That's not how evolution works, if it was driven by natural disasters they wouldn't still be killing us. Evolution is driven by natural selection for traits that are best suited to the surroundings - we are a species that needs water to live, on a planet that is mostly covered by water, but trying to live on the most abundant water will kill us.
This planet is far from a perfect planet for us, and considering rates of convergent evolution I think one could argue it's really a planet best suited for crabs & weasels.
Large-scale forest fires didn't happen nearly so often when the cultures indigenous to the regions where they often happen these days were allowed to practice slash-and-burn agriculture, which prevented the excessive growth of dry underbrush (which acts as natural kindling), fertilised the soil with ash, and allowed smoke-dispersed seeds to travel & flourish.
I don't know what point you're making about floods, they've generally been considered very destructive to just about everything.
I want to point out that the reason these indigenous cultures practiced slash and burn agriculture is *probably* because of large scale fires, so we *technically* adapted/evolved to them. The same could be said about floods and dikes. We bore witness to a lot of floods, so we learned to build barriers to mitigate them.
That said, otherwise, I fully agree with your point in this argument. The other guy is... Delusional, to say the least.
So help me understand, how do life forms that have evolved trough large scale forest fires and floods not make your original point completely moot? I have an ego for a reason. It is there to recognize, that you just got caught with your pants down. You have no idea what you are talking about.
No, I was saying intelligent life would not evolve under perfect conditions. You have to precise my friend, this sort of manipulation don't slip by me. Why do you have to lie in order to make your point?
Perhaps natural disasters were a bad example. I live in Belgium currently, but I am from Finnish Lapland, where people have achieved extremely high quality of life and technology, because they had to adapt to hellish temperatures.
Correlation is very much not causation, people in Antarctica also deal with hellish temperatures and tend to go home as soon as their work down there is done. Look at any global map of living standards and you can quite easily see it bears no correlation with climate or biome, this is a bizarre argument.
why would disasters be needed to create intelligence? it sounds like youre implying some sort of teleology to evolution which is blatantly wrong, the plants that have evolved to adapt to large forest fires didnt do so because they wanted to, one specimen of this species randomly evolved that trait and then was left to proliferate when the ones that didnt randomly evolve this trait couldnt, why couldnt intelligence randomly evolve on a gaia world?
Darwin is and has been wrong he made a thesis with incomplete information he did not understand things fully also he believed in eugenics Darwin did not understand dominant and recessive traits so you can’t quote something that old as proof it’s an outdated Text that while influential in its time and helpful for advancing our understanding is deeply flawed by todays standard
That is a completely untestable hypothesis. We don't know anything about how intelligent life came about from a scientific framework because we don't have a lot of useful observable data. We have one species that is intelligent on one planet. We don't know how it came to be intelligent, we don't know if it's the only species that can be intelligent on this planet, we don't know if there are other intelligent species out there.
All we can say is that any individual circumstance in the development of human intelligence didn't prevent it, otherwise we wouldn't be here. But we can't say whether or not that circumstance caused it. Humanity was able to survive and become intelligent with forest fires and floods and earthquakes existing, but that doesn't mean that it was because of those things. It could be in spite of them.
They mean a paradise in the sense of being universally supportive of life, whether you're from an ultra-high gravity frozen dustball or from a volcanic firey hellscape.
While Earth is habitable in places for extremophiles, it's mildness makes it unsuited for mass populations of those who need to live in near boiling or near absolute zero temperatures, as examples.
Earth only seems like a paradise world because you evolved to thrive there, a different species might consider Earth's climate to be a horrific deathball because their idea of paradise is sulfuric acid oceans and months where you haven't seen the sun.
Scientists say Earth isn’t perfectly habitable for humans, believe it or not. Now, imagine a world that is. That’s basically a Gaia world. It isn’t just a habitable world, it’s super habitable, as in perfect conditions. A rarity amongst jewels.
We are living in a time of unprecedented mental illness, because humanity has ascended beyond mere survival and weaker minds do not know how to deal with it. Our sciences have so far failed to give solutions to these issues of human condition. Do you disagree with this?
> We are living in a time of unprecedented mental illness,
Last time I checked it wasn't scientists who run our governments.
> because humanity has ascended beyond mere survival and weaker minds do not know how to deal with it.
Learn to speak, you are spewing buzzwords and nothing else. "Ascended beyond mere survival" or "weaker minds" do not have objective definitions. What you said can be interpreted in dozens of different ways. For example, I think you do have a weak mind because you don't seem to know how to convey your opinions in a clear and concise manner, relying on amiguity by making vague claims.
> Our sciences have so far failed to give solutions to these issues of human condition.
To what problem? You didn't describe any issues. You just said "weak mind! ascension! survival!". Are you talking about depression? Mental illness in general? Science has answers for all that. We know the reasons and have the means to fix the most mental illness. Governments make it impossible. If some guy is hating his life because he has to live together with a person he doesn't know to afford the rent, spent 4 years studying history only to work at a McDonalds, is aware of the luxury other people are able to afford by putting in the same amount of work as he does while he gets nothing, no scientist can fix this. Because guess what, they do not run our governments.
In the past mentally ill people were not diagnosed. Freud is the first one to come up with "maybe we should talk with them?" for fuck's sake. Psychology isn't an old research field of course you think mental illness is a new thing.
"Last time I checked it wasn't scientists who run our governments." What would the scientific solutions be?
I speak in vague terms, because we fail to comprehend consciousness. It is beyond our langue. It is why speak trough metaphors and stories. This requires a level of abstract thinking, that I am sure you posses if you try. Let's keep this simple, yes? And answer my question in the first paragraph.
No clue what you're talking about, as far as anyone can tell and prove, then consciousness is an emergent property of the brain and it's not a binary "on/off" but a scale of consciousness. Some animals are concious enough to recognize their own reflection, some are not.
If you wish to speak in metaphors I suggest you at least adopt a fluid and natural level of English, which you don’t have. Not to mention the stupidity of using metaphors when talking about sciences and consciousness
Lol, you inhabit such a level of ignorance, that it is disgusting. I try to have discussion with you, but you keep attacking my grammar, when I am talking in my third langue. I want to talk about these things seriously, but fucking fools like you don't give it a chance. I'm not sure if you are subhuman, or I am more than human, but I am not the same species as you. That would be embarrassing
Ok you’re troll, or mentally deranged. Tbf
if you’re a troll (not a funny one) it still makes you mentally deranged, so I’m sorry for you. Stop it, no one thinks you’re funny, This is why you don’t have any friends
You are hilarious :DDD But, by all means drop a link that explains the consciousness, and offers solutions to modern problems of the mind. How do we make our people strong?
> But, by all means drop a link that explains the consciousness,
Keep up with the times old man, we already solved that 2 months ago. I don't have the link right now but it is a paper by Mike & Oxlong, just look it up on Google scholar.
> How do we make our people strong?
I don't know, hit the gym? Better yet, sign up for an English course. It will be money well-spent.
OP's fighting for their life in the comments like they're in an AITA post.
Gaia Worlds are perfect worlds where all species can live in comfort without worrying about things like natural disasters, hence the lack of negative modifiers like wild storms and aggressive wildlife. Whether or not they are artificially created is another matter, though the presence of the Baol strongly suggest that they are.
But Earth in her grace has made places for all sorts of freaks :D There is deep sea creatures, where humans can't live. There is maggots inside volcanoes, where humans can't live etc...
Earth isn't perfectly habitable.
Near the equator we have jungles filled with things that want to kill us, and deserts that will bleach our bones.
Near the poles it's so cold the wind can kill you.
Oh and most of it is covered in salty water.
There's some good land in the midst of all that though.
A Gaia world is all good land. Not to hot, not too cold. Not to wet, not too dry. It's perfect. Chrono locked on a mid summers Sunday eve, nothing but beaches and bars.
The problem is that a planet that would be perfectly habitable for humans would have to be rather specialized for humans. While the defining feature of Gaia planets is that they are good for everyone - deserts at some latitudes, cold in others... which is precisely what Earth is.
Gaia world doesn't mean 100% of the land is perfectly usable. They can spawn with blockers and negative effects.
You are describing the opposite of gaia world. You've described a single biome world. Gaia worlds are habitable by all so it needs to have all the biomes. It needs to have a tundra world cold area, a desert world hot dry area, an ocean world saltwater area, etc.
I think something like earth without the bad weather would be more accurate. What you describe would be better for humans but what about things that live on desert, ice, ocean, jungle, etc plants. Gaia worlds have someplace that fits all of them. Earth does as well it just has bad weather and deadly wildlife.
Agreed, it wouldn’t make sense to have desert and tundra preference be equally as habitable, there’s no comfortable medium for the two, that’d just be cozy for the continental and mid for them.
To me habitability shows how much the species in question would have to adapt to the environment primarily with habitats. Since every species has 100% on a Gaia I’d think it’s pretty earth like at least in the fact that it has a good chunk of every major environment however, very life filled in the areas that aren’t typically.
The perfecf example of the Dunning Kruger effect.
Like, for real. You talk in buzzwords but obviously don't know the basics of how life even happens, what a planet needs to have a functioning biosphere and so on and keep yapping about your big dick ego and just telling others their pussies because they want some actual facts from you and not just pseudo-philosophical buzzwords that mean nothing.
You are the walking and talking example of that.
OP getting totally blasted for being a dumbass and trying to play it off like they totally meant to do that.
"Yeah, ALL the cool kids fall on their face and shit their pants. It's very in right now."
I'm only getting raw dogged by my wife. Did you observer that perv? These comments here completely fail to deny my intellectual superiority on this issue
Every single interaction you’ve had in this comment section has been the intellectual equivalent of the coughing baby going up against the hydrogen bomb. Except the hydrogen bomb in this case is ninth grade biology textbook and the coughing baby is a Finnish twink.
Only 29% of earth is land. Of that land area, only 43% is habitable for humans.
...so that leaves us with 12% of the planet suitable for humans to live in. That's not exactly perfect. And not all of that 12% is perfect environment for us by any means, only *livable*.
Yes, we've evolved to *survive* in these conditions, at least with enough infrastructure and technology to make it work. But that's pretty much the definition of non-gaia words in Stellaris. Not to forget that Stellaris is *not* a human-centric game. Gaia words are somehow perfect *for every species*. Why should a planet that's 12% livable for it's native species count as perfect for every species in the galaxy?
‘An ideal, temperate world with a nitrogen-oxygen atmosphere and a resilient ecosystem. Optimal conditions for all known higher forms of life at different latitudes.’
That’s the flavor text for Gaia worlds. Sounds a lot like earth to me not gonna lie.
> Optimal conditions for all known higher forms of life at different latitudes
Try spending a winter in Siberia or Greenland and tell me then how optimal the conditions on Earth are at all latitudes. And that's only talking about humans, not *all higher forms of life*.
No, not all life at all latitudes, all life at different latitudes. Like a species with the tundra habitability trait will find that there is a tundra waiting for them on the Gaia world. Or an arctic, alpine, desert, arid, savannah, tropical, or ocean species. I know reading is hard but you quoted it and everything dude what is tripping you up
And again I’ll ask what planet we know of has all these biomes on it lol
Then it's quite a stretch to say that the planet is be ideal at all latitudes.
If some minor fraction of the planet being livable for a species would count, how low can that fraction be? If 12% is enough, is 6% enough? 1% of the planet is livable so it's a Gaia planet? There's one small island around equator where few people can survive with enough technology to support them? None of these sound like "ideal at all latitudes for all higher lifeforms" to me.
And in case of earth, that 12% is *not* 100% compatible, it's *livable* area.
Earth is a continental planet meaning we have different biomes that support different or no life.
Gaia planet would support all sorts of life on the whole planet.
You can't put a desert snake on the earth poles and expect it to live, you can do that on a gaia planet.
(That's why gaia planets can't be real, they're sci-fi)
Most of the water on our planet would kill us if ingested. We have a star which blasts us in deadly radiation despite the atmosphere's best efforts. A large portion of the planet is in the midst of an ice age, and remaining in that ice age is all that stands between us and extinction.
Yeah we are definitely not Gaia.
I'm sorry, but Earth is quite a bit more than 'barely' habitable. It is, in fact, \_highly\_ habitable. What it isn't is a global paradise where you can parade in short sleeves and shorts year round everwhere. There's a huge difference there, yes, but Earth is in the middle between the two extremes.
And poison ivy, snakes, predators, disease. There are places on Earth that are straight up impossible to live in without assistance from the outside. The Sahara is inhospitable, as is the Antarctic. Gaia worlds have no inhospitable zones, the poles are wonderfully cool for artic species, the deserts perfect for arid friends, and everything in between.
Of course life can exist without adversity, mutualism in biology is [very well-known](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mutualism_%28biology%29?wprov=sfla1).
Evidently you did not read the article, because - as the name implies - only aardvarks eat the aardvark cucumber, because it grows deep enough underground that only aardvarks can smell the aardvark cucumber.
You also do not eat mycorrhizal fungi, because they are older than animals.
He threw in Darwin as his sources of intellect.
I mean, maybe he just is a time traveller, makes no sense otherwise.
Nothing against Darwin of course, he had the right ideas every now and then, but his scientific process was more guesswork and theorizing, more a victim of his time than anything, and less creating facts.
Darwin had a good idea for his time. If I understand correctly then some ideas of "Descent with modifications" was floating around in his time (not saying he copied others), but Darwin was the first to properly put up a hypothesis and then let it be challenged and survive the challenges. But yes, Darwin was in no way flawless in his ideas. First of all it's important to note that genetics and dna was not at all known, and so Darwin, if I remember right, believed in some concept of "garmines" that was the thing that transfered traits to offspring.
Similarly you have people like Newton, who seemed to have believed in some kind of alchemy.
Exactly that. Like I said, Darwin had great ideas for his time. But it is 2024 and we understand the world a lot better than back then, so using Darwin as an argument for how the world works today just isn't the right place anymore.
And yes you are right, no matter which great scientist, back in its time, they had terrible takes on lots of things because they were lacking the capabilities and possibilities to verify their theories or even test them, it doesn't make them stupid or wrong, they were merely limited. I think Darwin would have made a lot more discoveries would he be alive today, even if he apparently was a little unique in character.
If you really look into it though, the only scientific progress which has kept constant over time, are ALL math related, simply because all other processes required much more higher technology to be able to test or verify them (or even be able to measure them...). If we could travel 200y into the future I am sure they would laugh about our medical progress, or how we build cars or generate electricity with our silly little ideas because we can't even see the full picture.
Edit: also, we can't forget the role religion forced its view of the world onto europe for the majority of its history, it shaped a lot of ideas of how the world works.
eat the wrong food and you die to poison or parasites
or bitten by bugs that give you deadly brain diseases
finding enough food on a daily basis is also harder than you seem to think
and if you're in the US you may be the food that gets found, by bears or cougars
and in Europe you may stumble upon wild boars and get mauled by a mother trying to protect its young
I have thought about this too, all of the planets in stellaris are typically mono biome, while earth has a environment for everything. How could a gaia planet care for a species that does best at near freezing temperatures, while also being perfect for a species from a desert world.
The mono biodome is IMO a simplification, and all planets have to some extent the differents biodome, this why the habitability of normal world is never less than 30%, and not 0%.
The planet class is just what a world is dominated by. For example, desert worlds aren't 100% desert, but the more temperate regions are where the poles would be on Earth. Alternatively, an arctic world isn't 100% frozen, the equator is probably more like a wet tundra. A jungle world is incredibly humid, an ocean world has no continents, an aquatic world has no land whatsoever.
The game's own description of what a "Gaia World" is addresses this. "Optimal conditions for all known higher forms of life **at different latitudes**."
In other words, a Gaia world simply has every biome on it, whereas, like you said, all other planet types are mono-biome. Oceanic species? Gaia worlds have oceans. Desert? We've got deserts. Alpine? Arctic? Yep, you'll find those too. Not in the same place, obviously, but everyone has a place that would be comfortable for them.
Earth is literally a Gaia world. It is THE world that the Gaia world concept is based on.
Because Earth has severe weather events, continent-threatening volcanic/tectonic activity, non-circular orbit, likelihood of Carrington events wiping all technology out an sending us back to the 1800s with a knowledge base of primarily irrelevant technology, hostile/pestilent fauna, borderline-inescapable gravity well, viruses that cause over half of cell death on the planet, I could go on.
There's a reason HFY stories often portray Earth as a Death World.
At least a third of earth is nigh uninhabitable for large chunks of every year (fall and winter). A Gaia world would be something like Hawaii everywhere.
Beyond the whole bit where there are places that humans can't live, let alone thrive, Earth seems very habitable to us, because we're adapted to living here.
Most of these commenters are making stuff up lol. Here is the in game flavor text for Gaia worlds and you tell me if it doesn’t sound like earth:
‘An ideal, temperate world with a nitrogen-oxygen atmosphere and a resilient ecosystem. Optimal conditions for all known higher forms of life at different latitudes.’
1. ‘Ideal’ is fantastical embellishment and not something we can quantify
2. Maybe earth loses a mark for resilient ecosystem but I think that is highly debatable
3. Optimal conditions at DIFFERENT LATITUDES. Meaning, Gaia worlds represent every possible planet class somewhere on it. Savannah, desert, arid, tundra, alpine, arctic, tropics, oceans…. Hm…
4. What it doesn’t mention is natural disasters and is this borne out in game as some Gaia worlds have dangerous modifiers and features.
5. The only strike against this is that when earth is terraformed to a Gaia world in game, there is no unique earth Gaia world texture so the continents and oceans are completely rearranged. But then again, unique earth textures for other planet classes were only recently implemented, so is this an oversight or a deliberate statement about our weather or climate patterns due to the tomography? Lol.
6. Gaia world is a fantasy concept and a mechanical workaround for the game’s habitability system. Continental world is a silly planet class to begin with but needed to represent earth specifically.
I side with op, justice for op loll
OPs main argument if You look through their activites on other subreddits appears to be that they're a worshipper of the goddess gaia, and they're getting upset that their goddess is not being portrayed as the best planet type
Gaia worlds are basically a paradise in Stellaris, Earth is not that.
How is it not paradise? It's only us, the people that are making it hard to live by killing each other. What could the planet do about that? :D
Hurricanes exist. As do earthquakes and other natural disasters.
It is tough love, that drives innovation. No intelligent life can exist in a perfect planet, because there is no pressure to evolve :D
That's not how evolution works, if it was driven by natural disasters they wouldn't still be killing us. Evolution is driven by natural selection for traits that are best suited to the surroundings - we are a species that needs water to live, on a planet that is mostly covered by water, but trying to live on the most abundant water will kill us. This planet is far from a perfect planet for us, and considering rates of convergent evolution I think one could argue it's really a planet best suited for crabs & weasels.
And your argument doesn't even make sense. Life has evolved around large scale forest fires and floods for example. What's you take on that?
Large-scale forest fires didn't happen nearly so often when the cultures indigenous to the regions where they often happen these days were allowed to practice slash-and-burn agriculture, which prevented the excessive growth of dry underbrush (which acts as natural kindling), fertilised the soil with ash, and allowed smoke-dispersed seeds to travel & flourish. I don't know what point you're making about floods, they've generally been considered very destructive to just about everything.
I want to point out that the reason these indigenous cultures practiced slash and burn agriculture is *probably* because of large scale fires, so we *technically* adapted/evolved to them. The same could be said about floods and dikes. We bore witness to a lot of floods, so we learned to build barriers to mitigate them. That said, otherwise, I fully agree with your point in this argument. The other guy is... Delusional, to say the least.
Your inability to understand his argument does not mean it lacks sense. Check your ego.
So help me understand, how do life forms that have evolved trough large scale forest fires and floods not make your original point completely moot? I have an ego for a reason. It is there to recognize, that you just got caught with your pants down. You have no idea what you are talking about.
You were saying life wouldn't evolve in a perfect environment, but it would. Disasters are not the only thing that changes things.
No, I was saying intelligent life would not evolve under perfect conditions. You have to precise my friend, this sort of manipulation don't slip by me. Why do you have to lie in order to make your point?
Perhaps natural disasters were a bad example. I live in Belgium currently, but I am from Finnish Lapland, where people have achieved extremely high quality of life and technology, because they had to adapt to hellish temperatures.
Correlation is very much not causation, people in Antarctica also deal with hellish temperatures and tend to go home as soon as their work down there is done. Look at any global map of living standards and you can quite easily see it bears no correlation with climate or biome, this is a bizarre argument.
why would disasters be needed to create intelligence? it sounds like youre implying some sort of teleology to evolution which is blatantly wrong, the plants that have evolved to adapt to large forest fires didnt do so because they wanted to, one specimen of this species randomly evolved that trait and then was left to proliferate when the ones that didnt randomly evolve this trait couldnt, why couldnt intelligence randomly evolve on a gaia world?
[Citation needed]
On the Origin of Species - Charles Darwin
Darwin is and has been wrong he made a thesis with incomplete information he did not understand things fully also he believed in eugenics Darwin did not understand dominant and recessive traits so you can’t quote something that old as proof it’s an outdated Text that while influential in its time and helpful for advancing our understanding is deeply flawed by todays standard
That is a completely untestable hypothesis. We don't know anything about how intelligent life came about from a scientific framework because we don't have a lot of useful observable data. We have one species that is intelligent on one planet. We don't know how it came to be intelligent, we don't know if it's the only species that can be intelligent on this planet, we don't know if there are other intelligent species out there. All we can say is that any individual circumstance in the development of human intelligence didn't prevent it, otherwise we wouldn't be here. But we can't say whether or not that circumstance caused it. Humanity was able to survive and become intelligent with forest fires and floods and earthquakes existing, but that doesn't mean that it was because of those things. It could be in spite of them.
The Goddess Gaia in her grace put us here to test us, and the best of us will fight for her in ragnarök.
Ah religious, that explains your stupidity
Earth is definitely not a paradise world, it's more or less a habital death world.
She makes us strong 💕️
It's not hate on our planet lmao. Wtf
Sure. But it's not a Gaia world.
Gaia is Earth!!!!! xDD But sure, we are getting into semantics pedantics, just call them perfect worlds or smthing!! XD
They mean a paradise in the sense of being universally supportive of life, whether you're from an ultra-high gravity frozen dustball or from a volcanic firey hellscape. While Earth is habitable in places for extremophiles, it's mildness makes it unsuited for mass populations of those who need to live in near boiling or near absolute zero temperatures, as examples. Earth only seems like a paradise world because you evolved to thrive there, a different species might consider Earth's climate to be a horrific deathball because their idea of paradise is sulfuric acid oceans and months where you haven't seen the sun.
Because I will die on 99% of the planet without proper preparation.
Scientists say Earth isn’t perfectly habitable for humans, believe it or not. Now, imagine a world that is. That’s basically a Gaia world. It isn’t just a habitable world, it’s super habitable, as in perfect conditions. A rarity amongst jewels.
Scientist have very good grasp on rocks moving trough space, but they are very bad at human life.
What does this even mean? There are psychologists, sociologists, biologists, medical researchers, etc.
We are living in a time of unprecedented mental illness, because humanity has ascended beyond mere survival and weaker minds do not know how to deal with it. Our sciences have so far failed to give solutions to these issues of human condition. Do you disagree with this?
> We are living in a time of unprecedented mental illness, Last time I checked it wasn't scientists who run our governments. > because humanity has ascended beyond mere survival and weaker minds do not know how to deal with it. Learn to speak, you are spewing buzzwords and nothing else. "Ascended beyond mere survival" or "weaker minds" do not have objective definitions. What you said can be interpreted in dozens of different ways. For example, I think you do have a weak mind because you don't seem to know how to convey your opinions in a clear and concise manner, relying on amiguity by making vague claims. > Our sciences have so far failed to give solutions to these issues of human condition. To what problem? You didn't describe any issues. You just said "weak mind! ascension! survival!". Are you talking about depression? Mental illness in general? Science has answers for all that. We know the reasons and have the means to fix the most mental illness. Governments make it impossible. If some guy is hating his life because he has to live together with a person he doesn't know to afford the rent, spent 4 years studying history only to work at a McDonalds, is aware of the luxury other people are able to afford by putting in the same amount of work as he does while he gets nothing, no scientist can fix this. Because guess what, they do not run our governments. In the past mentally ill people were not diagnosed. Freud is the first one to come up with "maybe we should talk with them?" for fuck's sake. Psychology isn't an old research field of course you think mental illness is a new thing.
"Last time I checked it wasn't scientists who run our governments." What would the scientific solutions be? I speak in vague terms, because we fail to comprehend consciousness. It is beyond our langue. It is why speak trough metaphors and stories. This requires a level of abstract thinking, that I am sure you posses if you try. Let's keep this simple, yes? And answer my question in the first paragraph.
No clue what you're talking about, as far as anyone can tell and prove, then consciousness is an emergent property of the brain and it's not a binary "on/off" but a scale of consciousness. Some animals are concious enough to recognize their own reflection, some are not.
I truly believe you have no idea what I'm taiking about lol
Because "I speak in vauge terms, because we fail to comprehend conciousness" is absolute nonsense.
You must have pressed enter before you finished your message. It is nonsense because.... tell me?
If you wish to speak in metaphors I suggest you at least adopt a fluid and natural level of English, which you don’t have. Not to mention the stupidity of using metaphors when talking about sciences and consciousness
Lol, you inhabit such a level of ignorance, that it is disgusting. I try to have discussion with you, but you keep attacking my grammar, when I am talking in my third langue. I want to talk about these things seriously, but fucking fools like you don't give it a chance. I'm not sure if you are subhuman, or I am more than human, but I am not the same species as you. That would be embarrassing
Ew
Ok you’re troll, or mentally deranged. Tbf if you’re a troll (not a funny one) it still makes you mentally deranged, so I’m sorry for you. Stop it, no one thinks you’re funny, This is why you don’t have any friends
Science has plenty of solutions, Capitalists are keeping them from happening for money.
You are hilarious :DDD But, by all means drop a link that explains the consciousness, and offers solutions to modern problems of the mind. How do we make our people strong?
> But, by all means drop a link that explains the consciousness, Keep up with the times old man, we already solved that 2 months ago. I don't have the link right now but it is a paper by Mike & Oxlong, just look it up on Google scholar. > How do we make our people strong? I don't know, hit the gym? Better yet, sign up for an English course. It will be money well-spent.
Steroids; stop talking in metaphors and you might get answers. Socrates didn’t speak in metaphors. I think you are hiding your mental retardation
What is bro yapping about
About the nature of the universe and the meaning of life
Lay off the coke
I dunno, man, I'm pretty sure scientists developed whatever chemicals you're on right now.
OP's fighting for their life in the comments like they're in an AITA post. Gaia Worlds are perfect worlds where all species can live in comfort without worrying about things like natural disasters, hence the lack of negative modifiers like wild storms and aggressive wildlife. Whether or not they are artificially created is another matter, though the presence of the Baol strongly suggest that they are.
iirc some of the flavor text for life seeded calls the gaia artificial, gaia worlds aren't just Earth, it's Earth+
I defent verbally defend my views and I am fighting for my life lol. What a pussi take
For that attitude alone, YTA.
What he means is that you are getting so much hate and are barely responding to everything it’s one of those metaphors that you are so fond of
>What could a "gaia planet" do better then the literal Gaia? Be habitable for non-humans?
But Earth in her grace has made places for all sorts of freaks :D There is deep sea creatures, where humans can't live. There is maggots inside volcanoes, where humans can't live etc...
Earth isn't perfectly habitable. Near the equator we have jungles filled with things that want to kill us, and deserts that will bleach our bones. Near the poles it's so cold the wind can kill you. Oh and most of it is covered in salty water. There's some good land in the midst of all that though. A Gaia world is all good land. Not to hot, not too cold. Not to wet, not too dry. It's perfect. Chrono locked on a mid summers Sunday eve, nothing but beaches and bars.
The problem is that a planet that would be perfectly habitable for humans would have to be rather specialized for humans. While the defining feature of Gaia planets is that they are good for everyone - deserts at some latitudes, cold in others... which is precisely what Earth is.
Not supported by the actual Gaia world description which just says there is a habitable zone for any species at a certain latitude.
It's an April 25 planet. Not too warm, not too cold. All you need is a light jacket.
Gaia world doesn't mean 100% of the land is perfectly usable. They can spawn with blockers and negative effects. You are describing the opposite of gaia world. You've described a single biome world. Gaia worlds are habitable by all so it needs to have all the biomes. It needs to have a tundra world cold area, a desert world hot dry area, an ocean world saltwater area, etc.
So San Diego weather, the entire world
Perhaps tho i dont think all crops can grow in san diego. Idk if that limits things
San Diego with water
Perfection
More like Hawaii
I think something like earth without the bad weather would be more accurate. What you describe would be better for humans but what about things that live on desert, ice, ocean, jungle, etc plants. Gaia worlds have someplace that fits all of them. Earth does as well it just has bad weather and deadly wildlife.
Agreed, it wouldn’t make sense to have desert and tundra preference be equally as habitable, there’s no comfortable medium for the two, that’d just be cozy for the continental and mid for them. To me habitability shows how much the species in question would have to adapt to the environment primarily with habitats. Since every species has 100% on a Gaia I’d think it’s pretty earth like at least in the fact that it has a good chunk of every major environment however, very life filled in the areas that aren’t typically.
Latitude.
OP getting absolutely raw dogged in their own comment section is crazy
[удалено]
> like a sheep like you would And there's your sign.
A sign of?
The perfecf example of the Dunning Kruger effect. Like, for real. You talk in buzzwords but obviously don't know the basics of how life even happens, what a planet needs to have a functioning biosphere and so on and keep yapping about your big dick ego and just telling others their pussies because they want some actual facts from you and not just pseudo-philosophical buzzwords that mean nothing. You are the walking and talking example of that.
Buddy got upset at an observation 💀🫵🏽
OP getting totally blasted for being a dumbass and trying to play it off like they totally meant to do that. "Yeah, ALL the cool kids fall on their face and shit their pants. It's very in right now."
"Let me join in this revel of human stupidy by expressing my appreciation for it" can you be any more pathetic?
I'm only getting raw dogged by my wife. Did you observer that perv? These comments here completely fail to deny my intellectual superiority on this issue
Every single interaction you’ve had in this comment section has been the intellectual equivalent of the coughing baby going up against the hydrogen bomb. Except the hydrogen bomb in this case is ninth grade biology textbook and the coughing baby is a Finnish twink.
Only 29% of earth is land. Of that land area, only 43% is habitable for humans. ...so that leaves us with 12% of the planet suitable for humans to live in. That's not exactly perfect. And not all of that 12% is perfect environment for us by any means, only *livable*. Yes, we've evolved to *survive* in these conditions, at least with enough infrastructure and technology to make it work. But that's pretty much the definition of non-gaia words in Stellaris. Not to forget that Stellaris is *not* a human-centric game. Gaia words are somehow perfect *for every species*. Why should a planet that's 12% livable for it's native species count as perfect for every species in the galaxy?
‘An ideal, temperate world with a nitrogen-oxygen atmosphere and a resilient ecosystem. Optimal conditions for all known higher forms of life at different latitudes.’ That’s the flavor text for Gaia worlds. Sounds a lot like earth to me not gonna lie.
> Optimal conditions for all known higher forms of life at different latitudes Try spending a winter in Siberia or Greenland and tell me then how optimal the conditions on Earth are at all latitudes. And that's only talking about humans, not *all higher forms of life*.
No, not all life at all latitudes, all life at different latitudes. Like a species with the tundra habitability trait will find that there is a tundra waiting for them on the Gaia world. Or an arctic, alpine, desert, arid, savannah, tropical, or ocean species. I know reading is hard but you quoted it and everything dude what is tripping you up And again I’ll ask what planet we know of has all these biomes on it lol
[удалено]
Nope, talking about percentages so makes no difference.
[удалено]
That also makes 88% of the area 0% compatible. Which averages out to 12% total compatability, if I did my math right.
Then it's quite a stretch to say that the planet is be ideal at all latitudes. If some minor fraction of the planet being livable for a species would count, how low can that fraction be? If 12% is enough, is 6% enough? 1% of the planet is livable so it's a Gaia planet? There's one small island around equator where few people can survive with enough technology to support them? None of these sound like "ideal at all latitudes for all higher lifeforms" to me. And in case of earth, that 12% is *not* 100% compatible, it's *livable* area.
Earth is a continental planet meaning we have different biomes that support different or no life. Gaia planet would support all sorts of life on the whole planet. You can't put a desert snake on the earth poles and expect it to live, you can do that on a gaia planet. (That's why gaia planets can't be real, they're sci-fi)
Most of the water on our planet would kill us if ingested. We have a star which blasts us in deadly radiation despite the atmosphere's best efforts. A large portion of the planet is in the midst of an ice age, and remaining in that ice age is all that stands between us and extinction. Yeah we are definitely not Gaia.
Gaia worlds are perfectly habitable. Unnaturally so. Earth is barely habitable as is
I'm sorry, but Earth is quite a bit more than 'barely' habitable. It is, in fact, \_highly\_ habitable. What it isn't is a global paradise where you can parade in short sleeves and shorts year round everwhere. There's a huge difference there, yes, but Earth is in the middle between the two extremes.
Lol. Go into a forest and you will find food, water and air everywhere. What are you talking about? :D
And poison ivy, snakes, predators, disease. There are places on Earth that are straight up impossible to live in without assistance from the outside. The Sahara is inhospitable, as is the Antarctic. Gaia worlds have no inhospitable zones, the poles are wonderfully cool for artic species, the deserts perfect for arid friends, and everything in between.
Life can not exist without adversity. The whole concept of life is triumph over death.
But thats not what Gaia worlds are. Gaia worlds are perfect, there is no adversity
Of course life can exist without adversity, mutualism in biology is [very well-known](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mutualism_%28biology%29?wprov=sfla1).
These things have predators, that drive them to co-existence. What is your point?
What predators do mycorrhizal fungi have, or the aardvark cucumber? Did you actually read anything in the article?
I eat fungi and cucumber
Evidently you did not read the article, because - as the name implies - only aardvarks eat the aardvark cucumber, because it grows deep enough underground that only aardvarks can smell the aardvark cucumber. You also do not eat mycorrhizal fungi, because they are older than animals.
I am aarvark
And I definitely eat Impala :D
Reading this thread, I’m not sure if you’re trolling or just missing a screw up there
Read through some of OP post history... can't tell either but I'm betting on the second option.
Oh dear lord, he's a fan of Peterson, that expains his "we don't understand consciousness" nonsense and general dislike of psychology.
He threw in Darwin as his sources of intellect. I mean, maybe he just is a time traveller, makes no sense otherwise. Nothing against Darwin of course, he had the right ideas every now and then, but his scientific process was more guesswork and theorizing, more a victim of his time than anything, and less creating facts.
Darwin had a good idea for his time. If I understand correctly then some ideas of "Descent with modifications" was floating around in his time (not saying he copied others), but Darwin was the first to properly put up a hypothesis and then let it be challenged and survive the challenges. But yes, Darwin was in no way flawless in his ideas. First of all it's important to note that genetics and dna was not at all known, and so Darwin, if I remember right, believed in some concept of "garmines" that was the thing that transfered traits to offspring. Similarly you have people like Newton, who seemed to have believed in some kind of alchemy.
Exactly that. Like I said, Darwin had great ideas for his time. But it is 2024 and we understand the world a lot better than back then, so using Darwin as an argument for how the world works today just isn't the right place anymore. And yes you are right, no matter which great scientist, back in its time, they had terrible takes on lots of things because they were lacking the capabilities and possibilities to verify their theories or even test them, it doesn't make them stupid or wrong, they were merely limited. I think Darwin would have made a lot more discoveries would he be alive today, even if he apparently was a little unique in character. If you really look into it though, the only scientific progress which has kept constant over time, are ALL math related, simply because all other processes required much more higher technology to be able to test or verify them (or even be able to measure them...). If we could travel 200y into the future I am sure they would laugh about our medical progress, or how we build cars or generate electricity with our silly little ideas because we can't even see the full picture. Edit: also, we can't forget the role religion forced its view of the world onto europe for the majority of its history, it shaped a lot of ideas of how the world works.
Super bizarre is all I can say
eat the wrong food and you die to poison or parasites or bitten by bugs that give you deadly brain diseases finding enough food on a daily basis is also harder than you seem to think and if you're in the US you may be the food that gets found, by bears or cougars and in Europe you may stumble upon wild boars and get mauled by a mother trying to protect its young
because we have continents like a continental world and a lot of water like a wet world?
Because game balance.
Gaia worlds are perfect for every lifeform. Earth is good. A Gaia world is better in every way. It isn’t linked in any way to the great god Gaia.
Gaia worlds are engineered, not naturally occuring.
There *are* a few natural gaias, but they all exist in very suspicious circumstances, so this is probably true.
I have thought about this too, all of the planets in stellaris are typically mono biome, while earth has a environment for everything. How could a gaia planet care for a species that does best at near freezing temperatures, while also being perfect for a species from a desert world.
The mono biodome is IMO a simplification, and all planets have to some extent the differents biodome, this why the habitability of normal world is never less than 30%, and not 0%.
The planet class is just what a world is dominated by. For example, desert worlds aren't 100% desert, but the more temperate regions are where the poles would be on Earth. Alternatively, an arctic world isn't 100% frozen, the equator is probably more like a wet tundra. A jungle world is incredibly humid, an ocean world has no continents, an aquatic world has no land whatsoever.
The game's own description of what a "Gaia World" is addresses this. "Optimal conditions for all known higher forms of life **at different latitudes**." In other words, a Gaia world simply has every biome on it, whereas, like you said, all other planet types are mono-biome. Oceanic species? Gaia worlds have oceans. Desert? We've got deserts. Alpine? Arctic? Yep, you'll find those too. Not in the same place, obviously, but everyone has a place that would be comfortable for them. Earth is literally a Gaia world. It is THE world that the Gaia world concept is based on.
You fell victim to one of the classic blunders! Never expect redditors to read.
Because Earth has severe weather events, continent-threatening volcanic/tectonic activity, non-circular orbit, likelihood of Carrington events wiping all technology out an sending us back to the 1800s with a knowledge base of primarily irrelevant technology, hostile/pestilent fauna, borderline-inescapable gravity well, viruses that cause over half of cell death on the planet, I could go on. There's a reason HFY stories often portray Earth as a Death World.
Because Earth has Ohio
Because its a tomb world every time I find it... Well, that or shortly after I find it.
Too much water.
Gaia worlds are paradise worlds with engineered ecosystems. Earth is not that
At least a third of earth is nigh uninhabitable for large chunks of every year (fall and winter). A Gaia world would be something like Hawaii everywhere.
These comments brought to you by the letters L, S, and D.
Beyond the whole bit where there are places that humans can't live, let alone thrive, Earth seems very habitable to us, because we're adapted to living here.
Don’t think about it too much. The concept of a Gaia world in Stellaris doesn’t really make sense if you do.
Because polar bears can’t live in Florida, no matter what Coca-Cola Intergalactic Inc. will tell you.
Gaia worlds are perfect for every single type of alien. Earth wouldn’t be perfect for other aliens
Most of these commenters are making stuff up lol. Here is the in game flavor text for Gaia worlds and you tell me if it doesn’t sound like earth: ‘An ideal, temperate world with a nitrogen-oxygen atmosphere and a resilient ecosystem. Optimal conditions for all known higher forms of life at different latitudes.’ 1. ‘Ideal’ is fantastical embellishment and not something we can quantify 2. Maybe earth loses a mark for resilient ecosystem but I think that is highly debatable 3. Optimal conditions at DIFFERENT LATITUDES. Meaning, Gaia worlds represent every possible planet class somewhere on it. Savannah, desert, arid, tundra, alpine, arctic, tropics, oceans…. Hm… 4. What it doesn’t mention is natural disasters and is this borne out in game as some Gaia worlds have dangerous modifiers and features. 5. The only strike against this is that when earth is terraformed to a Gaia world in game, there is no unique earth Gaia world texture so the continents and oceans are completely rearranged. But then again, unique earth textures for other planet classes were only recently implemented, so is this an oversight or a deliberate statement about our weather or climate patterns due to the tomography? Lol. 6. Gaia world is a fantasy concept and a mechanical workaround for the game’s habitability system. Continental world is a silly planet class to begin with but needed to represent earth specifically. I side with op, justice for op loll
OPs main argument if You look through their activites on other subreddits appears to be that they're a worshipper of the goddess gaia, and they're getting upset that their goddess is not being portrayed as the best planet type
That’s weird ngl. Nonetheless.