>>510153897
without being too longwinded about it


we needed two main things to happen, we in this case being the majority of the humanity that sees life beyond the immediate family.

>A new invention or discovery that was readily accessible and hopefully global

It could reinvigorate the people who were willing 'hustle' without it turning into a marketing free for all, capitalism is fine if there's an appropriate commodity.

>OR

>Factorization along the lines of modular exploration.

The biggest issue going on with 'NPC' culture is that there is no readily available way for people to validate information. ie: even if you actually change someone's mind in a discussion, in a lot of ways their own personal life that lead up to that point would actively negate whatever impact your interaction would have made. So there is no conclusive win state available.

Basically when you're trying to connect to people with a conversation and then noticing that there is no long term advancement, you're looking for a feature that hasn't been added to the real world yet

What this means is that in order for new information to be of value, there needs to be

A. Is this true?
if yes
B. Why would I change my old opinion? 'Not broke don't fix'

This is an incredible difficult facet to overcome because it validates prior socialization(the friends and family interactions i made before this point are intrinsically stopping me from experiencing displeasure of change)

so that means the only benefit would be that if there was something big on the horizon (cheap and affordable space exploration for example) that would make it meaningful enough simply because on a long enough timeline, that's what humanity is looking at doing to survive.