Pantheon 1x8 Reaction Extended (YT link below)
Added 2025-09-01 16:00:27 +0000 UTCIn Pantheon 1x8, The Gods Will Not Be Slain, we need to go back to analog and touching.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
YouTube Link:
Comments
Chanda very much reminds me of a sort of Suguru Geto type villain. At first, he was ‘pro-humanity’ and view the UI’s as non-humans, more like working animals, that would be the foundation for a new era of mankind. To that end, he was willing to take living human beings and turn them into ‘non-humans’ (i.e. killing them) and to the extent that they remained human, enslaving them. After being on the receiving end of his grand vision, he retained essentially the same worldview, but flipped the script. The UI’s are still non-humans, but not because they’re less than human, they’re more. They are gods, and the rest of the lower beings must either worship or perish. I wouldn’t say that he got the fate he deserved (getting his brain fried layer by layer) because no one deserves that, but he was undoubtedly harboring an evil worldview from the beginning, and it was honestly a sort of poetic justice that he had to undergo the same cruelty his research inflicted on others.
keyton bush
2025-10-21 04:47:35 +0000 UTCThank you!!!
Alex G
2025-10-21 04:26:33 +0000 UTCForgot where you said it, perhaps it was in another Pantheon reaction, but I recall you saying you were either married or getting married, so in either case congratulations!
keyton bush
2025-10-21 03:46:44 +0000 UTCI think the thing with overpopulation that makes people worry is how it's a largely human phenomenon that distinguishes us from other species. Like even cases of other species overpopulating it is caused by human intervention like introducing invasive species. For other species in nature generally population sizes vary in a wave like pattern where they reach a peak then their surrounding resources can't sustain them and the size starts going back down. Humans having figured out ways around this is what allows us to "overpopulate". Sure the earth will be at the end of the day just fine no matter what we do but there's a huge amount of impact atleast on the scale of us and other animals that we do have. Like removing carbon sinks such as coal and oil from the ground and redistributing other mineral resources as well. Not to mention animal extinctions caused by humans spreading and increasing their populations. I've heard stories about passenger pigeons in the continental US back in the 1800s being in the billions in population flying in giant flocks that cover the sky. It really is unfortunate that we are the reason such things can no longer be observed
Sale
2025-09-02 12:15:34 +0000 UTCI absolutely was being reductive by excluding other living things from the "rock" assessment. I don't think we're disagreeing. If the idea is that we should try to understand, respect, and not cause unnecessary damage to the systems that support us, then I'm on board. But I don't think that's ENTIRELY what is behind the "overpopulation" argument (the thing that made me bristle). In fact the understanding / respecting nature thing might even be mutually exclusive with the question of overpopulation. Often when overpopulation comes up in discourse and media, there is the implication that it would be GOOD if there were fewer humans (sometimes going so far as thinking humans should be killed, in the case of movie villains). To say that it's for the planet implicitly suggests a ranking where humans are lower than things occur on the planet like trees, animals, and even inanimate geological matter. This feels fundamentally different to me from the sentiment in what you wrote above about us being part of the same system. I suspect it is actually just misanthropy disguised in a more socially palatable package. I think the fact that this is so common of a motivation and that characters can just pay lip service to "overpopulation" without any real specificity is evidence of the fact that this is a widely held or at least unquestioned belief to some extent. If we were to value human life and see humans as good, then we would want as many humans as possible, and as a separate issue we would want to make sure we are not destroying the things we need to survive.
Alex G
2025-09-02 04:31:40 +0000 UTCWell, on the topic of the Earth being just a rock, it really isn’t. If we’re looking at it from the POV of natural selection, said force doesn’t just act on the species level, not even on an ecosystem level, but on the entire planet. While these forces have been acting on individual species, they did not develop in a vacuum. A critical part of ecology and what makes it a very difficult science to quantify is the interaction between species and their environments along with other species in said environments, from flora to fauna, and bacteria to archaea. These complex relationships have developed in tandem over the millions and millions of years life has existed on Earth. Because they’re so complex and tightly interconnected, they can handle a lot of stress, but saying that humans haven’t greatly stressed these systems to a degree they can no longer sustain due to our resource gathering practices is extremely reductive. I agree on the fact that humanity isn’t an evil force on the planet or a “plague”, after all, we were born from the same system. And similarly I agree on the fact that technological advancement can help us mitigate, or even reverse this stress, but at the end of the day, we are most definitely putting an extreme strain on these complex systems to a degree we can’t even fully comprehend yet. The earth and its life would definitely persist even if we wiped ourselves out with these practices, but if humanity itself wants to persist, we need to be aware of the genuine effect we are having on the web of life that even let us exist in the first place.
QuillerKeen
2025-09-02 03:55:56 +0000 UTCI guess it breaks down into multiple things. Waste, poor management, lack of infrastructure, etc are all their own problems. Whether or not there are "too many people" is another consideration, even though there is going to be correlation between population and the above problems. I think there are other, more insidious things that get trojan horsed in with these concerns though, like: - outdated Malthusean ideas of a world where population growth will inevitably crush and destroy humanity (it doesn't account for technology or adaptation, and has turned out in many ways to be the opposite of what Malthus predicted) - general misanthropy or an underlying belief that mankind is in essence bad, often coupled with... - an anthropomorphization of the world as a living creature (when really it's a rock). This is just my own guesstimation but looking into the future I think too few people is a far bigger threat right now than too many.
Alex G
2025-09-01 18:47:47 +0000 UTCWoah now, I'm not defending Thanos or Pope's methods but underpopulation is a problem for developed countries and mostly for economic reasons not an environmental one, world population is still growing and more of the planet will become uninhabitable as climate changes persists. It is a fact that overconsumption of resources and subsequent waste is a major problem for sustaining life outside of scavengers like cockroachs so I don't want to just dismiss that because the earth is 'technically just a rock' 😅
KrimzonHawka
2025-09-01 17:04:41 +0000 UTC
