When are we supposed to stop fighting?

[Veloran]

It’s only a “lesser danger” from the perspective of the Ancients. To the Sundered, despite their resilience and improved ability to interact with dynamis, the Ascians were arguably just as great a threat. Life on Etheirys is rooted in aether, and thus beings with greater command of it will have an insurmountable advantage.

Again.

The entire core of her motivation is her belief that mankind can overcome a hopelessly overwhelming threat that the Ancients stood no chance against while being able to withstand loss, suffering, and despair. So yes, empowering and shieling her chosen few against much lesser dangers and suffering is very hypocritical.

The Ascians are vastly less of a threat to Etheirys than Meteion. 90% of the time they work through manipulation anyway, and aside from the three Unsundered (mostly just the two really) they're just high tier mages. The entire premise of everything Venat did was that the sundered would surpass the Ancients, so to use her godly powers to bail them out when things look too tough is far from a good showing.

And once more most people don’t think She existed, and theorized Her existence based on vague images of a crystal and random visions by a handful of heroes over the millennia. Meanwhile the Twelve have been around for several eras, Far East religions thrived and multiplied without any indication She’s there, and we don’t see anyone actually worship Her. If it’s so self evident, then you should be able to show evidence of Her being actively worshipped en masse right?

Hydaelyn's name is literally synonymous with the planet itself. The entire Encyclopedia Eorzea is framed with Hydaelyn being the source of all aether and life, and notes that reoccurring themes of "Hydaelyn's will" or the "will of Light" appear in the myths and folklore of seemingly unrelated civilizations the world over. The "true history" that Hydaelyn uses as her cover story is a direct derivative of the religion of the Twelve, where all existence propagated from a primordial essence which later divided into Light and Darkness - Venat characterizes herself as being this essence from which she split Zodiark, Darkness, from herself. In the conception of the faith of the Twelve Hydaelyn would then be the origin of all existence, which ties into her connection with Silvertear which is mythologized to be the source of all water and magic, and her existence as the Mothercrystal which begat all life. Basically every part of what she tells people leads them to believe in her as the "supreme goddess".

I did indeed acknowledge their were benefits to Sundering humanity, the point remains that Sunderign Zodiark would mean Sundering Etheirys.

The fact that Etheirys still exists disproves that idea.

If the Ancients were so blind as to believe that Zodiark was intrinsically tied to the star when he wasn’t, then there’s bigger problems afoot.

Where does that preclude being conceived as the will of the star though? The Ancients thought of their souls as the stars very lifeblood, so imbuing the star with a will using that selfsame “blood” seems perfectly connected.

You yourself just explained why they conceptualized Zodiark as the "will of the star", because they conceptualized themselves as the star, meaning that if they were the star's blood, and Zodiark was made of them, then Zodiark was the star itself.

So unless there was a second subsequent Sundering that nobody mentioned, then the “final blow” Emet mentioned that Sundered Zodiark Sundered Etheirys as well.

Or, Hydaelyn simply unleashed such a massive blow that it sundered not just Zodiark, but the star itself. Or, she actually did strike more than once - When this is visualized to the player multiple blows are shown. And keep in mind that Emet was saying that Hydaelyn and Zodiark "fought and fought and fought" before she unleashed her "final blow" - But we know this was not true.

Then why did he say “it was never seen before” and not “I’d never seen it before.”

If you aren't aware that something exists, obviously you can't know that it exists. If something completely new appears and you have no knowledge of it, obviously it follows to say that it was unknown, especially if you're considered a very knowledgeable person in general.

The misapprehensions were regarding Dynamis and Meteion. Nowhere is it ever stated that they didn’t understand what Zodiark was at a fundamental level, especially those who summoned him.

They understood his existence was needed as they never tried to break the seal themselves. They understood His destruction would mean the Final Days would return, unknown though the cause may be. If you know this, and you were aware the Sundering potentially weakened the barrier preventing the apocalypse, you wouldn’t act as if you weren’t in a precarious position no?

They were unaware of the cause or mechanism of the Final Days. For example you suggest that if they were aware the Sundering potentially weakened the "barrier preventing the apocalypse", they would have acted or said differently. However, they didn't know the currents were a barrier holding something out. To them the currents were a symptom of the laws of reality coming unraveled.

In fact this conception of their situation, and their belief that Hydaelyn's existence and actions were threatening to restart it all again, is completely consistent with what Lahabrea tells us in 2.0. He explicitly describes Hydaelyn as a parasite, the root of a corruption that will worsen the growing instability until the laws of existence, aetheric and physical, will be warped beyond all recognition. In other words when you ask "well surely they would have thought themselves in a precarious position", the answer is "they did".

That’s not the case actually. Zodiark was summoned with the express desire to answer the prays and desires of the Ancients for salvation, an overwhelming desire that remained with Elidibus for millennia.

Those desires were Elidibus' desires. That's exactly why he was chosen as Zodiark's heart, because it was his will to save everyone.

See we approach the analogy that I think would be best here.

The analogy didn't change at all, only how you think about it did. The point I was making is that it's possible to justify anything in your own mind if you really believe it's doom otherwise, this very perception is what has led to unmitigated death throughout history.

What would you do?

The better answer to the trolley problem is not to flip the switch. The point of the exercise is to illustrate the illegitimacy of making that choice for other people.

We live and we move on, unlike this thread.

I kind of get the sense that you're just completely ignoring any point I'm raising and everything I'm saying to you given that every idea you raise in this post is just a repeat of your previous one with no consideration of my response at all. I can see why you would avoid actually showing specific quotes given everything you're saying has already been addressed, but I guess for the sake of completeness -

the lecture contradicts your viewpoint

A story where the magic system is cleverly utilized to provide an option out of a seemingly-hopeless catch-22 can be very narratively satisfying.

It's very possible to agree with the idea behind Sanderson's argument but disagree with one example he raises or debate it's applicability across various contexts.

If Zodiark snaps His fingers and solves everything for no significant cost, it trivializes the Final Days. Deus Ex Machina. If you go back in time and undo the Final Days, you also trivialize the conflict. That's why big plot altering powers have limitations placed on them out of storytelling necessity.

The conversation wasn't, "Is the Ancients being able to undo their sacrifices narratively satisfying?", it was "Can they do it?"

Basically, I understand your line of thinking from the idealist perspective. "What is the point of the conflict and themes if it could all be undone?" But from the realist perspective the question is "Are these characters really making rational decisions according to what we know is possible by the rules of the setting?"