Intelligent, ant-sized people could be coerced, manipulated, and demoralized. They would respond in more sophisticated ways and be commanded to do what I want.
Meanwhile, ants can't even build statues of me.
Intelligent, ant-sized people could be coerced, manipulated, and demoralized. They would respond in more sophisticated ways and be commanded to do what I want.
So if ants built you a dirt clod that resembled you, you would spend your days stomping on ants? Sounds like you need a hobby.Thrylix wrote: ↑March 19th, 2021, 10:05 amIntelligent, ant-sized people could be coerced, manipulated, and demoralized. They would respond in more sophisticated ways and be commanded to do what I want.
Meanwhile, ants can't even build statues of me.
It's like children and pets. You can coerce, manipulate and demoralise them, if that's your choice. If you do, they will respond in certain ways and do what you want, as stated. But, with that approach, one will not bring out the best in our "subjects".LuckyR wrote: ↑March 19th, 2021, 2:09 pmSo if ants built you a dirt clod that resembled you, you would spend your days stomping on ants? Sounds like you need a hobby.
Ants are little more than mindless automatons so I agree with you. It would be pointless: they are incapable of interpreting a shoe overhead as something that will crush them, because they don’t know what it means to be crushed. When I stop to bulldoze an ant mound with the toe of my sneaker, all the ants perceive is a huge, long white thing that looks like it shouldn't be there. To them it is a giant alien object obtruding their usual path in and out, but they still don't comprehend it as deadly or dangerous. That is why if you keep your foot still, you will still see them crawling around or underneath your shoe in order to get in or out. I'd know: I've stepped on a lot of ants.
But noninterference is boring! Besides, what's the benefit of letting the tiny people stand on their own feet when you could have them all kissing your feet instead?
You don't have to explain your fascination with ant mounds, it is well documented and pretty simplistic. My point, that you confirm is that while the ant people would experience differently than ants, you are neither of them. So what's in it for you? And you have made it plain that your appreciation of an experience like this is based on the experience of others (not yourself) which is less common. Many have difficulty understanding/appreciating that, thus a lot of the responses you got.Thrylix wrote: ↑March 22nd, 2021, 1:11 pmAnts are little more than mindless automatons so I agree with you. It would be pointless: they are incapable of interpreting a shoe overhead as something that will crush them, because they don’t know what it means to be crushed. When I stop to bulldoze an ant mound with the toe of my sneaker, all the ants perceive is a huge, long white thing that looks like it shouldn't be there. To them it is a giant alien object obtruding their usual path in and out, but they still don't comprehend it as deadly or dangerous. That is why if you keep your foot still, you will still see them crawling around or underneath your shoe in order to get in or out. I'd know: I've stepped on a lot of ants.
By contrast, ruling over intelligent ant-sized people would be much different, and I don't think you can argue that. Not only would they react differently, but they would have great technological and industrial potential and could be exploited in very material ways that wouldn't compare to mindless ants. The possibilities would seem almost limitless. The idea of having an entire population of intelligent beings to toy with, reward, and terrorize to suit any of my inexplicable whims or caprices greatly appeals to me. Even just from a curiosity-standpoint, it would be endlessly fascinating to watch them labor in multitudes and to test just how much oppression they will tolerate before they retaliate with force.
Simplistic yes... that's because I'm kind of guy who steps on bugs, not around them.
But, as I stated a couple pages ago in the hypothetical scenario in question, wherein one would be stranded or isolated with the tiny people, the reasoning behind most of my actions would be primarily utilitarian in nature, rather than mindlessly sadistic which is what I sense you are picturing. But reduce their population and there is nothing left to rule. The OP is a thought experiment that explores (1) whether becoming a tyrant to the little people would be necessary for survival, (2) if it is reasonable to be expected to discern them individually and seek meaningful relationships vs. seeing them just as "the little people"), and (3) would the idea of playing god to them appeal on some level. Let's be honest: what guy doesn't fantasize about being a god every now and then? If some magical genie offered up the chance to be a god, or something close it, not many guys would refuse the proposition.LuckyR wrote: ↑March 22nd, 2021, 2:24 pm My point, that you confirm is that while the ant people would experience differently than ants, you are neither of them. So what's in it for you? And you have made it plain that your appreciation of an experience like this is based on the experience of others (not yourself) which is less common. Many have difficulty understanding/appreciating that, thus a lot of the responses you got.
Depending on the scale, potentially a lot for me. I wouldn't need to be their size to benefit from ruling over them, and I would have tangible needs that one way or another, would need satisfying. An advanced enough civilization, composed of people even as small as ants, could mass produce enough food to sustain such a giant, although at that scale it would surely require a concerted effort which is where the coercion would be necessary. But with sufficient economic resources and labor, that sort of production is conceivable. Plus, as a lone giant, I would still have male sexual needs that would require satisfying, one way or another. Sure, I could just masturbate a couple times each day... but burning ghost's idea on page 2 would be irresistible. With their opinions holding no weight over me at that size, I could take their women and make them do whatever unspeakable task I wanted until I ejaculated.
I don't think I can improve on what you have described in this post, so I will just give it a bump.Thrylix wrote: ↑March 23rd, 2021, 2:18 amSimplistic yes... that's because I'm kind of guy who steps on bugs, not around them.
I was explaining the contrast in response to your comparison to ants, but what's ironic in your statement is that ants actually are fascinating.
I'll admit I treat ants like dirt, but I still appreciate that the distance and speed at which they communicate and mobilize collectively in response to deadly threats -- like my feet -- through chemical signaling and vibrations alone, is pretty remarkable. No other insect I can think of comes close.
But, as I stated a couple pages ago in the hypothetical scenario in question, wherein one would be stranded or isolated with the tiny people, the reasoning behind most of my actions would be primarily utilitarian in nature, rather than mindlessly sadistic which is what I sense you are picturing. But reduce their population and there is nothing left to rule. The OP is a thought experiment that explores (1) whether becoming a tyrant to the little people would be necessary for survival, (2) if it is reasonable to be expected to discern them individually and seek meaningful relationships vs. seeing them just as "the little people"), and (3) would the idea of playing god to them appeal on some level. Let's be honest: what guy doesn't fantasize about being a god every now and then? If some magical genie offered up the chance to be a god, or something close it, not many guys would refuse the proposition.LuckyR wrote: ↑March 22nd, 2021, 2:24 pm My point, that you confirm is that while the ant people would experience differently than ants, you are neither of them. So what's in it for you? And you have made it plain that your appreciation of an experience like this is based on the experience of others (not yourself) which is less common. Many have difficulty understanding/appreciating that, thus a lot of the responses you got.
Depending on the scale, potentially a lot for me. I wouldn't need to be their size to benefit from ruling over them, and I would have tangible needs that one way or another, would need satisfying. An advanced enough civilization, composed of people even as small as ants, could mass produce enough food to sustain such a giant, although at that scale it would surely require a concerted effort which is where the coercion would be necessary. But with sufficient economic resources and labor, that sort of production is conceivable. Plus, as a lone giant, I would still have male sexual needs that would require satisfying, one way or another. Sure, I could just masturbate a couple times each day... but burning ghost's idea on page 2 would be irresistible. With their opinions holding no weight over me at that size, I could take their women and make them do whatever unspeakable task I wanted until I ejaculated.
And to further answer your question about what's in it for me: Besides the material benefits, it would be enticing just on an intellectual level to see from such a distant perspective how each action taken could impact the civilization. It would literally be playing god; rewarding some and neglecting others, pitting one side against each other, then intervening later. Striking a fine balance between making them afraid vs. risking their anger boiling over. There would be challenge as well as opportunity.
The alternative to dominating them would be to leave them alone: the hands off approach. But that's even more problematic, especially if given limited space and resources. To them I would always be an existential threat and waiting for them to strike first is illogical.
That's not fair. Bullies signify anger and malice. I don't step on bugs because I'm angry or hate them looking for them.
No, bullying can be done simply because it's possible; malice is not needed. For instance, you don't step on larger animals with more ability to defend themselves, eg. a domerman.Thrylix wrote: ↑March 27th, 2021, 10:20 pmThat's not fair. :P Bullies signify anger and malice. I don't step on bugs because I'm angry or hate them looking for them.
I step on bugs mostly when (1) someone asks me to kill one for them or (2) they become bothersome to my immediate presence. Sometimes I'll stamp my feet on ants "just cuz" because it's interesting to experiment with their reactions. Half the guys I know wouldn't give it a second thought.
Besides, most girls love it when I squash a bug for them. Makes me feel like I'm doing my job! :D
True, but are bugs significant enough that we should think of them capable of being bullied?" At the end of the day, they're just bugs.Sy Borg wrote: ↑March 28th, 2021, 12:08 amNo, bullying can be done simply because it's possible; malice is not needed. For instance, you don't step on larger animals with more ability to defend themselves, eg. a domerman.Thrylix wrote: ↑March 27th, 2021, 10:20 pmThat's not fair. Bullies signify anger and malice. I don't step on bugs because I'm angry or hate them looking for them.
I step on bugs mostly when (1) someone asks me to kill one for them or (2) they become bothersome to my immediate presence. Sometimes I'll stamp my feet on ants "just cuz" because it's interesting to experiment with their reactions. Half the guys I know wouldn't give it a second thought.
Besides, most girls love it when I squash a bug for them. Makes me feel like I'm doing my job!
Mark Victor Hansen, Relentless: Wisdom Behind the Incomparable Chicken Soup for the Soul
by Mitzi Perdue
February 2023
Rediscovering the Wisdom of Human Nature: How Civilization Destroys Happiness
by Chet Shupe
March 2023