The Reasoning behind The Sundering? (*6.0 Endwalker Spoilers*)

[Cilia]

While I don't disagree that that is a message the story implies, I would like to point out that you quoted a very biased source, being a creation of Venat itself.

The Ancients' casual disregard for the lives of their creations, the Allagans' cruel experimentation on others to alleviate their boredom, and the vast majority of Ultima Thule all serve to drive it home. Cookingway just states it plainly.

Besides which, the Ascians are just as biased in their assertion that Amaurotine civilization was perfect.

And like our own society, even if you do not have real threats to survival, you can simulate them for enjoyment. Live in a perfect world? No need to worry about food or shelter? Have whatever you want? Play some games. Log in to an MMO and pretend you are in a world on the brink of destruction and get to save it!

The whole premise that a perfect society will inevitably collapse is nonsense in my view. Aside from a few crazies like Hermes, seems the Ancients were quite content CREATING NEW LIFE. Like holy crap that must have been like playing Spore on steroids. It engaged thought, imagination, and provided struggle as they tried to get them working properly.

And as far as Metion speeding up the heat death of the universe...I somewhat suspect Etheirys' own sun would burn out ending all life LONG before that became an issue for them. Metion was right in that all things will die. Until they come back with the next big bang. And then heat death. Then another big bang, and so on and so on and on. But that is interesting, not depressing.

Simulation is rarely as stimulating as the real deal. With nothing to lose, it's a hollow achievement at the end of the day. That's part of Zenos' whole shtick; he only feels alive fighting the PC because nothing else requires him to gamble his life. Like him or not, there's point to his character.

Perfection is an impossible concept. If your civilization cannot make all of its citizens happy all the time, and possess an answer for any and all threats that could endanger it or said citizens' happiness, is it really perfect? You cannot know the future and there are an infinite number of ways a civilization can fall, ergo there is no such thing as a perfect civilization. Even if you did make such a civilization... what then? That's it. There's no more room for imagination, or advancement, or improvement. A "perfect" civilization can no longer advance, and will thus stagnate until it falls apart from the inside... just like Allag.

(For the record there is a disconnected floating island on Elpis, the Chthonic Horns, where Ancients did research without creation magicks. I find that very comforting.)

We can only guess how long it would have taken Meteion to cause the heat death of the universe, but the point is Zodiark could not protect them forever. The sun would die before she got through, maybe, but they could always just do an exodus like Hydaelyn had planned. (Might mean abandoning the souls in Zodiark since he's the will of the star, but you gotta do what you gotta do.) Following the Big Bang with another Big Bang would require an antithetical Big Crunch, which isn't supported by most modern science. (And yes, I'm aware this is fiction, but the heat death of the universe is an idea derived from modern science.)

[Lersayil]

*snip*

Something I take issue with is the definition of perfection. The game argues against eliminating any and all negatives in society including feelings. A society without any adversity will probably stagnate and fall. But then, is that society actually perfect if it cant sustain itself? Leaving low level adversity, just enough to engage thought doesn't have to be as affective as actual real suffering and major societal issues. It just has to be engaging enough so society can push on existing. This is the train of thought the game only partially covers. I would argue that the Ultima Thule was the perfect example of imperfect societies. They were all flawed in their own perceived perfection, and the Scions reject them as such. Could you argue with their train of thought if it was actually perfect?

Venats answer to the problem of inevitable strive for perfection wasn't an answer at all. It just pushed the world back a couple thousand years in progress. It was avoiding the problem, not facing it. Worse, it was denying a whole race of people to face the problem, to make an informed decision, and to possibly come up with a solution (or die trying).