this post was submitted on 12 Dec 2025
868 points (98.9% liked)

Cosmic Horror

198 readers
301 users here now

A community to discuss Cosmic Horror in it's many forms; books, films, comics, art, TV, music, RPGs, video games etc.

"cosmic horror... is a subgenre of horror fiction and weird fiction that emphasizes the horror of the unknowable and incomprehensible more than gore or other elements of shock... themes of cosmic dread, forbidden and dangerous knowledge, madness, non-human influences on humanity, religion and superstition, fate and inevitability, and the risks associated with scientific discoveries... the sense that ordinary life is a thin shell over a reality that is so alien and abstract in comparison that merely contemplating it would damage the sanity of the ordinary person, insignificance and powerlessness at the cosmic scale..."

#Horror, #Cosmic Horror, #science fiction,

For more Lovecraft & Mythos-inspired Cosmic Horror:-!lovecraft_mythos@lemmy.world

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] SethTaylor@lemmy.world 1 points 6 hours ago* (last edited 6 hours ago)

Burning the ancient ooze releases ancientness in the air

Also, someday someone's meemaw could power someone's car

[–] pedz@lemmy.ca 3 points 11 hours ago

Benziiiiiin. Gib mir Benziiiiiin!

[–] Cethin@lemmy.zip 18 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago) (1 children)

I'm going to be the person who does this I guess. Fossil fuels are mostly from plant matter, not dinosaurs, or other animals, like is often said. Still dead I guess, but not what people would think when reading this.

[–] IAmNorRealTakeYourMeds@lemmy.world 18 points 1 day ago (3 children)

I’m going to be the person who does this I guess. Fossil fuels are mostly from algae/zooplankton , not plant matter, or other animals, like is often said. Still photosynthesise I guess, but not what people would think when reading this.

[–] Soleos@lemmy.world 5 points 9 hours ago (1 children)

I’m going to be the person who does this I guess. Algae is an alternative term outside of the standard domain/kingdom taxonomy, so it actually spans multiple kingdoms. Most green, red, and brown algae are in the plantae kingdom, i.e. plants. Other algae can be protists or bacteria. The shared trait is that they are non-land photosynthetic organisms. Fossil fuels can be divided into coal (mostly formed from land plants), oil (algae/plankton), and natural gas (algae/plankton). Still classification I guess, but not what people would think when reading this.

While we often gravitate towards putting things precisely into categories, it's important to remember that classifications systems are structures imposed on continuous and complex phenomena for pragmatic purposes. They should not be conflated with the phenomena itself.

It's good to correct misconceptions, but sometimes over focusing on categories distracts from the meaning or sentiment being conveyed, in which case it may be better to be generous with partially correct statements and let it go.

monophyletic terminology is so much easier to handle than paraphyletic ones.

both make sense regardless of use, but it's so annoying when a term has a monophyletic and paraphyletic definitions that are used interchangeably depending on context, all my homies hate that

[–] Hadriscus@jlai.lu 3 points 19 hours ago (3 children)
[–] IAmNorRealTakeYourMeds@lemmy.world 5 points 11 hours ago (1 children)

algae are evolutionary distinct to plants

[–] Hadriscus@jlai.lu 1 points 7 hours ago
[–] gandalf_der_12te@discuss.tchncs.de 3 points 10 hours ago (1 children)

it depends on what book you look into. some authors define plants as being eukaryotic beings who have accepted photosynthetic symbionts, called chloroplasts.

by that definition, no, algae (bacteria) are not plants.

[–] Hadriscus@jlai.lu 2 points 7 hours ago (1 children)

alright thanks this is fascinating

[–] floquant@lemmy.dbzer0.com 5 points 19 hours ago (2 children)

I think in this context the distinction is single cell vs multicellular

either case, plants is a kingdom of life. algae are separate from them. they are not plants.

[–] Hadriscus@jlai.lu 1 points 18 hours ago
[–] Cethin@lemmy.zip 4 points 21 hours ago

Lol. Thanks. Yeah, I was grouping that in mentally but I guess I didn't use the right term.

[–] Tyrq@lemmy.dbzer0.com 69 points 1 day ago (2 children)

Profane vicissitude dwells beneath the barren land, doomed to mortal peril. Drinking upon our own demise in reckless cheer, humanity wastes the promises of the black blood of the earth, a curse spelled out through eons of rot.

[–] Hackworth@piefed.ca 23 points 1 day ago (1 children)

I sell profane and profane accessories.

[–] Skyline969@lemmy.ca 10 points 1 day ago (2 children)

That sounds exactly like something Logan Cunningham would narrate.

I heard my boy Wayne June, of Darkest Dungeon and other such fame

[–] AmbientChaos@sh.itjust.works 2 points 1 day ago

Exactly who I heard in my head reading it haha

[–] OshaqHennessey@midwest.social 21 points 1 day ago

Return the Earth to its primordial state by burning the effluvial rot and releasing the souls of the vanquished back into our world, so that they can draw energy from the radiation of our Cosmic Creator and use it to bake us in the infernal flames of greed and hubris.

[–] Someonelol@lemmy.dbzer0.com 21 points 1 day ago

Not only that but people will fight wars for the privilege of digging it out of the ground.

[–] kn0wmad1c@programming.dev 18 points 1 day ago

I don't think "ichor" is the right word here. Lovecraft would probably use "effluvial rot" or something.

[–] Jankatarch@lemmy.world 14 points 1 day ago (1 children)

"Slowly" is a strong word.

[–] ech@lemmy.ca 6 points 1 day ago (1 children)

Turns out even slow things progress quickly when the rate is multiplied billions of times over.

[–] floquant@lemmy.dbzer0.com 2 points 19 hours ago

The magic of exponentials

[–] MonkderVierte@lemmy.zip 14 points 1 day ago (1 children)

And it's also greasy and highly poisonous if spilled.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] Vinylraupe@lemmy.zip 12 points 1 day ago (1 children)

Such fowl eldritch liquid. Thou shalt prefer to be propelled by lightning contained, if you can spare the coin that is.

[–] cogman@lemmy.world 5 points 1 day ago (5 children)

The order of holy transport

  • bike
  • e bike
  • walking
  • electric motorcycle/moped
  • electric car

(Ebike might have a lower co2 emissions than a bike. Depends on what you eat and where you live)

[–] Alcoholicorn@mander.xyz 2 points 19 hours ago (1 children)

Stick 60-160mpg ICE motor bikes between e motorcycles and electric cars.

[–] cogman@lemmy.world 2 points 18 hours ago (1 children)

No.

EVs are more efficient than the low range for the motorcycle. If you charged your EV with a portable gas generator, your efficiency is comparable to an ICE motorcycle. Most grids at this point are quite a bit less CO2 intense than a personal generator. That cuts significantly on the CO2 impact.

The only upside to a motorcycle is the reduced energy requirements for manufacturing. But lifetime, an EV will be the clear winner.

[–] Alcoholicorn@mander.xyz 1 points 15 hours ago

Google tells me powergrid emissions for ecars is 60-200gC/mile.

1 gallon of gas contains 8900gC.

A Honda NC750 gets 70mpg, a Honda wave gets 160.

8900/160=55

8900/70=120

[–] drosophila@lemmy.blahaj.zone 1 points 1 day ago (1 children)

Where does rail transit fall within this hierarchy?

[–] cogman@lemmy.world 1 points 18 hours ago* (last edited 18 hours ago)

Pretty hard to guestimate as it's anywhere from bike efficiency to more than ev efficiency.

What makes it hard is capacity. A fully packed electric train will be the most efficient transport mechanism. A mostly empty fossil fuel train can be as bad or worse than ICE vehicles.

If you have one available, then it's probably your best bet to lowering impact.

load more comments (3 replies)
[–] Jimjim@lemmy.world 6 points 1 day ago (3 children)

Hmmm its got me thinking. How many mommoths does it take to fill up my car? How much biomass was it before it turned into oil?

Like maybe 10 mammoths? Maybe just 1? Or maybe 1000?!

Maybe we can use dead people to start making new oil? I mean, grave yards usually take up very valuable real estate anyway, and they are growing in size exponentially all the time. We need to start being realistic about the dead. How long does it take for someone to turn into gas anyway? Like 1000 years?

[–] Sir_Premiumhengst@lemmy.world 14 points 1 day ago (3 children)

Relevant xkcd https://what-if.xkcd.com/101/

It's not dinosaurs, oil is mostly sea stuff like plankton and algae. Coal is mostly land vegetation, trees.

Dinosaurs didn't really contribute much to this pool.

load more comments (3 replies)
[–] jaybone@lemmy.zip 10 points 1 day ago (1 children)

I think it’s more plants than animals.

[–] Jimjim@lemmy.world 4 points 1 day ago (2 children)

Oh?? Well how many trees does it take to fill up my car? Like is it like 1000 trees, and half a mommoth? Maybe 100,000 fully mature 50 foot tall trees? Im very curious about this now..

[–] jaybone@lemmy.zip 6 points 1 day ago

I don’t know the answer. But somehow I feel like someone on the internet has attempted this calculation.

i think it was mostly plankton

[–] Eq0@literature.cafe 3 points 1 day ago (2 children)

Your use of the word “exponentially” triggered my inner math teacher: no, the growth is not exponential but more than linear since the industrial revolution.

[–] Jimjim@lemmy.world 3 points 1 day ago (1 children)

Is it not exponential? Dont human births exponentially increase? And if thats the case, dont death increase exponentially?

Or am I wrong about births too?

[–] thevoidzero@lemmy.world 2 points 1 day ago (1 children)

If a couple have 2 children, then in an ideal condition the population is constant, so the death/birth is linear. Human birth can be exponentially if every couple have more than 2 children and they also have more than 2 and so on in this ideal scenario with no early deaths.

In reality you need 2+some fraction to balance out the early deaths, other couples with no children, unmarried, etc.

Plus with limited resources, population can't grow a lot because you'll start having a lot of death due to starvation, conflicts, accidents, etc.

Problem is due to industrialization, we can now support higher number of humans compared to the past, and due to vaccines and medicines we have smaller numbers of early deaths, so we have a population growth problem. But as we hit our limits it'll stabilize, or if we overshoot, it'll go down.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] jaybone@lemmy.zip 2 points 1 day ago (1 children)

Couldn’t anything O() of linear be modeled as exponential?

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments
view more: next ›