#and i think the central finite curve should have had something to do with time travel? like time manipulation

[my-thoughts-and-junk]

god they just. rebooted the show during s5 huh

[glitteringcrab]

Why is Evil Morty still next to the Central Finite Curve?

He killed so many people to get out of the CFC and then he stopped running just as he crossed the CFC's metaphorical doorstep...!

Why did he anchor his minecraft base on a CFC universe???

No, they hadn't! The shockwaves had just as much range as they should! And Evil Morty deliberately insulted Rick immediately afterwards, to derail this train of thought and stop him from pondering over the implications or his calculations too much. And it freaking worked. (And might I add that Evil Morty stuttered just a little bit at that point: "l-look at this scan array". Nervous, boy?)

Evil Morty is a lying liar, he lies about everything...! (I still love him with all my heart). I-I-I no longer know how much of what he says or does to take at face value. In season he said he wanted to escape the Central Finite Curve, and it was clear he desperately wanted to do so, but he stopped running immediately after he exited. What is happening?!?! Why?

Theory 1: Home

Assuming he is a clone Morty, there is a universe from which the natural Morty whose memories he got originated. He was therefore created loving this version of his mum, this version of his dad, this version of his sister... Maybe he has not lived there once, he switched 20 Ricks since he was manufactured, and has spent more time in the Citadel than outside it, but in his heart this is were his home is supposed to be, so he anchored his space base on the limits of this one universe, just so he could be close.

Theory 2: Hiding

Since a Rick can hide from other Ricks by being next to a Morty, I'd assume that it also works the other way around: a Morty can also hide by being close to a Rick. And maybe if Evil Morty worries that someone will scour the multiverse searching for him (inside and outside the CFC) then maybe staying close to a CFC universe hides his own brainwaves when someone is doing a really wide (multiverse-wide) scan for him (of course, I doubt it'd work if the scan was more focused).

Maybe this is just a variation of the "Mortys of the Morty Dome thing": he needed a lot of alive Mortys to hide amongst then, he needs CFC universes to hide amongst now.

This could be just a precaution in case e.g. a Rick survivor of the Citadel or something comes after him (which is not so unlikely).

(eh. Would staying near a CFC universe, which might not even have a Rick inside at times, really be enough though?? I just stopped believing my own theory)

Theory 3: Time shenanigans

"Rick and Morty, a hundred years, forever"

...Were you being cute, Rick, or is this literal???

Is there a time loop of some sort? Is this why they say things like "how many thanksgivings have we had" or are they simply breaking the fourth wall?

Is this what the "Rick Experiment" that Evil Morty threatens to blow up if he gets pissed is? Is this why Rick hates to mess with time travel stuff, because it's already an ugly mess?

Does staying close to the time mess allow Evil Morty to stay young for longer or something? (but would he really want that???)

I'm skeptical about Ricks being able to mess with time in that scale because of (a) the existence of a pretty strict time police and (b) Rick apparently had to purchase illegally a small time crystal... whatever time shenanigans are needed for a hundred-year-loop, it'd need a lot more than that.

Theory 4: He likes something in that universe

Like, a friend he made a long time ago, who he plans to visit in the future when he finds the courage to do so (right now he's wiped out).

Or Morty Prime, so he didn't run very far away so that Morty Prime could find him in the future.

Or he's trying to make amends for his past misdeeds and visits CFC universes in secret, batman style, to fix stuff.

(I don't see that theory really playing out. He doesn't seem to be working towards anything, he's just on vacation... And I think he has given up hope of Morty Prime joining him)

Theory 5: THE WORLD IS A BIG, DANGEROUS PLACE

The world outside the CFC is filled with even more dangerous, power-hungry and evil people and governments than those in the CFC. Living in (or near) such a universe is stressful for a lone boy, so he'd rather stay close to the Curve and its brand of familiar, known evil (which he knows how to deal with) rather than face the absolute chaos that reigns beyond. (If there is a specific government or organization Evil Morty is worried about, I can see him considering asking Rick C-137's help... "Maybe I can use that some day"?)

Alternatively, the rest of the multiverse still believes that the CFC is unbreachable, so they keep their distance. Staying close to it is just safer.

(yeah I don't buy my own theory. I think Evil Morty would gladly face whatever crazy evil is beyond the Curve, as long as it wasn't a Rick. Could be he already tried and barely escaped with his life though, so he had no choice)

Theory 6: Not a clue!

I mean, we couldn't have predicted the existence of the Central Finite Curve in a million years...! It might just be a bit of unrevealed lore.

And it's impossible to guess or know what Evil Morty is thinking or feeling almost at any given time. He is always expressionless, always flat-toned, always cautious, always lying, and the way the scenes with him are built, we're not even sure when it's him on the screen half-the time and missing scenes can turn the whole plot on its head. He tricks the other characters, and he tricks us as well.

[pauldeckerus]

What Parallelism Is and How to Use it to Improve Your Photography

I’ve always had a fascination with geometry and man-made structures, their perfection has a strong attraction on me. It took me time to realize that what I appreciated most wasn’t necessarily their symmetry or the simple repetition of shapes but the parallelism between the various elements of the construction of an image.

To better understand what parallelism is, you first need to deconstruct photography and bring it back to its essence. A photograph is light, shapes and colors (or tones, if we speak about black and white photography). Those are the visual blocks that form a photograph. Sometimes there are similarities between those different parts, for example, a rectangular shadow on the ground in the foreground projected by a traffic sign and the rectangular shape of a window of a building in the background.

I have the conviction that our eyes and our brains are naturally attracted by those “connections”, those visual similarities that surround us. I’m probably even more sensitive to them due to my past career in graphic design.

For me, photographs become more interesting when they have visual links between the parts that compose them, it’s not a necessity but it brings a little something more. It’s like the cherry on top of the cake.

In this article, I will explain to you the different types of parallelism and how to use them to further improve your photographer eye on the long term.

Note: The following is purely subjective and reflect my own findings, they should not be followed to the letter but used as a base for further experimentation.

Parallelism in nature

Some people believe that nature and everything that envelop us is organized in a rigorous manner. The order of things isn’t trivial, from the alignment of planets to the cells inside our body, there is an underlying system that makes our world somehow structured. There is even occasionally a unity and regularity in fauna and flora.

When you take a walk in the woods the trees that surround you are a finite number of vertical lines pointing at the sky, the feeling of unity is in this case caused by the repetition, the parallelism of the trunks. Same goes for a chain of mountains, the curves of mountainsides blend together and form a mound of soft lines that look alike.

Hodler, Ferdinand. Lake Thun, Symmetric reflection. 1905. Oil on canvas.

We can also take the celestial vault and its thousands of visible stars, would that vision still be as beautiful if each of those points of light where of different shape, size, and color?

Parallelism in the human figure

Our anatomy is full of similarities, symmetry, and asymmetry. We just have to look at our left and right side, the opposition of our arms, the space between our eyes, the repetition of our fingers.

This goes even further with our clothes, the pleats and folds forms repeated lines. Our movements are often formed by two or more of our limbs. Our figure, slender, is a line that gets on together with other human beings around us.

A crowd grouped around a speaker, a group of friends crossing the street (or the Beatles Abbey Road album cover), a line of people waiting for the bus. Those are all parallelisms.

Photograph by Elizaveta Porodina for Vogue Ukraine 2015

Those two persons above that gaze at each other are a great example of parallelism in photography. Look at their hats, the silhouette of their faces, and the lapels of the man coat contrasting against the sand in the background, which shape is oddly similar than the woman face. The empty area between them and on the sides of the frame, they are also very similar in area and shape. Those are little details that we don’t necessarily notice at first sight but they speak to our subconscious. Our photographer eye takes delight.

Visitors at the Musée Rath in Geneva looking at a Ferdinand Hodler painting called “Eurythmie”

The picture above is another example of parallelism in the human figure. In the painting “Eurythmie,” five men wearing a white cape are walking at the same speed, deep in their thoughts and arched over the ground. “Eurythmie” literally translates to rhythmic harmony, are those priests or hermits in harmony with themselves or with God?

I chose to photograph the painting including the foreground museum visitors, they are aligned in a similar fashion than the subjects of the painting creating another layer of parallelism in the frame.

Construction principles

We saw before that a photograph is an assembly of visual elements and that some of them are linked to each other. There is a number of construction principles, methods that can help you take the various visual “blocks” composing a scene and order them. A photograph can be built following rules, just like how an architect would design a house.

Note: I strongly encourage you to break rules from time to time.

Verticality

We are surrounded by vertical structures, starting from the walls that form our houses and the buildings in our streets. Verticality is to me the easiest construction principle to put into practice, as it’s the most represented in urban areas. By including two or more vertical elements in your frame you’re already creating parallelism. Here are a few examples.

Samuel Zeller, National monument of Scotland in Edinburgh

I shot this photograph above while on a trip to Scotland, I was there to make images for my first book, Botanical, and I also took some time for myself to explore various cities. In Edinburgh, there is a hill with a monument on top of it that looks like a part of an ancient Roman temple and feature twelve columns. A lot of tourists are taking pictures of themselves standing in the middle of the central columns, but I went to the other side and waited until this couple showed up.

I framed two columns and the couple to give a sense of scale, and while doing so I also realized that I created a parallelism. The two columns are a vertical parallelism to the two people, and there is even a second repetition if you consider the people’s legs, which mimic the columns as well. It gives the image a rhythm and an interesting structure.

Samuel Zeller, Lausanne lakeside

Another example: a photograph of three metal poles used to the docking of ships in Lausanne a city in Switzerland on the shores of Lake Leman. They are not perfectly straight but they create a verticality and a repetition in the frame. The reflection in the water becomes part of the composition as an extension of the poles themselves.

Horizontality

Same as verticality but rotated ninety degrees, jokes aside it’s probably one of the easiest construction principles to find in nature. The horizon is often a good starting point to build up parallelism in your images, look for elements that are similar to this line. Here are a few examples.

Samuel Zeller, Crans-Montana Switzerland

How can mountains shot in a vertical orientation be a good example of horizontal parallelism? Well if you decompose the image above you’ll notice that it’s made of three planes, the foreground hill with the house, the denuded rocks behind it and the cold gray mountain in the background. Those three areas of the images are separating the frame in a horizontal way. By layering different elements in your photograph on top of each other you’re instinctively using this horizontality principle.

Photograph by Darren Brogan of the Alisa Craig, a small island west of Scotland

The very delicate image above has a bit more than meet the eye. We already saw that parallelism can also be based on textures and colors and here the gradient from the sea is reflecting the gradient showing on the island itself, it’s also a gradient that repeats itself in the sky. Those elements are all parallel to each other in a horizontal way. Using the horizon line definitely helped here in building up the composition of the image, it acts as a base.

Symmetry

When we think about symmetry we picture a shape that becomes exactly like another if you flip, slide, or turn it. But symmetry doesn’t exclude it’s opposite, asymmetry, it should be a whole. Asymmetry and symmetry are big contributors to beauty. Stop considering the purely mathematical aspect of it and embrace its duality. Here are a few examples of photographs that are exposing in their construction this principle.

Photograph by Jarrod Pimental

Two boats in a dry dock, a pure and simple photograph. The composition is straightforward but also masterful, the two lines formed by the hull are converging and directing the viewer eye to the center of the frame. The symmetry created here is imperfect but that is also the beauty of it, if it was geometrically exact it wouldn’t have the same fineness.

Photograph by Sergio Larrain/Magnum Photos. Santiago, Chile. 1955 ©

Sergio Larrain is another photographer that I admire, he was a true master and decided to give it all up for a spiritual life. If you haven’t read about his work I suggest that you check out this article by Lars Mensel. I included the image above because for me it perfectly represents the duality between symmetry and asymmetry. There is a parallelism between those two kids, they’re both sleeping, they have the same calm faces and hair yet they’re not exactly mirrored.

Perfect symmetry is cold, imperfections give life and I love life, that’s how French-American sculptor Niki de Saint Phalle put it up and I couldn’t agree more. Thinking about balance in your photographs rather than symmetry in its geometric aspect is a good starting point.

Rhythm

I initially wanted to name this principle “repetition” but I realized that it could be too restrictive. You’ll understand why in an instant. Entropy is everywhere around us, and all things come and go. There’s this perpetual flow and cadence in life. The beating of your heart, the waves on the shore, the music you listen to, even this article is defined by a rhythm between paragraphs and images. It is probably my favorite construction principle to play with.

Samuel Zeller, Nazaré Portugal

A few years ago I was walking down the seaside of Nazaré, Portugal when I noticed this door at the end of a little street. It reminded me instantly of the geometrical compositions of Dutch painter Piet Mondrian that I had seen many times before in various museums. If you look a bit closer you start to notice the many horizontal and vertical lines formed by the different colors of paint and the two white gutters.

Then if you keep looking you’ll maybe see that the many rectangles, the window in the door, the door itself, the bottom part of the door, the two electrical panels and all the other “invisible” rectangles defined by the colored parts and divided by the gutters. This photograph has a complex structure, a rhythm.

Photograph by Harry W. Edmonds

Rhythm can also be a repetition of elements. Harry, who’s running a blog called Photographer’s Note, is a great inspiration for me, this picture is probably one of my all time favorite from his body of work. By looking at the world from above we better discern its composition. There’s no wonder why we are attracted by photographs shot with drones, it’s not just because it allow us to see the world from a different vantage point but it’s also because it let us discern the patterns and the rhythm that’s all around.

In this particular case, the image was not shot with a robotic flying device but probably from a bridge or a building. Next time you’re outside with your camera, try to find those elements that repeat themselves, intersect and play with each other and get a few of them in your frame.

Mimetism

The imitation and resemblance of elements can be used as a construction principle. We can find that in biology and evolution too. For example, the Phasmatodea or stick insects who mimic the aspect of small twigs to better camouflage themselves in nature. Our brains are very good at making visual associations. Here are a few examples of parallelism that share this principle.

Photography by Alicja Brodowicz

This photograph above is part of a bigger series called “Visual Exercises” by photographer Alicja Brodowicz which I featured before on Fujifeed, the blog I edit. It’s an exercise of associations — black and white diptychs showing two very different subjects that look alike. Here the hands on the right are mimicking the intersection of the two cactus stems on the left. Parallelism doesn’t necessarily have to happen in the same frame, it can also be used in series (for example when you have a spread inside a book with two images) or here in diptychs.

Photograph by Sebastião Salgado from his book “Kuwait, a desert on fire”

Sebastião Salgado is probably my favorite contemporary photographer and his monograph on the catastrophe of the torched Kuwaiti oil fields is hauntingly beautiful. I found this photo above to be a great example of parallelism, the texture of the fire is very similar to the water being poured on the firefighter. It’s a mirroring between two very opposite elements. It creates a visual link that’s helping the narrative and aesthetic of the image.

Samuel Zeller, Cactaceae pereskia from my series Botanical

This is a photograph that I took for my book Botanical, the project itself contains about a hundred photographs yet this is one of the most appreciated. There are a few reasons to it (composition, color contrast) but one of them is the resemblance between the leaves and the shapes created by the water droplets. They share the same structure, like a tree branch dividing itself into smaller twigs. There’s a natural mimetism happening between those elements that is very pleasing to the eye.

Ferdinand Hodler theory

A Swiss symbolist painter without a traditional academic art background and an infinite source of inspiration for my photography, that’s how I would describe Hodler.

He was convinced that beauty and aesthetics are based on an underlying order — a symmetry and a rhythm. Most of his paintings have a very graphic aspect and they are composed using parallelism, a notion that he borrowed in the 1890 and that was first introduced by Charles Blanc in “Grammaire des arts du dessin” in 1867 and by Gottfried Semper in “Der Stil” between 1860 and 1862.

He repeats in a recurring (but not perfectly exact) way the elements and patterns like lines, colors, movement or subjects to create a visual unity.

Hodler, Ferdinand. Walking at the forest edge. 1885. Oil on canvas.

He believed that it was more than just a composition principle but truly a moral and philosophical thought. A natural law of organizing the world.

We can see an echo to the correspondence theory between the macrocosm and the microcosm which is based on a text by Platon: “For that comprehends and contains in itself all ideal animals, even as this universe contains us and all other creatures that have been formed to be visible. For since God desired to liken it most nearly to what is fairest of the objects of reason and in all respects perfect, he made it a single visible living being, containing within itself all animals that are by nature akin to it.”

Hodler, Ferdinand. Night. 1890. Oil on canvas.

The structure of the universe is the same in all its elements, no matter their scale. From a cosmic to a cellular level. Everything is inside everything. A city expanding itself over the years seen from the sky strangely look like lichen growing on a tree.

We then better understand this idea of parallelism and why some artists were so attracted to it.

Hodler, Ferdinand. Peaks in the morning. 1915. Oil on canvas.

Parallelism is a law that goes beyond art, it dictate life itself —Carl Albert Loosli

What is incredibly beautiful about Hodler pictures is that they are reduced to fundamental forms and an almost harmonious austerity. The notion of time and space get lost and the paintings reach eternity, his work is timeless because it layers upon an immutable system that is a reflection of the organization of the world itself.

Conclusion

There is far more to photography than meet the eye and I think that the more connections we make between it and other art forms the better. I’ve heard first about parallelism in painting and I naturally try to apply it to my work, I’m thankful for my parents who introduced me at a very young age to the work of masters through the visit of many different museums in Europe. I hope that this piece inspired you to explore other aspects of photography.

About the author: Samuel Zeller is a freelance photographer based in Geneva, Switzerland, who’s available for assignments worldwide. The opinions expressed in this article are solely those of the author. Zeller is an ambassador for Fujifilm and the editor of Fujifeed. You can find more of Zeller’s work on his website and Instagram. This article was also published here.

from Photography News https://petapixel.com/2019/01/10/what-parallelism-is-and-how-to-use-it-to-improve-your-photography/

[theconservativebrief]

This piece was originally published in September 2017. It has been lightly updated.

I did an event with environmental journalist (and personal hero) Elizabeth Kolbert in September 2017, in which we discussed various matters related to journalism and climate change. Subsequently, one of the attendees wrote and asked why I hadn’t talked about population. Isn’t overpopulation the real root of our environmental ills?

Anyone who’s ever given a talk on an environmental subject knows that the population question is a near-inevitability (second only to the nuclear question). I used to get asked about it constantly when I wrote for Grist — less now, but still fairly regularly.

I thought I would explain, once and for all, why I hardly ever talk about population, and why I’m unlikely to in the future.

(Worldometers)

Human impact on the natural environment is summed up in a simple formula:

Impact = Population x Affluence x Technology

All are rising. (Bill Gates has a slightly more complicated formula related to carbon dioxide, but P is a variable in his too.)

The current global population has crossed 7.5 billion and is heading upward. The latest UN projections have it hitting 8.6 billion by 2030, 9.8 billion by 2050, and 11.2 billion by 2100. Average fertility rate will decrease, but that effect will be overwhelmed by the absolute numbers. (There are many arguments out there that UN is overestimating population growth, but let’s stick with their numbers for this post.)

The UN expects over half the growth out to 2100 to be concentrated in just nine countries, listed here in order of their expected contribution:

India, Nigeria, the Democratic Republic of the Congo, Pakistan, Ethiopia, the United Republic of Tanzania, the United States of America, Uganda, and Indonesia.

Most of those people will be fairly poor (by Western standards, though hopefully less so than their forbearers), which means their per-capita consumption of resources will be fairly low. Nonetheless, cumulatively, adding 2.3 billion people by 2050 amounts to enormous additional resource use and pollution (including greenhouse gases).

Mitigating some substantial percentage of that population growth would be one way to better environmental conditions in 2050. It would also have more impact than virtually any other climate policy. (More on that later.)

However. That human numbers are, axiomatically, part of the story of human impact does not mean that human numbers have to take center stage. Talking about population growth is morally and politically fraught, but the best ways of tackling it (like, say, educating girls) don’t necessitate talking about it at all.

Tackling population growth can be done without the enormous, unnecessary risks involved in talking about population growth.

When political movements or leaders adopt population control as a central concern … let’s just say it never goes well. In practice, where you find concern over “population,” you very often find racism, xenophobia, or eugenics lurking in the wings. It’s almost always, ahem, particular populations that need reducing.

Eugenical Sterilization Map of the US, 1935 (PBS)

History is replete with examples, but perhaps the most germane recent episode was less than 20 years ago, at the Sierra Club, which was riven by divisions over immigration. A group of grassroots members, with some help from powerful funders, attempted to take over the national organization.

These members advocated sharply restricting immigration, saying the US should be reducing rather than increasing its population. Their contention is that the country’s open immigration policies are hurting the environment by bringing in poor immigrants and making them richer, thus increasing their environmental impact. Of course, they swore up and down that xenophobia had nothing to do with it.

The Sierra Club won that fight, and the “green anti-immigrant” movement has mostly been driven to the fringes, but conservative media is still getting ratings out of it. If you can stomach it, watch this entire segment with Tucker Carlson of Fox News — it hits all the usual notes, culminating in an interview with some professor who wrote a book about reducing immigration for environmental reasons.

[embedded content]

I don’t doubt that it’s possible to be concerned about the environmental stresses population brings without any racism or xenophobia — I’ve met many people who fit that description, and there were well-meaning (if quite mistaken) population-focused groups in the ’70s and ’80s — but in terms of public discussion and advocacy, anyone explicitly expressing that concern starts out behind the eight ball. The mere mention of “population” raises all sorts of ugly historical associations.

Public health groups have largely cottoned to this. Even the ones that have “population” in the name focus on family planning rather than population as such. They’ve figured out something important — something not all greens have figured out — which is that the best ways to address population don’t necessarily involve talking about it at all.

So what are those ways?

There are two ways of looking at the problem of growing population on a finite planet. Depending on which you think is most important, there are different ways to address it, none of which require discussing population.

The first way to look at population is as a pure numbers game. More people means more consumers and more emitters, so the thing to do is slow the rise of population. Specifically, since most of the new people are going to come from poor or developing countries, the question is specifically how to slow population growth there.

Luckily, we know the answer. It is family planning that enables women to have only children they want and choose, and education of girls, giving them access to income opportunities outside the home. We know that women, given the resources and the choice, will opt for smaller families.

Those are the two most powerful levers to bend the population curve. They are also, in and of themselves, an enormously powerful climate policy. When Paul Hawken and his team investigated and ranked carbon-reduction solutions for their Drawdown project, they found that the combination of the two (call it the female-empowerment package) carried the most potential to reduce greenhouse gases later this century, out of any solution. (Together they could prevent 120 gigatons of GHGs by 2050 — more than on- and offshore wind combined.)

Family planning: fewer, better cared for. (Drawdown)

So if you are concerned about the growth in population, make yourself a champion of female empowerment in the developing world. You will be contributing to the most effective solution to the problem without any of the moral baggage.

And next time you’re at an environmental event, maybe instead of asking the population question, ask the female empowerment question. Why aren’t climate hawks talking about it more? They should be!

If your concern is the creation of new consumers and emitters, your gaze should be drawn to those who will consume and emit the most, i.e., the wealthy.

(Oxfam)

One way to prevent the creation of new high-consumers would be to persuade the wealthy to have fewer babies and to close off the borders of wealthy countries, preventing low-consumers from immigrating and becoming high-consumers. You could try, in short, to engineer population decline in wealthy countries.

That seems … fraught.

For one thing, fertility tends to decline with wealth anyway. For another, any targeted attempt to engineer population decline is going to run into an unholy thicket of moral and political resistance.

Another way to approach the problem would be, rather than prevent the birth of extremely wealthy people, prevent the creation of extremely wealthy people. In other words, prevent the accumulation of massive wealth. You could do that by, for instance, taxing the shit out of wealthy people.

If you approached the problem that way, under the banner of reducing global income inequality, you would find many allies. Income inequality is a top-line concern of people and organizations all over the world, even some conservatives these days.

Reducing high-end consumption could have an enormous short-term impact on carbon emissions, as climate scientist Kevin Anderson is always saying. Shifting wealth within populations — reducing the number of very wealthy and the number in poverty — can have as much carbon impact as reducing overall population.

So maybe, at the next environmental event, you could ask the income inequality question rather than the population question.

So that, for the record, is why I hardly ever talk or write about population. (I will now send all future askers of the population question to this post.) It is high risk — very, very easy to step on moral landmines in that territory — with little reward.

And where talk of population control is rarely popular (for good reason), female empowerment and greater equality are a) goals shared by powerful preexisting coalitions, b) replete with ancillary benefits beyond the environmental, and c) unquestionably righteous.

So why focus on the former when the latter gets you all the same advantages with none of the blowback? That’s how I figure it anyway.

Original Source -> I’m an environmental journalist, but I never write about overpopulation. Here’s why.

via The Conservative Brief

[glitteringcrab]

One True Morty (part 2)

(Part 1)

1. The ideal "Good Morty" is depicted with a halo. Is this the depiction of an angelically good Morty...

...or is it the depiction of a deceased Morty?

2. "ONLY ONE WAY TO MORTY SALVATION"

Gee, what way would that be?

The "next world"??

I remember being confused at that time. He is implying death, isn't he?? There's nothing else he could be implying...

3. The spaghetti clones (which was Morty's idea, Morty I hate you for that, you jerk) commit suicide to escape:

Uh-uh, uh-uh...

Sooo I think... there is... not evidence, per se, but some stuff that could be interpreted as indications that the "One True Morty" cult was a suicide cult.

My take on the above is this:

A) The title "One True Morty" in this setting full of clones should send alarm bells ringing in our heads. My guess is that the One True Morty was a Morty who presented himself as the original Morty all the clones were a copy of (but I also think he was a liar and that he was just another clone Morty).

B) The One True Morty... has... some powers, apparently...

...and, frankly, the only thing I can think of that would make any sense is the Operation Phoenix.

C) So, hear me out. Evil Morty knew about the Central Finite Curve since before S01E10, but from when we saw (part of) his backstory we weren't shown him finding out about the CFC. This wasn't his tipping point, he was already familiar with the concept. And yet it doesn't seem like the sort of thing Ricks would advertise to their sidekicks, and I'm wondering if the One True Morty is the Morty who actually learnt about this and began telling other Mortys...

D) ...Telling them, among other things, that he existed before the Citadel's creation, and had been outside the Curve.

That he had set up clone vats in a universe outside the CFC before the Citadel's dimensional drive took effect and the wall of the CFC took form...

...And that if they underwent a specific preparation process and then committed suicide in some right manner (my guess is probably by taking a Rick down with them), their consciousness would be transported in the clone vats waiting outside the Central Finite Curve (the... "next world").

E) Because, as we've seen, the corpses of Ricks and Mortys were literally necessary to bring the Central Finite Curve down:

(after Eyepatch Morty throws the dead Ricks' and Mortys' remains at the rift, it becomes larger)

F) My guess is, the One True Morty was just another traumatized Morty who, like Evil Morty, desperately wanted to leave. And yeah, he lied. He promised to all his followers freedom outside the Curve, but there was no way he could actually provide that. He was killing them to save himself, exactly like Evil Morty was doing.

G) I can't help but think that Evil Morty knew him personally.

Or at least he seems to have known a Morty (or Mortys) who Evil Morty once thought were above all this, who had integrity and goodwill and would never commit atrocities in a desperate bid to escape...

...and then witnessed them stoop into the lowest low...

...when something inside them died as well.

(I always thought in that moment we witnessed less something in Evil Morty snapping and more something in Evil Morty dying.)

H) Maybe, one of the reasons he wanted Morty Prime to escape with him was because he wanted to spare him what he considered an inevitable loss of integrity and self and morality inside the Central Finite Curve. He had seen that Morty Prime had already been sick and furious of his Rick once (to the point that he said "GLADLY" when directed down a path that would take him away from Rick C-137 but would have him strapped naked on a wall and tortured. GLADLY) and had also seen him care for other Mortys and wanting to free them.

Morty Prime was not a lost cause yet. He could escape with his morality and soul intact. Take the chance, Morty...!

...But Morty Prime stayed inside the Central Finite Curve.

...