of civilization, dominating the arts and academia, and relegating us to the fringes of civilization. Even the most powerful phage therapy will never learn chess or prove mathematical conjectures. Artificial intelligence by contrast is designed specifically to compete with humans for control of academic and administrative spaces.

[rotting bones]

Biotech can be just as devastating as AI if you let for-profit corporations sell it. It's the "for-profit" part that's devastating.

Technically true, although it's really hard to imagine a strain of golden rice taking the reins of civilization, dominating the arts and academia, and relegating us to the fringes of civilization. Even the most powerful phage therapy will never learn chess or prove mathematical conjectures. Artificial intelligence by contrast is designed specifically to compete with humans for control of academic and administrative spaces.

They aren't just going to cultivate rice. They are going to make bioweapons and sell them to the military-industrial complex like Palantir. They will make biorobots to take jobs away from workers. Have you seen the research on biocircuitry? They will probably make artificial brains that generate art. Neural networks have already been executed on biological substrates. Bio-Musk (Elon Busk?) will probably edit the genes of all his children to engineer them into an army of ultraloyal supersoldiers who look like chibi anime catgirls.

[/ˌnɐˈɾɛndɚduːd/]

Bio-Musk (Elon Busk?) will probably edit the genes of all his children to engineer them into an army of ultraloyal supersoldiers who look like chibi anime catgirls.

I can't help but laugh when I try to imagine this kind of future.

[malloc]

They aren't just going to cultivate rice. They are going to make bioweapons and sell them to the military-industrial complex like Palantir. They will make biorobots to take jobs away from workers. Have you seen the research on biocircuitry? They will probably make artificial brains that generate art. Neural networks have already been executed on biological substrates. Bio-Musk (Elon Busk?) will probably edit the genes of all his children to engineer them into an army of ultraloyal supersoldiers who look like chibi anime catgirls.

This really isn't the thread to debate artificial intelligence, but suffice it to say that AI differs from biotech generally in terms of its intended function and relationship to humanity. Certainly you could create biotech that threatens the safety or dignity of humanity or infringes on our place in civilization but you can also use biotech in ways that avoid that. Your response sounds like the way rednecks argue against gun control by pointing to all the people killed by stabbings and car accidents. Technically true but that overlooks that knives and cars have functions other than homicide.

[rotting bones]

They aren't just going to cultivate rice. They are going to make bioweapons and sell them to the military-industrial complex like Palantir. They will make biorobots to take jobs away from workers. Have you seen the research on biocircuitry? They will probably make artificial brains that generate art. Neural networks have already been executed on biological substrates. Bio-Musk (Elon Busk?) will probably edit the genes of all his children to engineer them into an army of ultraloyal supersoldiers who look like chibi anime catgirls.

This really isn't the thread to debate artificial intelligence, but suffice it to say that AI differs from biotech generally in terms of its intended function and relationship to humanity. Certainly you could create biotech that threatens the safety or dignity of humanity or infringes on our place in civilization but you can also use biotech in ways that avoid that. Your response sounds like the way rednecks argue against gun control by pointing to all the people killed by stabbings and car accidents. Technically true but that overlooks that knives and cars have functions other than homicide.

Dude. People are ALREADY doing the things I mentioned using biotech. They are making bioweapons, biological robots, biological circuitry, biological neural networks and developing gene editing. If it's profitable, startups will continue to develop the technology in those directions.

Do you remember a couple decades ago, when Elon Musk was known as a liberal CEO? What happened if not a capitalist entering survival mode? Capitalists don't have infinite wealth. In order to keep making money, they have to find avenues to remain profitable. In Musk's case, that meant throwing in with right-wing grifters.

[malloc]

Incidentally this illustrates one reason why I have mostly stopped discussing my conworlding ideas. My proposals always get bogged down in ideological debates. Here I am trying to explain why my futuristic setting avoided the singularity only for people to complain that other forms of technology besides AI have dangerous potential.

[rotting bones]

Incidentally this illustrates one reason why I have mostly stopped discussing my conworlding ideas. My proposals always get bogged down in ideological debates. Here I am trying to explain why my futuristic setting avoided the singularity only for people to complain that other forms of technology besides AI have dangerous potential.

I think it's possible to have a world that develops biotech and is more progressive than ours. I'm just saying the two aren't causally connected.

I would read a story set in your world.

[/ˌnɐˈɾɛndɚduːd/]

Incidentally this illustrates one reason why I have mostly stopped discussing my conworlding ideas. My proposals always get bogged down in ideological debates. Here I am trying to explain why my futuristic setting avoided the singularity only for people to complain that other forms of technology besides AI have dangerous potential.

you'd find that same result no matter who you shared the story with. critique is, incidentally, part of the process.

[Richard W]

Also it seems like the setting will require some kind of severe catastrophe simply to explain why AI hasn't taken over.

Haven't you already got one planned? Trumpians secure domination, destroy utilisation of wind energy and the world, as long predicted, runs out of fossil fuels. I'm not sure whether we need to run out of lithium - perhaps that comes under the heading of running out of fossil fuels. For a bonus, though I don't think its credible nowadays, destroying windmills floods the Netherlands, and the world can then no longer build chip fabrication plants.

[WeepingElf]

Incidentally this illustrates one reason why I have mostly stopped discussing my conworlding ideas. My proposals always get bogged down in ideological debates. Here I am trying to explain why my futuristic setting avoided the singularity only for people to complain that other forms of technology besides AI have dangerous potential.

I think it's possible to have a world that develops biotech and is more progressive than ours. I'm just saying the two aren't causally connected.

Yes. It is a matter of how these technologies are regulated. You can have a more progressive world with biotech (in fact, biotech can reduce carbon dioxide and turn it into useful stuff, and thereby both help saving the climate and replace petrochemistry) and even with AIs - but not with the current evil alliance of techbros and autocrats, of course.

[Raphael]

Yes. It is a matter of how these technologies are regulated. You can have a more progressive world with biotech (in fact, biotech can reduce carbon dioxide and turn it into useful stuff, and thereby both help saving the climate and replace petrochemistry) and even with AIs - but not with the current evil alliance of techbros and autocrats, of course.

And if you keep the current evil alliance of techbros and autocrats, then even if you could somehow avoid biotech and AIs, there'd still be plenty of general suckiness around.

[WeepingElf]

Yes. It is a matter of how these technologies are regulated. You can have a more progressive world with biotech (in fact, biotech can reduce carbon dioxide and turn it into useful stuff, and thereby both help saving the climate and replace petrochemistry) and even with AIs - but not with the current evil alliance of techbros and autocrats, of course.

And if you keep the current evil alliance of techbros and autocrats, then even if you could somehow avoid biotech and AIs, there'd still be plenty of general suckiness around.

Indeed! It is the techbros and the autocrats that are the problem, not the technologies themselves.

[malloc]

Indeed! It is the techbros and the autocrats that are the problem, not the technologies themselves.

There we will simply have to disagree. There are some technologies that I would consider emphatically dangerous in themselves with no legitimate uses. Consider something like nerve gas. You yourself have criticized nuclear power so presumably you would agree at least some of the time.

[Raphael]

Interesting blog post by Bret Devereaux on taverns where adventurers meet, and how plausible or implausible they'd be in real life:

https://acoup.blog/2026/09/04/fireside- ... er-4-2026/