?>


Terraform the place, or "placeiform" the people?
Posted: Posted August 20th, 2011 by chiarizio
View Source Report Thread Views

Several of the current generation of science-fiction authors have made several stories in which, rather than modifying an extraterrestrial environment so that unmodified people can live there, the settlers have been genetically modified (or maybe it's the symbiotic residents of their bodies who are modified) so that they can live (that is, reside, dwell, raise families, etc.) in an unmodified extraterrestrial environment.**

So, instead of terraforming Luna, they might seleniform or "Moon-rationalize" the settlers;
instead of terraforming Venus, they might cytheriform or "Venus-rationalize" the settlers;
instead of terraforming Mars, they might areform or "Mars-rationalize" the settlers;
and so on.

This inspires me to ask several questions, most along these lines;


  • Would it really be more practical, if a non-Earth place is to be settled by permanent residents, to modify them to match their environment rather than to modify their environment to match them?

  • Wouldn't the usual most-practical strategy be to modify both the settlers and the environment, "to meet halfway", or at least somewhere in between?

  • Is there a practical "chasm" between those environments for which some Earth life (no matter how unrelated to Humans) is in fact already adapted, and those for which nothing on Earth is already adapted?

  • Would the discovery of life native to the target environment that uses the same genetic code people use*, make it easier to bridge such a chasm?
    *(or perhaps the code some of our organelles use, since for example our mitochondria have their own (slightly different) code and their own (slightly different) set of amino acids, more similar to that of bacteria than to that of eukaryotic multicellular plants and animals and fungi and protozoa)

  • There still would be a need -- wouldn't there? -- to accomodate visitors (including long-term visitors) whose genotypes and/or internal ecology of symbionts and/or whatever the heck, is "rationalized" to their native environments or to the environments that they intend their children to be native to, but whose bodies have not been modified to the particular environment they're in.* Tourists.
  • Guest workers
  • Military personnel
  • Embassy personnel
  • whatever else anyone else can think of


    Alright, then, what does anyone think about any of that?
    Answers don't have to be consistent with each other; the hope is that some of the answers will be interesting.

  • (The authors consider the modified people to still be human. In some of the stories the bad guys don't. Does anyone want to tackle the question of what if the bad guys are right? or if it's the good guys who don't think the modified people are still human?)

  • There are 10 Replies

    1. No, with the exception of very limited cases where the problems are quite minor biologically, yet systemic (say, a common plant pheromone on the planet was a potent neurotoxin to us, or there are missing essential amino acids that can be easily synthesized on the cellular level from local ones but aren't yet). Better to maintain the old ecosystem if it's otherwise fine, and just make the people resistant in some way on a genetic level.

    For anything else, the most practical, given such a level of technology, would be closed ecosystems.


    2. If creating a closed ecosystem was impractical for some reason, it would depend on the situation.

    A small problem like neurotoxin I mentioned- change the people. A bigger problem, and you're probably SOL. If you can't build a bubble city, you sure as hell can't fix the whole planet. (unless you have some serious time to wait).

    Got a few thousand years to spare? Change the environment. Human changes against that scale of change are trivial and would probably be unnecessary after all of that.




    3. There's pretty much a sample of Earth life in every sustainable biome.


    4. Such a discovery would seem a little unlikely, but due to the nature of a fixable problem, I doubt it would be terribly helpful given the tech level we'd need anyway.


    5. A closed ecosystem is generally the most practical solution anyway unless the solution was quite simple, and in such a case, visitor facilities wouldn't be complicated (and could even be as simple as medication or a small portable device).

    Posted August 22nd, 2011 by Blake
    View Source Quote Report
    Blake
     

    Thank you!
    :D


    1. No, with the exception of very limited cases where the problems are quite minor biologically, yet systemic (say, a common plant pheromone on the planet was a potent neurotoxin to us, or there are missing essential amino acids that can be easily synthesized on the cellular level from local ones but aren't yet).

    OK.


    Better to maintain the old ecosystem if it's otherwise fine, and just make the people resistant in some way on a genetic level.

    Well, but, that sounds like a "yes".

    You're saying it's better to leave the place's existing ecosystem as it is, and genetically modify the people?

    If that's what you're saying, then the way I meant to ask my question, that would be a "yes".

    Either you misread my question (which might have been my fault), or I misread your answer?


    For anything else, the most practical, given such a level of technology, would be closed ecosystems.

    The point is, what if you had settlers; people who intended to live their the rest of their lives, and beget, conceive, bear, and raise children there, most of whom would then go on to do the same -- live their lives there and raise their families their?

    Naturally it wouldn't happen overnight; the process would probably still take a minimum two generations even once it had been streamlined to the fastest possible speed. But it would only need to be done once per place and once per population.

    Such "place-rationalized" humans wouldn't need the enclosed environments; at least, no more enclosed than any humans have needed on Earth up until now in any places where people actually dwell and raise families.


    2. If creating a closed ecosystem was impractical for some reason, it would depend on the situation.
    A small problem like neurotoxin I mentioned- change the people. A bigger problem, and you're probably SOL. If you can't build a bubble city, you sure as hell can't fix the whole planet.

    I think the authors I've been reading the last ten years or so are thinking or at least suggesting that "fixing the whole planet" would take much more money, brains, time, and effort than fixing a founding population of settlers.


    (unless you have some serious time to wait).
    Got a few thousand years to spare? Change the environment. Human changes against that scale of change are trivial and would probably be unnecessary after all of that.

    In the stories I'm talking about, the time needed to terraform a place is not supposed to be so huge compared to the time the story takes place, that it would automatically be excluded from consideration.

    Instead, it's in some cases enough longer than the time needed to modify the people, that it makes more sense to modify the people than the place.

    But there's another thing these stories seem often to consider; after you've started terraforming a place but before you've finished, it may be partially-terraformed. It may have been changed noticeably enough that the technology an unmodified human would need, or the modifications a modified human would need, are noticeably less radical or less difficult to manage or less costly or less rare or whatever.

    So for some of the places there are times when a partially-rationalized human can raise a (partially- or fully- -rationalized, depending) family in a partially-terraformed environment.

    "Terraforming" stories almost always involve seeding or sowing or infecting the pre-terraform environment with some population of living things that can survive and reproduce and spread and multiply there, and, in doing so, will improve the conditions for the next set of organisms in the program.

    The idea is that if your tools are alive, your main cost could be time, rather than money and material and manpower.

    In these stories terraforming projects are reckoned in centuries, not millenia. Maybe that's unrealistic in either or both of two ways; (1) maybe people wouldn't be any more willing to wait centuries than to wait millenia and/or (2) maybe the timescale would have to be at least millenia, and couldn't be shortened to centuries.


    3. There's pretty much a sample of Earth life in every sustainable biome.

    I'm not quite sure what you're saying?

    Are you saying "for any place in the universe that any conceivable humans would conceivably decide to settle, that place is similar enough to some place on Earth where something lives, that some of those things could live there too"?

    If so, how do you know that?

    What if people wanted to inhabit Mars or Venus?

    What if people wanted to live on one of the bigger and/or warmer moons of one of the gas giants?

    Does Earth have organisms that could live on Mars, or on Venus, or on the bigger satellites of the gas giants, or on the warmer satellites of the gas giants?

    And if the answer is "yes" (I suspect it may be), can you tell me how we know? Maybe give us a URL to a reference? (And if we get one, maybe it should go in our "resources" thread.)


    4. Such a discovery would seem a little unlikely, but due to the nature of a fixable problem, I doubt it would be terribly helpful given the tech level we'd need anyway.

    I think just because our biotech has advanced to that point, that doesn't mean that our enclosed-artificial-ecosystem-tech or our planetary-terraforming-tech would have advanced to the equivalent points.

    But even if they have; that only means we have more than one way to solve certain problems. Having more than one way means you get to choose based on such things as cost, time, good taste, or gut feel (and maybe others).

    Anyway; human guts are full of symbionts, and other Earth species have symbiosis in other parts of their bodies. (Lichens are one famous example. Another are the algae that grow in the stingless, non-predatory jellyfish that live in some Pacific atoll lagoons. But most of the famous symbiosis I can think of are like the gut-protozoa in termites or goats etc.) It might be much easier to engineer a symbiont to handle the environment and protect the human, and then just engineer the human to tolerate and exploit the symbiont, than to engineer the human to directly tolerate and exploit the new environment.

    Also; All eukaryotic cells have lots of organelles (e.g. chloroplasts, microsomes, and mitochondria) that for all intents and purposes are symbiotic bacteria living in the cell's cytoplasm. Evidence is that microsomes and mitochondria were originally incorporated into the eukaryote cells as a protection against oxygen. (Naturally I don't imply that there was purpose or choice on the part of either the organelle or the eukaryotic cell; just that cells that incorporated the microsomes or mitochondria were likelier to survive and reproduce in the newly oxygen-poisoned atmosphere of Earth.)

    Why not do something like the same thing to existing eukaryotic cells, on purpose, and artificially?

    That way the genes wouldn't have to be introduced into the cells' nuclei; those organelles carry their own genetic mechanisms with them.

    So you skip the step of genetically modifying the eukaryote's nuclear genes, just introducing a new organelle, and modifying the cell to tolerate and exploit it, and modifying the organelle to thrive in but not destroy the cell.

    Combine that with the possibility of modifying a symbiont rather than a complete human body, and the problem may go from "it's only a dream" to "we'll have it by sometime tomorrow".


    5. A closed ecosystem is generally the most practical solution anyway unless the solution was quite simple,

    I know I asked you for your opinion, and that's your opinion, so it feels either weird or impolite to say "I disagree". And anyway if we're only talking about real life (although future "real life"), I'm not sure I do disagree.

    But I don't think the entire human race will ever be satisfied to settle any place permanently as "enclosed artificial habitats only". As long as we're there in sufficient numbers for long enough, there'll be a minority that will be large enough that they'll eventually try, and convince themselves they've succeeded, in actually living there, rather than in a bubble that happens to be close to there.

    And, for story purposes, I think the key word may be "generally". If we look ahead to the 2500s I think we may find people spreading out on some of the Solar System's real-estate. If we just go to the 2300s I think we might find them agitating to do so. And if we go ahead to the 3000s I think we might find them making "voyages of discovery" to the next star -- the Centauris or Barnard's Star or Wolf's Star or wherever. Two or three centuries later they might be trying to settle; half a millenium later they might actually be settling.

    Of course, it's possible the key word might be "practical". In real life people -- indeed, entire kingdoms and dynasties and empires and republics -- have often chosen, for various reasons not limited to religious ones, courses of action that were not "practical"; only marginally feasible.

    So if either terraforming the place or rationalizing the settlers were feasible (however marginally so), it might be that someone would choose one course or the other, even if the rate of return on investment were small or the risk of no return were great.

    The pioneers of the American West and the Soviet Northeast were not going for the probable reward; they were going for the possible reward.


    and in such a case, visitor facilities wouldn't be complicated

    That makes perfect sense.


    (and could even be as simple as medication or a small portable device).

    That would be fascinating! 8)
    I hadn't even thought of that!

    Any more ideas?
    From you, Blake (and thank you again), or from anyone else?

    Posted August 23rd, 2011 by chiarizio
    View Source Quote Report


    Either you misread my question (which might have been my fault), or I misread your answer?


    It's kind of a yes and a no; but I think it's a no in that way you're asking it.

    What I mean to say is, that for any given potential settlement, the solutions to living there will either be very trivial, or will outright require completely sealed environments (which aren't really all that complicated in every case).

    If it's a case of "this world is completely comfortable, we just happen to have a neuro-toxic reaction to this very common pollen", it might make sense to fix that on a genetic level. Although it should be noted that there would also be "pill" fixes, or other simple solutions to the same problem that make the genetic solution a trivial variant of many possible solutions.

    Otherwise, it would tend to be a case of "Shit, there's not even ground to stand on" or "Shit, this planet can't hold atmosphere", in which case no amount of genetic cajoling is going to do any good, and you're going to need an artificial biosphere anyway.

    Hope that clarifies a bit?



    Such "place-rationalized" humans wouldn't need the enclosed environments; at least, no more enclosed than any humans have needed on Earth up until now in any places where people actually dwell and raise families.


    I don't think that kind of "place-rationalizing" is practical.

    On a cold planet, sure, you could make people grow fur and change in other ways to be more like polar bears or the like.... or they could just put on a coat.

    On a hot planet, you could give them fans that the blood flows through to radiate heat better, reflective skin, or whatever.... or they could just wear a bit of sunscreen and light clothing, and use small, portable, conductor/radiator apparatuses they could wear to keep cool.

    Even consider examples like the Fremen in Dune- they got by without really being "place-rationalized" at all on a genetic level; they had little beyond the suits they wore; they were still effectively very wild.

    Yeah, you could spend a couple generations, and exceptional effort genetically engineering them to be just right for the environment- and bear in mind that any fur/metabolism/fins/etc. do have biological production costs in very real terms of amino acids and other nutrients which also have economic effects- or you could just give them a small care package and they could deal with the fact that they can't run around naked outside (or at least, not for very long).

    If we're talking space-travel level technology, the care package is probably going to be trivial for colonists (including the technology to manufacture more on-site as the population grows)

    It seems like only in very rare cases would it be practical, rather than just making a small industrial investment (manufacturing coats, etc.).

    I have an exception in one of my conworlds, but you aren't going to find a situation like that in most of the typical "colonization" situations.


    Other than that,

    In the cases where a small industrial investment wouldn't make it habitable, the environment is probably too extreme for any kind of habitability short of completely contained biomes.




    I think the authors I've been reading the last ten years or so are thinking or at least suggesting that "fixing the whole planet" would take much more money, brains, time, and effort than fixing a founding population of settlers.


    There are only a few special cases where that might be true- like possibly the neurotoxic pollen I mentioned- but even in those cases it would be a close tie.

    My point is that fixing the founding population to live on any planet where the problem couldn't be solved trivially would be essentially impossible.

    Either it's an easy fix (like fur, which can also be solved with a coat), or it's pretty much impossible to fix genetically (like no ground to stand on)

    I think those authors are probably naively exaggerating the potentials of genetic modification... or ignoring simple non-genetic solutions because they want the aesthetic of genetic engineering.



    The idea is that if your tools are alive, your main cost could be time, rather than money and material and manpower.

    In these stories terraforming projects are reckoned in centuries, not millenia. Maybe that's unrealistic in either or both of two ways; (1) maybe people wouldn't be any more willing to wait centuries than to wait millenia and/or (2) maybe the timescale would have to be at least millenia, and couldn't be shortened to centuries.


    The way I see it, is that the planet is either already pretty close (so that you can just live there as is, with a little help), or it's pretty far gone and needs substantial work. Planets either have a magnetosphere and an atmosphere with water (if they are big enough to live on), or they fall the way of Venus or Mars (which for different reasons lack magnetospheres and water in the atmosphere).


    Fixing something like Mars to be inhabitable in a normal Earth way would be impractical; it's not going to sustain water in the atmosphere for long due to the lack of a magnetosphere, and there will always be radiation problems.

    If you want Mars' atmosphere to be breathable and comfortable... and without seriously bad solar radiation... I don't think that kind of thing is going to be practical compared to just living inside.

    Me thinks we'd need to heat increase the planet's mass with bombardment, adding dense atmospheric gases, and melt the core down with a bunch of mirrors and powerful greenhouse gases over thousands of years, and then let the surface cool again to create a new (slightly smaller) Earth. Fixing the atmosphere to be breathable and sustainable after that, then - at least for a few million years- would be much easier and might only take a few hundred years.

    In theory, all of that that *might* be do-able over hundreds of years, but it would be substantially more expensive to move things around like that (get that kind of mass to Mars on our schedule, rather than its own schedule). Bombardment would take a long time if you want to be at all efficient. And you'd need a *much* larger orbital mirror array to heat the core back up along with the bombardment.

    The cheapest way would be to increase the atmospheric pressure with greenhouse gases and heavier inert gases, and then live indoors where we can regulate the content of the gases and humidity. As long as the pressure outside and in is the same, it's pretty trivial to make indoor cities.

    Or, you know, just skip the first part and make the indoor cities (or even underground ones) pressurized while you're at it...


    And then Venus, oh Venus...

    Well, first you need ton get rid of that thick atmosphere. Then you need to give the planet back more angular momentum.

    You could possibly get rid of the atmosphere over a thousand years or so by using floating extremophile microorganism clusters that could convert the CO2.... maybe.

    I don't know how you'd give it more angular momentum. Maybe coordinate a bunch of asteroids to pull on it, or even collide with it, in the right way to get it back up to speed. That could take a very, very long time.

    *or* since the upper atmosphere has enough pressure, and normal air is a lifting gas there, you could just create comfortable floating bubble cities and leave it at that. Venus is arguably extremely simple to colonize without terraforming (much easier than Mars).





    Are you saying "for any place in the universe that any conceivable humans would conceivably decide to settle, that place is similar enough to some place on Earth where something lives, that some of those things could live there too"?


    Any place that we could settle where we wouldn't be forced to live inside, yes.


    What if people wanted to inhabit Mars or Venus?


    They will live inside.

    Unless we spend thousands of years terraforming them. Or unrealistic amounts of resources doing it in a shorter time frame.


    Does Earth have organisms that could live on Mars, or on Venus, or on the bigger satellites of the gas giants, or on the warmer satellites of the gas giants?


    Some extremophiles, such as live under the Earth's crust, but otherwise I would say no- but neither could we regardless of how much we're "place-rationalized"; those aren't friendly environments.

    I think just because our biotech has advanced to that point, that doesn't mean that our enclosed-artificial-ecosystem-tech or our planetary-terraforming-tech would have advanced to the equivalent points.


    We can already create closed artificial ecosystems. It's just the biotech that needs to catch up now- but regardless of how far we advance, I don't think it's possible/practical to change people to live in those extreme environments.

    It might be much easier to engineer a symbiont to handle the environment and protect the human, and then just engineer the human to tolerate and exploit the symbiont, than to engineer the human to directly tolerate and exploit the new environment.


    Yes, potentially even entire bubble cities which are alive, and can be seeded in a place like Mars and grow over a few hundred years.

    And in the case of, say, a missing amino acid, a symbiotic bacteria that synthesizes it in out guts from existing amino acids is probably much more likely than engineering the people.

    "Here, take this pro-biotic pill before you eat any local food"


    As long as we're there in sufficient numbers for long enough, there'll be a minority that will be large enough that they'll eventually try, and convince themselves they've succeeded, in actually living there, rather than in a bubble that happens to be close to there.


    Maybe there will be some nutters who modify themselves regardless of how impractical it is, and live on a 30,000 calorie a day diet to maintain all of the auxiliary appendages and organs they'd need to create an internal environment for their human parts; at last the size of small elephants, with acid resistant vacuum-safe armor, and the ability to extract oxygen from rocks.

    Posted August 25th, 2011 by Blake
    View Source Quote Report
    Blake
     

    Thanks; several of those ideas are really intriguing.

    Among them; the living cities, and the 30,000-calorie-a-day diet thing.

    Actually I think there are people right now who'd go for, maybe, a 10,000-calorie-a-day modification, just for the thrill of that alone.

    (Last I checked, Americans average about 3,000 calories a day. Most of us who eat a 3,000-calorie diet don't burn it off; we'd do better if we cut down to 2,000 calories a day, but that's hard to do, and even then we probably wouldn't burn that all off unless we exercised more, which, again, is hard to do.)

    Posted August 25th, 2011 by chiarizio
    View Source Quote Report

    Thanks; several of those ideas are really intriguing.

    Among them; the living cities, and the 30,000-calorie-a-day diet thing.


    The great part is that they're still not really living in that world, because they have a practical umbilical cord connected to a factory producing super-nutritious gruel and pumping it into them all of the time just to maintain their vital systems in that environment.

    Situations like these become somewhat of a red queen's race; it's very difficult to create a self sustaining organism in such an environment with a reasonable activity to mass ratio.

    Living cities? Sure, because they're mostly sedentary.

    Anything that actually has to move quickly on animal terms, and for sustained periods of time is unlikely.


    I even have space whales, but they don't actually move around all that much, so they're capable of sustaining themselves and ridding their bodies of waste heat through radiant cooling.

    Once you engineer a human to the point that those terms have been met, it's something very different all-together. More like a space whale with a tumor that happens to be a human growing off it.

    Posted August 26th, 2011 by Blake
    View Source Quote Report
    Blake
     

    I've got "space centipedes"*. Do they seem reasonable to you? Or, since of course they don't, really, I guess the questions would be; Do they seem too unreasonable?, or, How unreasonable do they seem?

    *They have seven body segments; a head, a tail, and five middle segments.
    Each of the five middle segments has four limbs (legs or arms; with grasping ends, anyway, like hands.)**; a dorsal, a ventral, a left, and a right.
  • In space the legs don't usually have to overcome weight, usually only inertia. But they have to be able to hold onto whatever they're pushing off of. So these might be "arms" that are almost as strong as "legs".

  • Posted September 20th, 2011 by chiarizio
    View Source Quote Report

    How big are they, and how fast it their metabolism?

    Those are the big questions.

    If they aren't expected to move around quickly and they're large enough to hold enough pressure to maintain liquid water in their organs, then there's nothing fundamentally unreasonable about it.


    Space is a good insulator, even a slow metabolism will keep an organism warm from waste heat alone, provided adequate structural integrity and coatings to prevent dehydration- but any meteor surface they'd be on would likely be predominantly ice, anyway, so they just have to melt some to replenish lost water.

    The trickier question relates to the source of energy.

    If you can build a machine to serve the function, biology should be able to manage too, under the right circumstances.

    Posted September 22nd, 2011 by Blake
    View Source Quote Report
    Blake
     

    How big are they, and how fast it their metabolism?
    Those are the big questions.

    About like humans, at least "to within an order of magnitude" (whatever that means). But they can slow down (hibernate, estivate, or whatever; go nearly dormant, anyway).


    If they aren't expected to move around quickly

    That will vary.
    IRL animals that can run 40 miles an hour typically move at 2 to 4 mph most of the time they move.


    and they're large enough to hold enough pressure to maintain liquid water in their organs, then there's nothing fundamentally unreasonable about it.

    They evolved on a planet humans could have survived on (if they'd brought their own food supply and kept away from any "hostile" organisms.) It could be quite a bit different from Earth but not so different that "life as we know it" couldn't arise and evolve there, and eventually produce a space-going species.

    I am imagining their home planet (wherever it is; probably the humans won't know for quite a while) had a fauna that mostly contained "triphibious" species; say, swimmer-runner-burrowers, or, swimmer-bottomwalkers-flyers, or, runner-brachiator-gliders, or such.

    The point being that locomoting and navigating in three dimensions is common throughout their animal kingdom, and that four-rows-of-five-limbs two-fold bilaterality is common also (though possibly some other animals have modified some limbs into wings or something).

    They'll have some pre-adaptation that will allow them to "quickly" evolve* an ability to survive for some time (say, most of a day) in near-vacuum without permanent debilitation. Obviously I haven't worked out what, yet.
    *(possibly assisted by genetically engineering themselves)


    Space is a good insulator, even a slow metabolism will keep an organism warm from waste heat alone, provided adequate structural integrity and coatings to prevent dehydration- but any meteor surface they'd be on would likely be predominantly ice, anyway, so they just have to melt some to replenish lost water.

    Thanks; good points.
    Anything human-sized -- actually nearly anything much bigger than a really big arthropod on Earth's surface -- probably has an endoskeleton and not an exoskeleton, and probably has a complete circulatory system and "respires" (that is, "breathes") dynamically instead of passively.

    If these "space centipedes" are going to often spend half the day in near-vacuum, they have to have not only a way to take their oxygen with them, but also a way to save their CO2 until they can make it back to an area that contains plants.

    I wonder if it would make better sense for them to have actually evolved in space?


    The trickier question relates to the source of energy.
    If you can build a machine to serve the function, biology should be able to manage too, under the right circumstances.

    Well, you're probably right, and thanks for the encouragement.


    Maybe they have lots of O'Neill-ish habitats and generation-ships and other long-trip spaceships; and are adapted to do lots of EVA rather than actually live in space.


    The purpose of this species is to have someone the humans of Adpihi can have first contact with, and can have a political federation with and have internal conflict over whether to accept them as equals.


    I'm really more interested in preserving the body-plan itself than in preserving any of the other features I've mentioned above.
    Next to that, I think, the ability to move in three dimensions in microgravity and micropressure, are desiderata I'd love to hang on to, if possible.

    Posted September 22nd, 2011 by chiarizio
    View Source Quote Report

    Mechanical assistance and air tanks make the most sense.

    I wouldn't expect a fast enough metabolism to accommodate something particularly intelligent at that size if it needs to survive without an atmosphere for long periods of time.

    Posted September 23rd, 2011 by Blake
    View Source Quote Report
    Blake
     

    Bump

    Posted March 1st by chiarizio
    View Source Quote Report
    Reply to: Terraform the place, or "placeiform" the people?
    Enter your message here

    Rules | Report Issue | Request Feature | Roadmap Facebook Page | Discord Group
    GTX0 © 2009-2020 Xhin GameTalk © 1999-2008 lives on
    You are not forgotten, Kevin, Liane, Norma, Jason, and Garrett